Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
This action updates the controlling agency of restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C, and updates the location name and the using agency of restricted areas R-3803A, R-3803B, R-3803C, R-3803D, R-3803E, R-3803F, R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C. Additionally, this action makes minor editorial corrections to the designated altitudes information in the restricted area R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C descriptions. This action partially implements recommendations of the Commission on the Naming of Items (Naming Commission) of the Department of Defense (DoD) as established by section 370 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These amendments do not affect the overall restricted area complexes boundaries, operational altitudes, times of designation, or activities conducted within the airspace.
Effective date 0901 UTC, March 21, 2024.
A copy of this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it makes editorial updates the information in the airspace descriptions of restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, R-3801C, R-3803A, R-3803B, R-3803C, R-3803D, R-3803E, R-3803F, R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C.
The FY 2021 NDAA directed the DoD to establish a commission relating to assigning, modifying, or removing of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia to assets of the DoD that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by updating the controlling agency information for restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C by removing “Fort Polk Approach Control” and replacing it with “Maks Approach Control”. This action also updates the restricted area location name and the using agency information for restricted areas R-3803A, R-3803B, R-3803C, R-3803D, R-3803E, R-3803F, R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C by removing the name “Fort Polk, LA” and replacing it with “Fort Johnson, LA”.
Additionally, this action makes minor editorial corrections to the designated altitudes information in the restricted area R-3801 A, R-3801B, and R-3801C descriptions.
This action consists of administrative name changes and minor editorial corrections only and does not affect the restricted area complexes boundaries, operational altitudes, times of designation, or activities conducted within the airspace. Therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of making administrative name changes to the controlling agency of restricted areas R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C, and administrative name changes to the geographic locations and using agency information of restricted areas R-3803A, R-3803B, R-3803C, R-3803D, R-3803E, R-3803F, R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C, which do not alter the boundaries, altitudes, or time of designation, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing the existing designated altitudes and controlling agency and substituting the following:
By removing the existing designated altitudes and controlling agency and substituting the following:
By removing the existing designated altitudes and controlling agency and substituting the following:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; technical amendment.
This action renames restricted areas R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C, Fort AP Hill, VA, and updates the using agency description. Additionally, this action amends the geographic coordinates for multiple boundary points listed in the restricted areas to accurately align the existing boundary with United States (U.S.) Route 301 and U.S. Highway 17 referenced in the descriptions and adjacent Special Use Airspace (SUA). This action partially implements recommendations of the Commission on the Naming of Items (Naming Commission) of the Department of Defense (DoD) as established by section 370 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Effective date 0901 UTC, March 21, 2024.
A copy of this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it updates the information in the airspace descriptions of restricted areas R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C.
The FY 2021 NDAA directed the DoD to establish a commission relating to assigning, modifying, or removing of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia to assets of the DoD that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America.
Upon review of the restricted areas, the FAA identified four boundary points used in the boundary descriptions that must be amended to accurately align with U.S. Route 301 and U.S. Highway 17 used in the description.
Additionally, the FAA identified three boundary points to be included in the description that add additional precision to the alignment of U.S. Route 301 and create coincidence between adjacent SUA. These three additional boundary points must be included to ensure that there are no gaps between R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C and the adjacent military operations area (MOA); and to ensure coincident alignment of the overlying boundaries of R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C.
This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by updating the airspace titles and using agency descriptions for restricted areas R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C by removing the name “Fort AP Hill, VA” and replacing it with “Fort Walker, VA”.
The FAA is also amending four geographic coordinates in the description of Restricted Areas R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C. These minor amendments to the geographic coordinates more accurately describe
Additionally, the FAA is adding three geographic coordinates to the description of Restricted Areas R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C. These additional geographic coordinates add intermediate geographic points to the boundary of R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C that further increases the accuracy of the alignment of U.S Route 301 and creates coincident boundary points between the adjacent MOA. The point “lat. 38°08′04″ N, long. 77°14′06″ W” is added to R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C. The point “lat. 38°09′39″ N, long. 77°12′08″ W”; and the point “lat. 38°07′09″ N, long. 77°08′40″ W” are added to R-6601A.
This action consists of administrative name changes and minor technical amendments only and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, time of designation, or activities conducted in the airspace. Therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of making administrative name changes; a technical amendment to four geographic coordinates; and adding 3 geographic coordinates in the description to restricted areas R-6601A, R-6601B, and R-6601C, which do not alter the boundaries, altitudes, or time of designation, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; correction.
This action corrects a final rule that published in the
Effective date 0901 UTC, January 25, 2024.
A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, the final rule, this final rule correction, and all background material may be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA published a final rule in the
In FR Doc. 2023-25347, appearing on page 78636, as published in the
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Final rule.
In compliance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the Act) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) is amending its civil monetary penalty rule to reflect an annual adjustment for inflation in order to improve the penalty's effectiveness and maintain its deterrent effect. The Act provides that the new penalty level must apply to penalties assessed after the effective date of the increase, including when the penalties whose associated violation predate the increase.
Armando J. Acosta, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, National Indian Gaming Commission, at (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066 (not toll-free numbers).
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74). Beginning in 2017, the Act requires agencies to make annual inflationary adjustments to their civil monetary penalties by January 15th of each year, in accordance with annual OMB guidance.
In December of every year, OMB issues guidance to agencies to calculate the annual adjustment. According to OMB, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for fiscal year 2024 is 1.03241, based on the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2023, not seasonally adjusted.
Pursuant to this guidance, the Commission has calculated the annual adjustment level of the civil monetary penalty contained in 25 CFR 575.4 (“The Chairman may assess a civil fine, not to exceed $61,983 per violation, against a tribe, management contractor, or individual operating Indian gaming for each notice of violation . . .”). The 2024 adjusted level of the civil monetary penalty is $63,992 ($61,983 × 1.03241).
This final rule is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy or will not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) This rule does not involve entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of recipients.
(4) This regulatory change does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
The Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. The rule will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This final rule does not impose an unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule also does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this final rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involve a compensable “taking.” Thus, a takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this final rule has no substantial direct effect 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.
This final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation. It is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
This final rule does not affect any information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This final rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
In developing this final rule, the Commission did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).
This final rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
The Commission is required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule that the Commission publishes must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
In accordance with the Act, agencies are to annually adjust civil monetary penalties without providing an opportunity for notice and comment, and without a delay in its effective date. Therefore, the Commission is not required to complete a notice and comment process prior to promulgation.
Administrative practice and procedure, Gaming, Indian lands, Penalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission amends 25 CFR part 575 as follows:
25 U.S.C. 2705(a), 2706, 2713, 2715; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Publication of Web General Licenses.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing five general licenses (GLs) issued pursuant to the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations: GLs 81, 82, 83, 84, and 85 each of which were previously made available on OFAC's website.
GLs 81 and 82 were issued on December 20, 2023, and GLs 83, 84, and 85 were issued on December 22, 2023. See
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website:
On December 20, 2023, OFAC issued GLs 81 and 82 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR). On December 22, 2023, OFAC issued GLs 83, 84, and 85 to authorize certain transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR. GLs 81 and 82 have an expiration date of March 19, 2024. GL 83 has an expiration date of February 21, 2024. GL 85 has an expiration date of March 21, 2024. Each GL was made available on OFAC's website (
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to one of the following activities involving the blocked persons described in paragraph (b) are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, March 19, 2024, provided that any payment to a blocked person must be made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations (RuHSR):
(1) The safe docking and anchoring in port of any vessels in which any person or entity listed in paragraph (b) of this general license has a property interest (“blocked vessels”);
(2) The preservation of the health or safety of the crew of any of the blocked vessels; or
(3) Emergency repairs of any of the blocked vessels or environmental mitigation or protection activities relating to any of the blocked vessels.
(b) The authorization in paragraph (a) of this general license applies to the following blocked persons listed on the Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and any entity in which any of the following persons own, directly or indirectly, individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest:
(1) SUN Ship Management D Ltd;
(2) Covart Energy Limited;
(3) Voliton DMCC; and
(4) Bellatrix Energy Limited.
(c) This general license does not authorize:
(1) The entry into any new commercial contracts involving the property or interests in property of any blocked persons, including the blocked entities described in paragraph (b) of this general license, except as authorized by paragraph (a);
(2) The offloading of any cargo onboard any of the blocked vessels, including the offloading of crude oil or petroleum products of Russian Federation origin, except for the offloading of cargo that is ordinarily incident and necessary to address vessel emergencies authorized pursuant to paragraph (a) of this general license;
(3) Any transactions related to the sale of crude oil or petroleum products of Russian Federation origin;
(4) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(5) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(6) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving the property or interests in property of any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR, other than transactions involving the blocked persons in paragraph (b) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Dated: December 20, 2023.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving SUN Ship Management D Ltd (SUN Ship), or any entity in which SUN Ship owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, March 19, 2024, provided that any payment to a blocked person is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).
(b) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked persons mentioned in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Dated: December 20, 2023.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by the determination of December 22, 2023 made pursuant to section 1(a)(i)(B) of Executive Order (E.O.) 14068, as amended by E.O. of December 22, 2023 (“Prohibitions Related to Imports of Certain Categories of Fish, Seafood, and Preparations Thereof”), that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the importation into the United States of seafood derivative products, pursuant to written contracts or written agreements entered into prior to December 22, 2023 are authorized through 12:01 a.m.
(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions otherwise prohibited by the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR), including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR, unless separately authorized.
Dated: December 22, 2023.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this general license, U.S. financial institutions that maintain correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts for any foreign financial institution subject to the correspondent account or payable-through account (CAPTA) prohibition of section 11(b)(i) of Executive Order (E.O.) 14024, as amended, are authorized, during the 10-day period beginning on the effective date of the imposition of the prohibition, to engage in the following transactions:
(1) Processing only those transactions through the account, or permitting the foreign financial institution to execute only those transactions through the account, for the purpose of, and necessary for, closing the account; and
(2) Transferring the funds remaining in the correspondent account or the payable-through account to an account of the foreign financial institution located outside of the United States and closing of the correspondent account or the payable-through account.
(b) This general license does not authorize any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR, unless separately authorized.
Dated: December 22, 2023.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving Expobank Joint Stock Company (Expobank), or any entity in which Expobank owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, March 21, 2024, provided that any payment to a blocked person is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this general license, all transactions prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are ordinarily incident and necessary to (i) the closing of an account of a person, wherever located, who is not a blocked person (“the account holder”), held at Expobank, or any financial institution in which Expobank owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest, and (ii) the unblocking and lump sum transfer of all remaining funds and other assets in the account to the account holder, including to an account of the account holder held at a non-blocked financial institution, are authorized through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, March 21, 2024.
(c) This general license does not authorize:
(1) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 2 under E.O. 14024,
(2) Any transactions prohibited by Directive 4 under E.O. 14024,
(3) Any transactions otherwise prohibited by the RuHSR, including transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to the RuHSR other than the blocked person described in paragraph (a) of this general license, unless separately authorized.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the Gasparilla Invasion and Parade on January 27, 2024, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for recurring marine events within the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg identifies the regulated area for this event in Tampa, FL. During the enforcement periods, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area unless authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.703 will be enforced from 11 a.m. through 2 p.m., on January 27, 2024, for the regulated are listed in Item 1 in Table 1 to § 100.703.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Mara Brown, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 813-228-2191, email:
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.703 for the Gasparilla Invasion and Parade regulated area identified in Table 1 to § 100.703, Item No. 1, from 11 a.m. through 2 p.m. on January 27, 2024. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for recurring marine events, Captain of the
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.703, spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, impede the transit of festival participants or official patrol vessels or enter the regulated area without approval from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) on July 8, 2022. Illinois revised its air pollution control rules entitled “Part 243—Ambient Air Quality Standards” and updated the “List of Designated Reference and Equivalent Methods” in response to EPA rulemakings and changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that EPA adopted in 2021.
This final rule is effective on February 16, 2024.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0673. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Daphne Onsay, Life Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-5945,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On July 8, 2022, IEPA submitted a request to EPA to incorporate revisions to the Illinois air pollution control rules in Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code, Part 243—Air Quality Standards. Part 243 sets forth the NAAQS adopted by EPA under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The submission updates Part 243: Sections 243.108 and 243.122, effective May 18, 2022. Illinois revised Part 243 to reflect amendments to EPA's “List of Designated References and Equivalent Methods” used to determine compliance with the NAAQS (fine particulate matter and coarse particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO
During the comment period, EPA received one comment that covered a variety of topics including comments on administrative changes being made that could increase the complexity and burden of regulatory compliance on affected industry. The comment is summarized and addressed below and the comment itself is included in the docket for this action. We do not consider this comment to be germane or relevant to this action and therefore not adverse to this action. The comment lacks the required specificity to the proposed SIP revision and the relevant requirements of CAA section 110. Moreover, the comment does not address a specific regulation or provision in question or recommend a different action on the SIP submission from what EPA proposed. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.
EPA is approving a revision to the Illinois SIP. The submittal updates revisions to the Illinois regulations at Title 35 of the Illinois Administrative Code, Part 243—Air Quality Standards (Part 243). Specifically, the updates made to Part 243: Sections 243.108 and 243.122—are intended to be “identical in substance” to, and consistent with the updates to the list of designated Federal equivalent and reference methods and updates to the NAAQS adopted by EPA. IEPA's revisions mirror EPA's reference method for the 2010 1-hour SO
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Illinois Regulations described in section I of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
IEPA did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 18, 2024. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects the
The correction is effective on January 17, 2024.
For further information regarding this final rule correction, please contact Michael Antonino, Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-7965, or by email to
The Commission is correcting the
In FR Rule Doc. 2023-27236, appearing on page 86824 in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), DOE proposes new energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers identical to those set forth in a direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than May 6, 2024. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the
See section IV, “Public Participation,” for details. If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section IV of this document.
The docket web page can be found at
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5904 Email:
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by Email:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is proposing this rule establishing and amending the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers and is concurrently issuing a direct final rule elsewhere in this issue of the
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are expressed in terms of integrated annual energy use (“AEU”), measured in kilowatt-hours per year (“kWh/year”), as measured according to DOE's current test procedure codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendices A (“appendix A”) and B (“appendix B”).
Table I.1 and Table I.2 present the proposed standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The proposed standards the same as those recommended by the Joint Agreement. These standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into the United States starting on January 31, 2029, and all products listed in Table I.2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2030, as recommended in the Joint Agreement.
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendices A (“appendix A”) and B (“appendix B”).
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezer. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain products, including refrigerators, refrigerators-freezers, and freezers, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers address standby mode and off mode energy use.
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to directly issue a final rule (
A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if (1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner.
DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's “Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may issue standards recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the direct final rule provision in EPCA, under which this proposed rule is issued, does not impose additional requirements applicable to other standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique circumstances of rules issued as consensus agreements under DOE's direct final rule authority.
In a final rule published on September 15, 2011, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 76 FR 57516 (“September 2011 Final Rule”). These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(a) and are shown in Table I.2. These standards are expressed in terms of kilo-watt hours per year (“kWh/yr”).
On October 12, 2021, DOE published a test procedure final rule (“October 2021 TP Final Rule”) establishing test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A (“appendix A”) and B (“appendix B”). 86 FR 56790. The test procedure adopted the latest version of the relevant industry standard published by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”), updated in 2019, AHAM Standard HRF-1, “Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances” (“HRF-1-2019”). 10 CFR 430.3(i)(4). The standard levels proposed in this NOPR are based on the AEU metrics as measured according to appendix A and appendix B.
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (“NAECA”), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for refrigeration products, with requirements that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards (42 U.S.C. 6295 (b)(1), (2), (3)(A)(i), and (3)(B)-(C)). DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in 1989 and 1990 by adopting amended performance standards for all refrigeration products manufactured on or after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916 (November 17, 1989); 55 FR 42845 (October 24, 1990). DOE Completed a second rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for refrigeration products by issuing a final rule in 1997, which adopted the current standards for these products. 62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997).
In 2005, DOE granted a petition, submitted by a coalition of state governments, utility companies, consumer and low-income advocacy groups, and environmental and energy efficiency organizations, requesting a rulemaking to amend the standards for residential refrigerator-freezers. DOE then conducted limited analyses to examine the technological and economic feasibility of amended standards at the ENERGY STAR levels that were in effect for 2005 for the two most popular product classes of refrigerator-freezers. These analyses not only identified potential energy savings, benefits, and burdens from such standards, but also assessed other issues related to them.
DOE initiated a rulemaking and also published a notice announcing the availability of the framework document and a public meeting to discuss the document in September 2008. It also requested public comment on the published document. 73 FR 54089 (September 18, 2008). The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for refrigeration products and identified various issues to resolve during the rulemaking. DOE published a final rule on September 15, 2011, to satisfy the statutory requirement that DOE publish a final rule to determine whether to amend the standards for refrigeration products manufactured in 2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)) The limited 2005 analyses served as background for the more extensive analysis conducted for final rule published on September 15, 2011. 76 FR 57516.
On September 25, 2023, DOE received the Joint Agreement for various consumer products, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, submitted jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.
DOE has evaluated the Joint Agreement and believes that it meets the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a result, DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers elsewhere in this issue of the
For further background information on these proposed standards and the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
DOE also notes that it was conducting a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers when the Joint Agreement was submitted. As part of that process, DOE published a NOPR and announced a public webinar to respond to initial comments on February 27, 2023 (“February 2023 NOPR”). 88 FR 12452. DOE also held a public webinar on April 11, 2023, to discuss and receive comments on the February 2023 NOPR and NOPR TSD. The NOPR TSD is available at:
When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must also result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers at each trial standard level (“TSL”), beginning with the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) level, to determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as the “walk-down” analysis.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on employment.
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings.
In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to lost revenue is included in the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”). Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD
While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table III.3 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table IIII.4). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) results. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. At this level, DOE expects that all product classes would require vacuum-insulated panels (“VIPs”) and most would require variable-speed compressor (“VSCs”). For most product classes, this represents the use of VIPs for roughly half the cabinet surface (typically side walls and doors for an upright cabinet), the best-available-efficiency variable-speed compressor, forced-convection heat exchangers with multi-speed brush-less direct current (“BLDC”) fans, variable defrost, and increase in cabinet wall thickness for some classes (
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 176 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 6, for the largest product classes, which are 3, 5, 5A, and 7 and together account for approximately 76 percent of annual shipments, there is a life-cycle cost (“LLC”) savings of $0.03, $20.22, $122.18, and $69.71 and a payback period of 9.3 years, 8.6 years, 6.0 years and 6.8 years, respectively. However, for these product classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 67.1 percent, 60.3 percent, 39.4 percent and 48.3 percent with increases in first cost of $169.37, $151.75, $161.65, and $153.01, respectively. Overall, a majority of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers consumers (60 percent) would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would be negative for PC 5BI, PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18. Additionally, 35 percent of low-income households with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 and used by 19 percent of low-income households) would experience a net cost.
At TSL 6, the projected change in industry net present value (“INPV”) ranges from a decrease of $1.83 billion to a decrease of $1.30 billion, which corresponds to decreases of 37.2 percent and 26.5 percent, respectively. Industry conversion costs could reach $2.39 billion as manufacturers work to redesign their portfolio of model offerings and re-tool entire factories to comply with amended standards at TSL 6.
DOE estimates that less than 1 percent of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer current annual shipments meet the max-tech levels. At TSL 6, only a few manufacturers offer any standard-size products that meet the efficiencies required. For PC 3, which accounts for approximately 25 percent of annual shipments, no original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) currently offer products that meet the efficiency level required. For PC 5, which accounts for approximately 21 percent of annual shipments, DOE estimates that seven out of 22 OEMs currently offer products that meet the efficiency level required. For PC 7, which accounts for approximately 11 percent of annual shipments, only one out of 11 OEMs currently offers products that meet the efficiency level required.
At max-tech, manufacturers would likely need to implement all the most efficient design options in the engineering analysis. In interviews, manufacturer indicated they would redesign all product platforms and dramatically update manufacturing facilities to meet max-tech for all approximately 17.0 million annual shipments of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
In particular, increased incorporation of VIPs could increase the expense of adapting manufacturing plants. As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 6 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large potential reduction in INPV and the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting the efficiency levels required at this TSL. At TSL 6, a majority of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezers consumers (60 percent) would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would be negative for PC 5BI, PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18. Additionally, manufacturers would need to make significant upfront investments to update product lines and manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers expressed concern that they would not be able to complete product and production line updates within the 3-year conversion period. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 5 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. For classes other than refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezers and through-the-door ice service (PC 5A), this TSL represents efficiency levels less than max-tech. TSL 5 represents similar design options as max-tech, but generally incorporates the use of high-efficiency compressors (single speed compressors or VSCs) rather than maximum efficiency VSCs, incorporates VIPs in fewer product classes, and incorporates less VIP surface area for the product classes requiring the use of VIPs as compared to TSL 6. TSL 5 would save an estimated 6.01 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $8.64 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $25.80 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 111 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 5, for the largest product classes, which are 3, 5, 5A, and 7, there is a life-cycle cost savings of $43.46, $45.47, $122.18, and $73.96 and a payback period of 5.3 years, 6.1 years, 6.0 years and 6.2 years, respectively. For these product classes, the fraction of
At TSL 5, an estimated 16 percent of all low-income households experience a net cost, including 11 percent of low-income households with a top-mount or single-door refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3 and used by 72 percent of low-income households) and 32 percent of low-income households with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 and used by 19 percent of low-income households). More than half of low-income PC 7 consumers with a net cost experience a net cost of at least $40 and while low-income PC 7 consumers experience an average LCC savings of $132.77 at TSL 5, there are larger average LCC savings at TSL 4 ($161.87) and substantially fewer low-income PC 7 consumers would experience a net cost (0.6 percent) at that TSL. Further, the incremental increase in purchase price at TSL 5 for PC 7 is $121.58, which may be difficult for low-income homeowners to afford.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $1.07 billion to a decrease of $844.2 million, which corresponds to decreases of 21.7 percent and 17.2 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $1.40 billion to comply with standards set at TSL 5.
DOE estimates that approximately 14 percent of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer annual shipments meet the TSL 5 efficiencies. For standard-size refrigerator-freezers, which account for approximately 70 percent of total annual shipments, approximately 1 percent of shipments meet the efficiencies required at TSL 5. Compared to max-tech, more manufacturers offer standard-size refrigerator-freezer products that meet the required efficiencies, however, many manufacturers do not offer products that meet this level. Of the 22 OEMs offering PC 3 products, three OEMs offer models that meet the efficiency level required. Of the 22 OEMs offering PC 5 products, 14 OEMs offer models that meet the efficiency level required. Of the 11 OEMs offering PC 7 products, only one OEM offers models that meet the efficiency level required.
The manufacturers that do not currently offer models that meet TSL 5 efficiencies would need to develop new product platforms. Updates could include incorporating variable defrost, BLDC evaporator fan motors, and high-efficiency VSCs. Additionally, some product classes could require the use of VIPs. DOE expects manufacturers would likely need to incorporate some VIPs into PC 5 and PC 7 designs, but not to the extent required at max-tech. However, DOE expects manufacturers would need to incorporate the max-tech design options for PC 5A, which includes the use of VIPs for roughly half the cabinet surface (side walls and doors) to meet TSL 5 efficiencies. As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on consumers, particularly low-income consumers of side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large potential reduction in INPV and the lack of manufacturers currently offering standard-size refrigerator-freezer products meeting the efficiency levels required at this TSL. Specifically, only one OEM currently offers any PC 7 models that meet the TSL 5 efficiencies. At TSL 5, 32 percent of low-income PC 7 consumers would experience a net cost and the incremental increase in purchase price of $121.58 may be difficult for low-income homeowners to afford. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered the TSL 4 which corresponds to the TSL recommended in the Joint Agreement (the “Recommended TSL”). For representative product classes other than PC 5A, PC 7, and PC 9, this TSL represents the same efficiency levels as TSL 5.
The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are 101 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At the Recommended TSL, for the largest product classes, which are 3, 5, 5A, and 7, there is a life-cycle cost savings of $50.91, $55.23, $133.27, and $142.56 and a payback period of 4.8 years, 5.6 years, 4.1 years and 1.6 years, respectively. For these product classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 28.3 percent, 33.6 percent, 19.8 percent and 0.5 percent with increases in first cost of $47.67, $62.72, $81.32, and $24.39, respectively. Overall, 24.4 percent of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers consumers would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes.
At the Recommended TSL, 9 percent of low-income households with a top-mount or single-door refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3 and used by 72 percent of low-income households) and 0.6 percent of low-income households with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 and used by 19 percent of low-income households) experience a net cost. Additionally, the incremental increase in purchase price is $24.39 for low-income PC 7 homeowners at the Recommended TSL, substantially lower than the incremental increase in purchase price of $121.58 at TSL 5.
At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $504.4 million to a decrease of $383.5 million, which correspond to decreases of 10.3 percent and 7.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $830.3 million comply with standards set at the Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that approximately 14 percent of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer annual shipments meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies.
Compared to TSL 5, more manufacturers offer standard-size refrigerator freezer products that meet the required efficiencies since PC 7 has a lower required efficiency level at the Recommended TSL. For PC 7, which accounts for 11 percent of shipments, three OEMs offer products that meet the efficiency level required. Furthermore, DOE does not expect manufacturers would need to incorporate VIPs into PC 7 designs to meet the efficiencies required at the Recommended TSL. For PC 5 and PC 5A, DOE understands the two product classes often share the same production lines, with shared cabinet architecture and tooling. DOE expects manufacturers would likely need to incorporate some VIPs into PC 5A designs, but not to the extent required at TSL 5 and TSL 6. Thus, for the 10 OEMs that manufacture both PC 5 and PC 5A, DOE expects manufacturers could implement similar cabinet upgrades (
For all TSLs considered in this proposed rule—except for the Recommended TSL—DOE is bound by the 3-year lead time requirements in EPCA when determining compliance dates (
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at the Recommended TSL for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is economically justified. At this TSL, the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes for which an amended standard is considered. An estimated 24.4 percent of all refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer consumers experience a net cost. An estimated 9 percent of low-income households with a top-mount or single-door refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3 and used by 72 percent of low-income households) and 0.6 percent of low-income households with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 and used by 19 percent of low-income households), experience a net cost, which is a significantly lower percentage than under TSL 5. DOE notes that for low-income PC 7 consumers, as well as across all PC 7 consumers, the Recommended TSL represents the largest average LCC savings of any TSL. The FFC national energy savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive at the Recommended TSL using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 17 times higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at the Recommended TSL are economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included—representing $5.02 billion in climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $9.80 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $3.45 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits—the rationale becomes stronger still.
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified as required under EPCA. DOE notes 72 percent of low-income households have a top-mount refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3) and that an estimated 9 percent of low-income PC 3 households experience a net cost at the Recommended TSL, whereas an estimated 6 percent of low-income households with a top-mount refrigerator-freezer experience a net cost at TSL 3. However, the average LCC savings for low-income PC 3 consumers are $22.05 higher at the Recommended TSL than at TSL 3. Further, compared to TSL 3, it is estimated that the Recommended TSL would result in additional FFC national energy savings of 0.9 quads. These additional savings and benefits at the Recommended TSL are significant. DOE considers the impacts to be, as a whole, economically justified at the Recommended TSL.
Although DOE considered amended standard levels for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers by grouping the efficiency levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. In general, the standard level represents the maximum energy savings that does not result in a large percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. For example, for PC 5, more than half of consumers experience a net cost at EL 3. In the case of PC 7, for which DOE found that a relatively higher percentage of low-income consumers
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to adopt the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers at the Recommended TSL.
The Recommended TSL for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers proposed in this NOPR is part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six rulemakings (refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; miscellaneous refrigeration products; conventional cooking products; residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; and dishwashers). The signatories indicate that the Joint Agreement for the six rulemakings should be considered as a joint statement of recommended standards, to be adopted in its entirety. As discussed in section V.B.2.e of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
The proposed energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, which are expressed in kWh/yr, are shown in Table III.3 and Table IIII.4.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is (1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission reductions.
Table III.5 shows the annualized values for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers under the Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $567.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual monetized benefits are $2.2 billion in reduced operating costs, $303.8 million in climate benefits, and $592.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $2.5 billion per year.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule until the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. (
DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1)-(2)), and directed DOE to conduct three cycles of future rulemakings to whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)(A)(i), (b)(3)(B), and (b)(4)). DOE has completed these rulemakings. EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and the requirements under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B), DOE is issuing this NOPR proposing energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. These standard levels were submitted jointly to DOE on September 25, 2023, by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1)-(2)), and directed. DOE to conduct three cycles of future rulemakings to whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)(A)(i), (b)(3)(B), and (b)(4)). DOE has completed these rulemakings. EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a market survey to identify potential small manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. DOE conducted a market survey to identify potential small manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. DOE began its assessment by reviewing DOE's Compliance Certification Database,
DOE identified 63 OEMs that sell refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers in the United States. Of the 63 OEMs identified, DOE tentatively determined that one company qualifies as a small business and is not foreign-owned and operated.
In support of the February 2023 NOPR, DOE reached out to the small business and invited them to participate in a voluntary interview. The small business did not consent to participate in a formal MIA interview. DOE also requested information about small businesses and potential impacts on small businesses while interviewing larger manufacturers.
The one small business identified has 45 refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer models certified in DOE's Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”). Of those 45 models, 43 models are compact-size refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers (34 PC 13A models, three PC 15 models, and six PC 17 models). The remaining two models are standard-size built-in refrigerator-freezer models (PC 3A-BI). Of the 34 PC 13A models, 22 models meet the efficiency required (EL 1) at TSL. For PC 15, PC 17, and PC 3A-BI, this small manufacturer only offers models at the current DOE baseline efficiency and, therefore, does not offer any products that meet the proposed TSL efficiencies (
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by TSL 4 (
Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 4 balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 4 with the potential burdens placed on refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers manufacturers, including small business manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of the direct final rule TSD.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
The following standards appear in the amendatory text of this document and were previously approved for the locations in which they appear: AS/NZS 4474.1:2007; HRF-1-2019. No changes are proposed to the IBR material.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 28, 2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
The additions read as follows:
3. * * *
(a) Both doors (or both the door and the drawer) must be opened to provide access to the interior through a single opening;
(b) Gaskets for both doors (or both the door and the drawer) are exposed to external ambient conditions on the outside around the full perimeter of the respective openings; and
(c) The space between the two doors (or between the door and the drawer) achieves temperature levels consistent with the temperature requirements of the interior compartment to which the door-in-door provides access.
(a) The area of the transparent portion of the door is at least 40 percent of the area of the door.
(b) The area of the door is at least 50 percent of the sum of the areas of all the external doors providing access to the fresh food compartments and cooler compartments.
(c) For the purposes of this evaluation, the area of a door is determined as the product of the maximum height and maximum width dimensions of the door, not considering potential extension of flaps used to provide a seal to adjacent doors.
5. * * *
(a) For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers: To demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards at § 430.32(a) applicable to products manufactured on or after September 15, 2014, but before the compliance date of any amended standards published after January 1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero). To demonstrate compliance with any amended standards published after January 1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, is as defined in section 5.9.2.1 of HRF-1-2019.
(b) For miscellaneous refrigeration products: To demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards at § 430.32(aa) applicable to products manufactured on or after October 28, 2019, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero).
If the three-point interpolation method of section 5.2(b) of this appendix is used for setting temperature controls, the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be defined as follows:
The addition reads as follows:
5. * * *
For freezers: To demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards at § 430.32(a) applicable to products manufactured on or after September 15, 2014, but before the compliance date of any amended standards published after January 1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero). To demonstrate compliance with any amended standards published after January 1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, is as defined in section 5.9.2.1 of HRF-1-2019.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
(1) The following standards apply to products manufactured on or before September 15, 2014, and before the 2029/2030 compliance dates depending on product class (see paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section).
(2) The following standards apply to products manufactured on or after January 31, 2029.
(3) The following standards apply to products manufactured on or after January 31, 2030.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement regulatory changes made by the Small Business Administration to update and clarify requirements associated with the limitations on subcontracting and the nonmanufacturer rule.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at the address shown below on or before March 18, 2024 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2021-020 to the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Ms. Carrie Moore, Procurement Analyst, at 571-300-5917 or by email at
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to implement regulatory changes made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) in its final rules published on May 31, 2016, at 81 FR 34243; on November 29, 2019, at 84 FR 65647; and on October 16, 2020, at 85 FR 66146.
SBA's final rule published on May 31, 2016, which implements section 1651 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) as codified at 15 U.S.C. 657s, standardized the limitations on subcontracting and nonmanufacturer rule across the small business socioeconomic programs, and modified its regulations to specify that a similarly situated entity subcontractor must perform the work with its own employees. SBA's final rule was implemented via the final rule for FAR case 2016-011 published on August 11, 2021, at 86 FR 44233. However, the FAR final rule did not modify FAR 19.8, Contracting with the Small Business Administration (The 8(a) Program), to align it with the changes made to the socioeconomic programs at FAR subparts 19.13, 19.14, and 19.15.
In addition, this proposed rule implements regulatory changes made by SBA in its final rules published on November 29, 2019, and on October 16, 2020, to clarify requirements on the application of the limitations on subcontracting, provide exclusions of certain costs from the limitations on subcontracting calculation for services, and remove specific rules related to kit assemblers from the nonmanufacturer rule. The explanation for these changes is in the preamble of SBA's final rules.
The proposed changes to the FAR and the rationale are summarized as follows:
This rule amends the clauses at FAR 52.212-5, 52.219-14, and 52.219-33. The clauses continue to apply to acquisitions at or below the SAT and to acquisitions for commercial products, including COTS items, and commercial services, as they did prior to this rule.
This proposed rule simplifies and clarifies the limitations on subcontracting requirements and the nonmanufacturer rule; therefore, this rule is expected to make it easier for offerors, contractors, and contracting officers to implement the regulations. This proposed rule is expected to benefit small businesses and the Government by allowing concerns to exclude certain costs from the calculation of the limitations on subcontracting and excluding certain costs for the calculation of the limitations on subcontracting, which may increase small business participation and ensure that the benefits of set-aside contracts flow to the intended beneficiaries.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 (as amended by E.O. 14094) and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, because this rule merely standardizes, clarifies, and simplifies the requirements for compliance with the limitations on subcontracting and the nonmanufacturer rule. However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been performed and is summarized as follows:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement regulatory changes made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) in its final rule published on May 31, 2016, at 81 FR 34243, to implement section 1651 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) which amended 15 U.S.C. 657s to standardize the limitations on subcontracting and nonmanufacturer rule across the small business programs. This proposed rule also implements SBA's final rules published on November 29, 2019, at 84 FR 65647, and on October 16, 2020, at 85 FR 66146. This rule proposes to standardize the limitations on subcontracting and nonmanufacturer rule among the small business programs and update and clarify requirements associated with the limitations on subcontracting and nonmanufacturer rule.
The objective of this rule is to implement SBA's regulatory changes that provide exclusions of certain costs from the limitations on subcontracting calculation for services, and remove specific rules related to kit assemblers from the nonmanufacturer rule. The proposed rule clarifies that a similarly situated entity, first-tier subcontractor must perform the work with its own employees or the work will be counted towards the prime contractor's limitation on subcontracting; permits the exclusion of other direct costs that are not the principal purpose of the acquisition and not performed by small businesses from the limitations on subcontracting calculation; for service contracts, excludes from the limitations on subcontracting calculation work performed outside the United States on contracts or orders approved or financed under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Pub. L. 87-195, 22 U.S.C. 2151
This proposed rule will impact small businesses that enter into contracts with the Government that are set-aside for any of the small business concerns identified at FAR 19.000(a)(3). This proposed rule may have a positive economic impact on small businesses because it will make the application of the limitations on subcontracting and nonmanufacturer rule consistent across all of the small business socioeconomic programs, will exclude certain costs from the limitations on subcontracting calculation, and will simplify the nonmanufacturer rule. The ability to exclude certain costs from the limitations on subcontracting calculation will make it possible for small businesses to compete for higher dollar value service contracts.
According to the System for Award Management (SAM), there are 355,208 active registrants that are considered small for at least one North American Industry Classification System code. Small business entities seeking to be prime contractors for Government contracts are required to register in SAM; however, those seeking to be subcontractors are not required to register in SAM. Therefore, the number of small business entities impacted by this rule may be greater than the number of entities registered in SAM.
The proposed rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities.
The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There are no known significant alternative approaches to the proposed rule.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2021-020) in correspondence.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 19 and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
The revisions read as follows:
(b)(1)
(i) For a contract or order assigned a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for services (except construction), the concern will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity does not perform with its own employees or further subcontracts will count towards the concern's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. Other direct costs may be excluded from the 50 percent limitation when they are not the principal purpose of the contract or order, and small business concerns do not provide the service (
(ii) For a contract or order assigned a NAICS code for supplies or products (other than a procurement from a nonmanufacturer of such supplies or products), the concern will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity does not perform with its own employees or further subcontracts will count towards the concern's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both supplies and services, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the supply portion of the contract.
(iii) For a contract or order assigned a NAICS code for general construction, the concern will not pay more than 85 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity does not perform with its own employees or further subcontracts will count towards the concern's 85 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes general construction and supplies and/or services, the 85 percent limitation shall apply only to the general-construction portion of the contract.
(iv) For a contract or order assigned a NAICS code for construction by special trade contractors, the concern will not pay more than 75 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity does not perform with its own employees or further subcontracts will count towards the concern's 75 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes construction by special trade contractors and supplies and/or services, the 75 percent limitation shall apply only to the construction-by-special-trade-contractors portion of the contract.
(c)
The revision and addition reads as follows:
(e) For use of clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, see the prescription at 19.507(e).
(f) For use of clause 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule, see the prescription at 19.507(h).
(b) * * *
__(23) 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (DATE) (15 U.S.C. 657s).
__(30) 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule (DATE) (15 U.S.C. 657s).
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(1) Services (except construction), it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity does not perform with its own employees or further subcontracts will count towards the prime contractor's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. Other direct costs may be excluded from the 50 percent limitation when they are not the principal purpose of the contract or order, and small business concerns do not provide the service (
(2) Supplies (other than procurement from a nonmanufacturer of such supplies), it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity does not perform with its own employees or further subcontracts will count towards the prime contractor's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes both supplies and services, the 50 percent limitation shall apply only to the supply portion of the contract;
(3) General construction, it will not pay more than 85 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity does not perform with its own employees or further subcontracts will count towards the prime contractor's 85 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes general construction and supplies and/or services, the 85 percent limitation shall apply only to the general-construction portion of the contract; or
(4) Construction by special trade contractors, it will not pay more than 75 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance, excluding the cost of materials, to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity does not perform with its own employees or further subcontracts will count towards the prime contractor's 75 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. When a contract includes construction by special trade contractors and supplies and/or services, the 75 percent limitation shall apply only to the construction-by-special-trade-contractors portion of the contract.
The revisions read as follows:
(c)
(1) Provide an end item that a small business has manufactured, processed, or produced in the United States or its outlying areas;
(2) Be primarily engaged in the retail or wholesale trade and normally sell the type of item being supplied; and
(3) Take ownership or possession of the item(s) with its personnel, equipment, or facilities in a manner consistent with industry practice; for example, providing storage, transportation, or delivery.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in a framework action under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this proposed rule would modify the ratios used to set the state-specific red snapper private angling component annual catch limits (ACLs) for Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi and would modify each of these state's private angling component ACLs based on the new ratios. In addition, this proposed rule would modify the stock ACL for gray snapper in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The purposes of this proposed rule are to update state specific private angling component calibration ratios and ACLs to provide a more accurate estimate of state landings for red snapper management and to revise gray snapper catch limits with updated scientific information to continue to achieve optimum yield (OY) for the stock.
Written comments must be received on or before February 16, 2024.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2023-0120” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the framework action, which include an environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Dan Luers, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes both red snapper and gray snapper, is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and to achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from federally managed fish stocks to ensure that fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities and protecting marine ecosystems.
Unless otherwise noted, all weights in this proposed rule are in round weight.
Red snapper in the Gulf EEZ is harvested by both the commercial and recreational sectors. Each sector has its own ACL and associated management measures. The stock ACL is allocated 51 percent to the commercial sector and 49 percent to the recreational sector. The recreational ACL (quota) is further allocated between the Federal charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) component (42.3 percent), and the private angling component (57.7 percent).
In February 2020, NMFS implemented state management of red snapper for the private angling component through Amendments 50 A-F to the FMP (85 FR 6819, February 6, 2020). Through these amendments, each state was allocated a portion of the red snapper private angling component ACL and was delegated the authority to set the private angling fishing season, bag limit, and size limit. These amendments also established an accountability measure that required any overage of a state's ACL to be deducted in the following year (
In 2023, NMFS implemented a framework action under the FMP to calibrate the red snapper ACLs for Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi so they could be directly compared to the landings estimates produced by each of those state's data collection program (Calibration Framework)(87 FR 74014, December 2, 2022). As explained in the Calibration Framework final rule, each of these states have relatively new programs for monitoring red snapper landed by the private-angling component (2014 for Alabama and Louisiana; 2015 for Florida and Mississippi), and these programs do not produce results that are comparable to each other or to Federal estimates generated by the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Prior to the development of these state programs, NMFS provided the only estimates of private angler red snapper landings, except for those in Texas (Texas anglers have never participated in the NMFS recreational data collection survey). The state specific red snapper ACLs were established using the results of a stock assessment that included recreational landings estimates produced by MRIP. The Calibration Framework final rule applied state-specific ratios to these MRIP-based ACLs (Federal equivalent ACLs) to adjust each state's private-angling ACL to account for the monitoring programs used by each Gulf state and allow a direct comparison between the ACL and state landings estimate. The ratios implemented by the Calibration Framework final rule were: Alabama (0.4875), Florida (1.0602), Louisiana (1.06), Mississippi (0.3840), and Texas (1.00). The ratios for Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi were developed using available state landings data. More information on the data used to calculate the current ratios can be found in the Calibration Framework.
In June 2022, the Council asked its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) to review more recent state data and provide recommendations on any appropriate changes to the calibration ratios. Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi submitted updated data for review and in January 2023, the SSC concluded that was appropriate to modify the ratios for Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi to 0.548, 1.34, and 0.503, respectively.
This proposed rule would modify the calibration ratios for Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi as recommended by the SSC and apply these ratios to the MRIP-based ACLs to update the state-survey-based ACLs. The framework action and this proposed rule would not change the MRIP-based (Federal equivalent) state ACLs or the total private-angling ACL. However, because the understanding of the relationship between the states' landings estimates and the Federal landings estimates have changed, NMFS expects each of the three states to increase the number of days that private anglers are permitted to harvest red snapper.
Gray snapper in the Gulf EEZ is managed as a single stock with a stock ACL and a stock annual catch target (ACT), although the ACT is not codified in the regulations or used for management. There is no allocation of the stock ACL between the commercial and recreational sectors. Gray snapper occur in estuaries and shelf waters of the Gulf and are particularly abundant off south and southwest Florida. The fishing season is open year-round, January 1 through December 31. Accountability measures (AMs) for gray snapper specify that if the combined commercial and recreational landings exceed the stock ACL in a fishing year, then during the following fishing year if the stock ACL is reached or is projected to be reached, the commercial and recreational sectors will be closed for the remainder of the fishing year. However, since the implementation of catch limits in 2012, total landings have not exceeded the ACL.
Prior to 2018, the status of the gray snapper stock had not been evaluated in a stock assessment. In 2018, a gray snapper Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) benchmark stock assessment was completed (SEDAR 51) and indicated that the stock was undergoing overfishing. SEDAR 51 included recreational landings estimates calibrated to the MRIP coastal household telephone survey (CHTS). In response to this assessment, the Council developed and NMFS implemented Amendment 51 to the FMP, which established biological reference points, overfished status determination criteria, the current catch limits for the gray snapper stock. (85 FR 73238, November 17, 2020). These catch limits are an OFL of 2.57 million lb (1.17 million kg), ABC of 2.51 million lb (1.14 million kg), and stock ACL of 2.23 million lb (1.02 million kg).
In December 2022, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center finalized a new stock assessment report for gray snapper (SEDAR 75). SEDAR 75 resolved several concerns from SEDAR 51, and incorporated updated recreational landings data calibrated to the MRIP-Fishing Effort Survey (FES). MRIP-FES replaced MRIP-CHTS in 2018, and total recreational fishing effort estimates generated from MRIP-FES are generally higher than MRIP-CHTS estimates.
The Council's SSC reviewed the results of SEDAR 75 during its January 2023 meeting and determined that the assessment was consistent with the best scientific information available. Based on the results of SEDAR 75, the Council's SSC concluded the stock is not overfished or undergoing overfishing as of 2020 and also determined that the stock was not likely to be experiencing overfishing in 2015, as was concluded in SEDAR 51.
The SSC provided both a declining yield stream and constant catch recommendation for the gray snapper OFL and ABC. The Council is recommending a constant catch OFL and ABC of 7.547 million lb (3.423 million kg) and 6.226 million lb (2.824 million kg), respectively. The Council is also recommending an eight percent buffer between the ABC and stock ACL, which is based on the Council's ACL/ACT control rule. This would result in an ACL of 5.728 million lb (2.598 million kg). Because of the different recreational landings estimates used to determine the current and proposed catch limits (MRIP-CHTS versus MRIP-FES), these catch limits are not directly comparable. However, the proposed catch limits do represent an increase from the current catch limits.
This proposed rule would modify the calibration ratios used by Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi to convert MRIP-based red snapper private angling component ACLs to state-survey-based red snapper private angling component ACLs and apply those ratios to update each state's ACL.
As described above, the current state private recreational date calibration ratios for Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi are 0.4875, 1.0602, and
As a result of SEDAR 75 and using data through 2020, this proposed rule would revise the gray snapper stock ACL from 2.23 million lb (1.01 million kg) to 5.728 million lb (2.598 million kg). As explained previously, the current and proposed ACLs are not directly comparable. However, total harvest has never exceeded the current ACL, and the proposed ACL represents an increase in the allowable harvest.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the framework action, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the factual basis for this determination follows.
A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the purposes of this proposed rule are contained in the
The objective of this proposed rule is to improve the management of red snapper and gray snapper based on the best scientific information available. All monetary estimates in the following analysis are in 2021 dollars.
This proposed rule has two actions. The first action concerns recreational fishing for red snapper in Federal waters of the Gulf and would apply to or regulate the states of Alabama, Florida and Mississippi. Specifically, this proposed action would update state private recreational data calibrations of red snapper for Alabama, Florida and Mississippi. As such, this action would authorize those three states to allow for increased recreational landings of red snapper by anglers fishing from private vessels and for-hire fishing vessels that do not have a valid Federal for-hire reef fish permit any time during the fishing year. States are not small governmental jurisdictions or other entities as defined by the RFA and thus are not germane to this analysis. Therefore, it is concluded that this action would not regulate or have direct economic impacts on any small entities.
The second action would revise the catch limits for Gulf gray snapper. Specifically, the OFL, ABC, and stock ACL would be changed from 2.57 million lb (1.17 million kg), 2.51 million lb (1.14 million kg), and 2.23 million lb (1.02 million kg) respectively, using an 11 percent buffer between the ABC and stock ACL, to 7.547 million lb (3.423 million kg), 6.226 million lb (2.824 million kg), and 5.728 million lb (2.598 million kg) respectively, using an 8 percent buffer between the ABC and stock ACL. The current catch limits were derived, in part, using recreational landings estimates calibrated to MRIP-CHTS while the proposed catch limits were derived, in part, using recreational landings estimates calibrated to MRIP-FES. This action would apply to commercial fishing businesses, for-hire fishing businesses, and recreational anglers. Although the proposed changes would apply to recreational anglers, the RFA does not consider recreational anglers to be small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Recreational anglers are not businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions and so they are outside the scope of this analysis.
Any commercial fishing business that operates a fishing vessel that harvests gray snapper in the Gulf EEZ must have a valid commercial Gulf reef fish permit for to that vessel. From 2017 through 2021, an annual average of 359 vessels with a valid commercial permit reported landings of gray snapper.
For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in the commercial fishing industry (North American Industrial Classification Code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and its combined annual receipts are no more than $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. The average commercial vessel that landed gray snapper from 2017 through 2021 had annual revenue from all landings of about $133,300 and less than one percent of that revenue came from reported gray snapper landings. Maximum annual revenue for any of the commercial vessels that harvested gray snapper was less than $3.1 million. Assuming each of the 359 vessels represents a unique commercial fishing business, then the action to revise the catch limits for gray snapper would regulate 359 small commercial fishing businesses.
Charter fishing is contained with the broader industry of scenic and sightseeing transportation, water (NAICS code 487210) and the small business size standard for this industry is $14.0 million. From 2017 through 2021, an annual average of 27,358 angler trips that targeted gray snapper were taken by charter fishing boats. It is unknown how many vessels made these trips. However, available data shows Gulf gray snapper is almost entirely targeted in waters off the west coast of Florida. In 2020, there were 1,289 vessels with valid charter-headboat Gulf reef fish vessel permits. Of these 1,289 vessels, 803 were homeported in Florida. Of these 803 vessels, 62 are primarily used for commercial fishing rather than for-hire fishing purposes and thus are not considered for-hire fishing businesses (
However, charter vessels often target gray snapper. From 2017 through 2021,
A recent study reported that 76 percent of charter vessels with valid charter-headboat permits in the Gulf were active in 2017 (
The same study estimated that maximum annual gross revenue for a single headboat in the Gulf was about $1.45 million in 2017. The study also found that on average, annual gross revenue for headboats in the Gulf is about three times greater than annual gross revenue for charter vessels, reflecting the fact that businesses that own charter vessels are typically smaller than businesses that own headboats. Based on this information, all for-hire fishing businesses regulated by this proposed action are determined to be small businesses for the purpose of this analysis.
As described above, the action to update red snapper private recreational catch limits for Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida based on calibration adjustments would not directly affect any small entities. The action to revise the Gulf gray snapper catch limits is expected to directly affect 359 small commercial fishing businesses. Those 359 businesses represent 69.4 percent of active commercial fishing businesses with Federal permits that harvest reef fish. Those 359 small businesses also represent about 42 percent of all commercial fishing businesses with a valid Federal permit to harvest reef fish. This action is also expected to directly affect 528 of the 1,227 for-hire fishing businesses with valid charter/headboat permits in the Gulf reef fish fishery, or approximately 43 percent of those for-hire fishing businesses. All regulated commercial and for-hire fishing businesses have been determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small entities. Based on this information, the proposed action to revise the Gulf gray snapper catch limits is expected to directly affect a substantial number of small businesses.
With respect to the action to revise the catch limits for gray snapper, in order to determine the impacts on commercial and charter fishing businesses, NMFS estimated how the proposed stock ACL would most likely be distributed between the commercial and recreational sectors based on the distribution of landings between the sectors from 2017-2021. Commercial gray snapper landings averaged 111,563 lb (50,604 kg) between 2017 and 2021 and accounted for 2.4 percent of the total gray snapper landings. That percentage of the proposed stock ACL is estimated to be 137,472 lb (62,356 kg). The average ex-vessel price of gray snapper was $3.64 per lb during this time. Therefore, the change in the stock ACL may result in annual increases of commercial gray snapper landings, revenues, and economic profit of 25,909 lb (11,752 kg), $94,309, and $30,179, respectively. Economic profit is estimated to be approximately 32 percent of revenues. Given that annual average revenue is about $133,300 per commercial fishing business, economic profit per commercial fishing business is estimated to be about $42,700. Thus, economic profit per commercial fishing business could increase by around $84, or by about 0.2 percent. These estimates assume that the totality of the stock ACL increase estimated to accrue to the commercial sector is harvested. However, only about 77 percent of the stock ACL was harvested on average per year from 2017-2021. Should the commercial sector harvest less than its estimated allotted portion, the increase in commercial landings, revenues, and economic profit would be less.
The proposed change to the stock ACL for Gulf gray snapper may also increase economic profits to charter fishing businesses if they increase the number of trips targeting gray snapper. Based on the most recent information available, average annual economic profit is approximately $27,000 per charter vessel. Between 2017 and 2021, charter trips targeting gray snapper averaged 27,358 trips per year. The potential change in the number of charter trips targeting gray snapper was computed by applying the estimated percentage increase in recreational landings to the average annual number of gray snapper charter trips. This approach yielded a potential increase of 5,034 charter trips targeting gray snapper per year. Economic profit per angler trip is estimated at $176. Therefore, economic profit for charter fishing businesses could increase by as much as $886,000 per year, which would represent an increase of almost $1,700, or about 6.3 percent, per charter fishing business. These estimates assume that the totality of the stock ACL increase estimated to accrue to the recreational sector is harvested. However, as previously noted, only about 77 percent of the stock ACL was harvested on average per year from 2017-2021. Should the recreational sector harvest less than its estimated allotted portion, the increase in target trips by charter vessels and their economic profit would be less.
Based on the information above, although a substantial number of small entities would be directly affected by this proposed rule, it would have a slight positive economic impact and thus would not have a significant economic impact on those entities. Because this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Annual catch limits, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Recreational, Red snapper, Reef fish.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 622 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A)
(B)
(D)
(l)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that we have prepared pest risk analyses that evaluate the risks associated with the importation of fresh thyme, marjoram, and oregano from Kenya into the United States. Based on the analyses, we have determined that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of fresh thyme, marjoram, and oregano from Kenya into the United States. We are making the pest risk analyses available to the public for review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 18, 2024.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Ms. Gina Stiltner, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (518) 760-2468;
Under the regulations in “Subpart L—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.
Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of fruits and vegetables that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section.
APHIS received a request from the national plant protection organization of Kenya to allow the importation of fresh thyme (
Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing the availability of our pest risk assessments and RMDs for public review and comment. Those documents, as well as a description of the economic considerations associated with the importation of fresh thyme, marjoram, and oregano from Kenya into the United States, may be viewed on the
After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the import status of fresh thyme, marjoram, and oregano from Kenya into the United States in a subsequent notice. If the overall conclusions of our analyses and the Administrator's determination of risk remain unchanged following our consideration of the comments, then we will authorize the importation of fresh thyme, marjoram, and oregano from Kenya into the United States subject to the requirements specified in the RMDs. Depending on the comments received, we may authorize the importation of all, some, or none of the commodities from Kenya specified in this notice.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (PNT) Advisory Council will hold public meetings according to the details shown below.
One virtual half-day meeting will be held on February 13, 2024, 10 a.m.-2 p.m., Pacific standard time (PST).
All council meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held virtually via Zoom or the internet and the public may join using the link posted on the PNT Advisory Council meetings web page:
Jeff Kitchens, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Approve meeting minutes;
2. Discuss implementation of the comprehensive plan for the PNT; and
3. Discuss and identify future PNT Advisory Council activity.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the Council. To ensure that the recommendations of the Council have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice of funding opportunity.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS or the Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces acceptance of applications under the Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program for Fiscal Year (FY)2024, subject to the availability of funding. This Notice is being issued prior to the FY 2024 appropriations act to allow Applicants sufficient time to leverage financing, prepare and submit their applications, and give the Agency time to process applications within FY 2024. Based on FY 2023 appropriated funding, the Agency estimates that approximately $30 million will be made available for FY 2024. Successful applications will be selected by the Agency for funding and subsequently awarded to the extent that funding may ultimately be made available through appropriations
Electronic applications e-filed through
Complete paper applications must be submitted by close of business on April 16, 2024 in the USDA RD State Office of the State where the project is located. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped or sent overnight, hand carried or emailed by this date. Late applications are not eligible for grant funding under this Notice.
This funding announcement will also be announced on
To submit a paper application, send it to the USDA RD State Office located in
To submit an application through email, contact the respective USDA RD State Office to obtain the Agency email address where the application will be submitted.
Application materials are also available at
Greg York at 202-281-5259,
A complete paper application must be submitted by close of business on April 16, 2024 to the USDA RD State Office of the State where the project is located, or it will not be considered for funding. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped or sent overnight, hand carried or emailed by this date.
Late applications are not eligible for grant funding under this Notice.
•
•
•
1.
2.
3.
(a)
(1) One (1) or more producers; or
(2) One (1) or more entities, 100 percent of the ownership and control of which is held by one (1) or more producers. The term `entity' means—
(i) a partnership;
(ii) a limited liability corporation;
(iii) a limited liability partnership; or
(iv) a corporation.
(b)
4.
Ten percent of available funds for applications will be reserved for Applicants qualifying as Beginning, Veteran, and Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers. An additional 10 percent of available funds will be reserved for applications from farmers or ranchers proposing development of Mid-Tier Value Chains. Beginning, Veteran, and Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers and Applicants proposing Mid-Tier Value Chains not awarded for reserved funds will compete with other eligible VAPG applications. In addition, any funds that become available for persistent poverty counties through enactment of FY 2024 appropriations will be allocated for assistance in persistent poverty counties. Funds not obligated from these reserves by September 30, 2024, will be used for the VAPG general competition and made available in a subsequent application cycle.
1.
The application narrative must demonstrate that the Applicant is eligible for the program in accordance
The Agency encourages applications from Federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal entities. Federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal entities must demonstrate that they meet the definition requirements for one of the four eligible Applicant types. RD State Offices and posted application toolkits will provide additional information on Tribal eligibility. Tribal Applicants are encouraged to contact Agency staff early in the process to discuss Applicant and project eligibility. In addition to contacting program staff, Tribal Applicants can contact USDA Rural Development's Tribal Relations Team with Tribal specific questions and concerns at
Factors rendering an Applicant ineligible are provided at 7 CFR 4284.921. The Agency will check the Do Not Pay (DNP) system to determine if the Applicant or its principals has been debarred or suspended. Per the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328), Division E, Title VII, Sections 744, and 745, any corporation (i) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (ii) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by this or any other act, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
2.
Applicant matching contributions in the form of a raw commodity, time contributed to the project, or goods or services for which no out-of-pocket expenditure is made during the grant period, must be characterized as in-kind contributions, subject to the requirements and limitations specified in 7 CFR 4284.925(a)-(b). Donations of goods and services from third parties must be characterized as in-kind contributions. Tribal Applicants may utilize grants made available under Section 103(c) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638), as amended, as their matching contribution, and should check with appropriate Tribal authorities regarding the availability of such funding. As indicated in 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(4)(iv), a non-Tribal Applicant cannot provide matching funds paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award.
Matching funds must be available at the time of application and must be certified and verified as described in 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(3) and (4). Do not include
3. Other.
(a)
(1)
Finally, in accordance with Section 210A(d)(3) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
1.
2.
(a) Standard Form (SF)-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” is required, 7 CFR 4248.931(a)(1). The form requires Applicants to include their Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and expiration date (or evidence that the System for Award Management (SAM) registration process has begun). If the SAM registration confirmation and expiration date has not been received, the applicant must provide evidence from SAM of having begun the registration process to be considered in the funding competition.
(b) SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs” is required, 7 CFR 4284.931(a)(2).
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) Eligibility discussion, 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(1).
(g) Work plan and budget, 7 CFR 4284.922(b)(5).
(h) Performance evaluation criteria, 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(2)(i).
(i) Proposal evaluation criteria, 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(2)(ii).
(j) Certification and verification of matching funds, 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(3)-(4).
(k) Optionally, reserved Funds and Priority Point documentation, 7 CFR 4284.923 and 7 CFR 4284.924.
(l) Feasibility studies, business plans, and/or marketing plans, as applicable, 7 CFR 4284.922(b)(6)(i).
(m) Appendices containing required supporting documentation.
(n) Applicants requesting less than $50,000 may submit a simplified application, and the contents of which are specified in this Notice. Applicants requesting Working Capital Grants of less than $50,000 are not required to provide Feasibility Studies or Business Plans.
3.
(a) At the time of application, each Applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. To register in SAM, entities will be required to obtain a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at
(b) Each Applicant must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
(c) Applicants must ensure they complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
(d) Applicants must provide a valid UEI in the application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110.
(e) The Agency will not make an award until Applicants have complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an Applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that an Applicant is not qualified to receive a federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another Applicant.
Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, sent overnight, hand carried, or emailed by close of business on April 16, 2024 to the USDA RD State Office where the project is located. USDA RD State Office contact information is located at
If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day. The Agency will not solicit or consider new scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. The Agency also reserves the right to ask Applicants for clarifying information and additional verification of assertions in the application. Late applications will automatically be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated further.
5.
6.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
7.
(a)
(b)
1.
The Agency application toolkit provides additional instructions to help you to respond to the criteria below.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(c)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Letters of Commitment by end-users, and third parties should be summarized as part of the response to this criterion, and the letters must be included in Appendix B. Please note that VAPG does not require Congressional letters of support, nor do they carry any extra weight during the evaluation process.
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Note that because applications with cash matching contributions are awarded more points than those pledging only in-kind contributions, Applicants will not be able to substitute an in-kind match for cash after awards are made.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(i) Two (2)
(ii) One (1)
(iii)
(f)
(1) Applications may also be awarded points for the following three priorities:
(i
(ii)
• Located in or serving a community with a score of 0.75 or above on the SVI;
• A Federally recognized Tribe, including Tribal instrumentalities and entities that are wholly owned by Tribes; or
• A project where at least 50 percent of the project beneficiaries are members of Federally Recognized Tribes and non-Tribal applicants include a Tribal Resolution of Consent from the Tribe or Tribes that the applicant is proposing to serve.
(iii)
• If the project is located in or serves a
• If the project is located in or serves an
• Applicants demonstrate through written narrative how proposed climate-impact projects improve the livelihoods of community residents and meet pollution mitigation or clean energy goals.
(2) The Agency will confirm if the project is located in an area qualifying for these priorities.
(3)
The Agency will select applications for award under this Notice in accordance with the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4284.950(a).
If an application is eligible and complete, it will be qualitatively scored by three reviewers based on criteria specified in section E.1. of this Notice. One of these reviewers will be an experienced RD employee from the applicable servicing State Office and two reviewers will be non-Federal, independent reviewers. Independent reviewers must have at least a bachelor's degree in one or more of the following fields: agri-business, agricultural economics, agriculture, animal science, business, marketing, economics, or finance;
The Administrator of the Agency may choose to award up to 10 Administrator priority points based on criteria (f) in section E.1. of this Notice. These points will be added to the cumulative score from the initial ranking and re-ranked from highest to lowest for a final ranking. The total maximum number of points that can be awarded for an application is 100.
Applications for reserved funds will be funded in rank order until funds are depleted. Unfunded reserve applications will be returned to the general funds where applications will be funded in rank order until the funds are expended. Funding for Majority Controlled Producer-Based Business Ventures is limited to 10 percent of total grant funds expected to be obligated as a result of this Notice. These applications will be funded in rank order until the funding limitation has been reached. Grants to these Applicants from reserved funds will count against this funding limitation. In the event of tied scores, the Administrator shall have discretion in breaking ties. The Agency reserves the right to offer the Applicant less than the grant funding requested.
If the application is ranked, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next application funding cycle.
1.
If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing and informed of any review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully scored applications, after an appeal, will be limited to available funding.
2.
The following additional requirements apply to Applicants selected for a program award:
(a) Agency approved Financial Assistance Agreement.
(b) Letter of Conditions.
(c) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(d) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
(e) Form RD-400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
(f) SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
(g) Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”
3.
(a) An SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). For the purposes of this grant, semiannual periods end on March 31st and September 30th. The project performance reports shall include the elements prescribed in the Financial Assistance Agreement.
(b) A final project and financial status report within 120 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
(c) Outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.
If you have questions about this Notice, please contact the USDA RD State Office as identified in the
1. Applicants must comply with other Federal laws per 7 CFR 4284.905(a).
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee and Advisory Panel will jointly hold a public webinar meeting. See
The meeting will be held on Monday, February 5, 2024, from 9:30 a.m. until 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. Connection information will be posted to the calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The purpose of this meeting is for the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Committee and Advisory Panel to review the Species Separation Requirements Amendment Public Hearing Document and provide input on the public hearing document. The Committee will make recommendations about the Public Hearing Document to the Council in February at the Council meeting.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to
Office of Coast Survey, National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting; request for comment.
This serves as the notice of a public meeting for the NOAA Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) Federal Advisory Committee from March 5th, through March 7th, 2024, in San Pedro, CA. The agenda for the HSRP public meeting will be posted in advance of the meeting on the HSRP website. Individuals or groups who would like to comment on NOAA navigation, observation, and positioning services topics are encouraged to submit public comments in advance of the HSRP public meeting via email, during the public meeting in person, or via the “Questions” function in the meeting webinar if joining the public meeting virtually.
Members of the public may attend the NOAA HSRP public meeting in person or virtually on the following dates and at the following times:
1. March 5th, 2024, 9 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST).
2. March 6th, 2024, 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. PST.
3. March 7th, 2024, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. PST.
Instructions for how to register to attend the HSRP public meeting in person and virtually can be found at the following website:
Comments for the HSRP public meeting record may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Ashley Chappell, NOAA HSRP Program Manager, email:
The Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, as amended (HSIA; 33 U.S.C. 892
The HSRP invites NOAA stakeholder feedback and welcomes public comments in advance of and during the upcoming HSRP public meeting on the use of NOAA's navigation, observations, and positioning data, science, products, and services for the National Ocean Service's Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, National Geodetic Survey, and Office of Coast Survey, and the NOAA/University of New Hampshire Joint Hydrographic Center. Relevant public comments sent in advance of the HSRP public meeting will be shared with the HSRP members, posted on the meeting website, and included in the public record for the meeting. Individuals and groups may also submit public comments at the scheduled daily public comment periods during the meeting or through the webinar's “Questions” function. These public comments will be read into the record during public comment periods. As time allows, commenters may be invited to orally expand on their written comments during the meeting's public comment periods. Due to time constraints, all public comments may not be addressed orally during the meeting.
The HSRP members will focus on the mission and issues relevant to NOAA's navigation, observations, and positioning services, and the value these services bring the nation, and invite suggestions from stakeholders and partners for improvements to these services. This suite of NOAA services supports safe and efficient navigation, the blue economy, resilient coasts and communities, and the nationwide positioning information infrastructure to support America's climate needs and commerce. Specifically, the HSRP will consider:
• National Ocean Service programs' recent activities such as the update to the National Spatial Reference System, datums, national ocean and coastal mapping goals and the Standard Ocean Mapping Protocol, hydrographic surveying, nautical charting, uncrewed systems, coastal remote sensing and bathymetric lidar, photogrammetry, positioning, sea level rise and water levels in support of “seamless data.”
• The status of NOAA's navigation services in the context of recent legislation (
• Measuring, monitoring, and mitigating flooding and sea level change and the contribution of NOAA's critical foundational geospatial data to projects.
• NOAA navigation data, products, and services that enable further economic growth and impact safe navigation.
• Other topics related to NOAA programs and activities may be discussed, such as bathymetric and coastal/ocean modeling, tide and current observations, contributions to resilience and coastal data and information systems to support planning for climate change in ports and coastal communities, flooding, inundation, contributions to the Blue Economy, Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS®) sensor enhancements and expansion, Precision Marine Navigation, the transition from raster paper charts to Electronic Navigational Charts, geodetic observations, gravity modeling, data stewardship, education and training to sustain the workforce necessary for NOAA navigation services missions, and the scientific mapping and technology research projects tied to the cooperative agreements between NOAA and other partners.
This public meeting is accessible to people with disabilities and there will be sign language interpretation and captioning services. Please direct requests for other auxiliary aids to Melanie Colantuno at
9:30 a.m. EST, Monday, January 22, 2024.
CFTC Headquarters Conference Center, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW, Washington, DC.
Open.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) will hold this meeting to consider the following matters:
• Notice of Proposed Order and Request for Comment on an Application for a Capital Comparability Determination Submitted on behalf of Nonbank Swap Dealers subject to Capital and Financial Reporting Requirements of the United Kingdom and Regulated by the United Kingdom Prudential Regulation Authority;
• LCH SA Request for Exemption from Regulation 1.49(d)(3) to Hold Customer Funds at the Banque de France; and
•
The agenda for this meeting will be available to the public and posted on the Commission's website at
In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, or place of the meeting, will be posted on the Commission's website.
Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is proposing changes to a system of records notice (SORN). CPSC is proposing to amend CPSC-33, International Trade Data System Risk Assessment Methodology System (ITDS/RAM). The amendment will expand the categories of individuals covered by, and the records contained in the system.
Comments must be received no later than February 16, 2024. The modified system of records described here will become effective February 16, 2024 unless CPSC receives comments contrary to the proposed amendments.
Comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2024-0002, can be submitted electronically or in writing:
Abioye Mosheim Oyewole, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda MD 20814; 301-504-7454.
CPSC is proposing to amend the categories of individuals and records, as well as the retention period and contact information for maintenance of the system.
For the public's convenience, CPSC's amended system of records is published in full below. The proposed changes to CPSC-33 are italicized.
CPSC-33, International Trade Data System Risk Assessment Methodology System (ITDS/RAM).
Not classified.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Director, Office of Import Surveillance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
The CPSC uses the ITDS/RAM to monitor and request examination for import shipments that are potentially in violation of safety standards enforced by the Commission or potentially defective as a part of a product group that has been designated by the Commission as having properties that are hazardous. Personally identifiable information (PII)
Individuals and businesses that import materials in the United States. Information on individuals is stored only when they register as the entity in the transaction; usually, this is a business entity with an associated importer identification number and business address.
1. The system contains names, Social Security numbers, and addresses associated with individuals and businesses importing materials into the United States. For individuals and small businesses where an individual provides personal information, their name and address are maintained.
2. Importation transactions as reported by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for all product areas under jurisdiction at entry summary filing and for product areas of specific concern for hazard monitoring and enforcement programs at entry filing (Cargo).
Personally identifiable information (PII) is provided and updated on a periodic basis by CBP.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside CPSC as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
1. To the U.S. Department of Justice when related to litigation or anticipated litigation. To the appropriate Federal enforcement agency/agencies when there is an indication of a potential violation of a statute or regulation or a predetermined hazard in connection with an importation.
2. Disclosure may be made to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the CPSC suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the CPSC has determined that as a result of suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to the security or integrity of this system, or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the CPSC or another agency or entity), that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the CPSC's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
The information in the ITDS/RAM includes electronic records, files, and data that are stored in the Commission's computer network databases.
Computer records are indexed by, and retrievable by, importer identification number (which may include Social Security number), names, and addresses, and may permit retrieval by names elsewhere in documents.
Records are currently retained indefinitely pending schedule approval by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Access to electronic files, which are housed in the Commission's computer network databases, is restricted to authorized supervisors and staff and to designated Information Technology (IT) staff who maintain the Commission's computer network. CPSC project contractors may be granted access with appropriate clearance and only in support of the performance of the system. The CPSC computer network databases are protected by security protocols, which include controlled access, passwords, and other security features. Information resident on the database servers is backed-up routinely onto a hard disk array and computer-based media. Back-up data is stored on-site and at a secured, off-site location. Hard-copy records are maintained in secured file cabinets.
Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
None.
CPSC-33, International Trade Data System Risk Assessment Methodology System (ITDS/RAM) (last published at 77 FR 29596, FR Doc. 2012-12060 (May 18, 2012).
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of a modified system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is proposing changes to one system of records notice (SORN). CPSC is proposing to amend CPSC-25—FOIAXpress System of Records (FOIAXpress). The amendment will, in addition to
Comments must be received no later than February 16, 2024. The modified system of records described here will become effective February 16, 2024 unless CPSC receives comments contrary to the proposed amendments.
Comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2024-0001, can be submitted electronically or in writing:
Abioye Mosheim Oyewole, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda MD 20814, (301) 504-7454.
CPSC is proposing to amend the routine uses of CPSC-25, FOIAXpress, to: routinely share FOIA records with the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS); include medical and police reports as well as photographs as categories of records; add manufacturers, medical examiners, hospitals, and police and other law enforcement entities as records sources; and make conforming amendments (including updating contact information) and revise subheadings to follow the current SORN format.
CPSC sent a report to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation. For the public's convenience, CPSC's amended system of records is published in full below. The proposed changes to CPSC-25 are italicized.
CPSC-25,
Not classified.
Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Chief FOIA Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
The CPSC uses this system to store, track, and manage requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, and responses to those requests.
Individuals, classes of individuals, or representatives designated to act on behalf of individuals who request records from CPSC pursuant to the FOIA and the Privacy Act.
Correspondence and supporting documentation submitted to and created by the Commission to request records under the FOIA and the Privacy Act. Complaints submitted by consumers gathered in response to FOIA and Privacy Act requests. In-depth Investigation Reports created by the Commission during investigations regarding the safety of consumer products. Records contain individuals' personally identifiable information, including names, addresses, cities, states, telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses, medical examiner reports, and police reports, photographs of consumers and, where applicable, their residences or other personal items relevant to the consumers' complaints or investigations into their complaints.
Information in these records is furnished by: (1) the individual to whom the record pertains; (2) CPSC staff; (3) manufacturers responding to notices of proposed disclosure; (4) medical examiners and hospitals; and (5) police and other law enforcement officials.
1. These records are used to record the requesting individual's address so a response can be forwarded.
2. These records are used to record the specific information that the individual is seeking so that the information we provide is responsive to the request.
3. Staff will search the records to determine which requests have been filled and which are still pending.
4. CPSC will use these records to prepare an annual report of FOIA activities at the end of each fiscal year and submit the report to the Attorney General, through the Department of Justice, Office of Information
5. Disclosure may be made to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) CPSC suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) CPSC has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by CPSC or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with CPSC's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise, and to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
6. To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the FOIA, and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
Records are created or ingested into the FOIAXpress software application and stored accordingly. Records received in paper format are ingested into FOIAXpress, then paper copies are destroyed.
Records are retrieved using a requester's first and/or last name, or a randomly generated FOIA request number associated with each request.
FOIA and Privacy Act request records are maintained electronically in FOIAXpress according to the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule 4.2. Records are destroyed at the end of their retention period.
FOIAXpress is protected by security protocols, which include controlled access, passwords, and other security features. Paper documents are secured in a locked office. The Commission limits access to FOIAXpress by putting users into predefined user roles with specific permissions for each role that dictate what abilities each user has on the system. Once a user is logged into the system, the software records when each visit occurred and logs every page and action performed. Only authorized staff have permission to access the system. Once a user has been assigned a role that allows access, then the individual can access the system, as needed.
Chief FOIA Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814,
Chief FOIA Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814,
Chief FOIA Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Division of Information Access, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814,
None.
CPSC 25—FOIAXpress (last published at 77 FR 29596, FR Doc. 2012-12060 (May 18, 2012).
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a new information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 16, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Christopher Boccanfuso, 202-219-0373.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Supporting equitable educational opportunities and achievement for English learner students in New Mexico is a high priority for the New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED, n.d., 2021). In light of analysis showing English learner students in the state have lower rates of English language arts (ELA) proficiency (Arellano et al., 2018), plus legal rulings in the state that English learner students' rights to a sufficient public education have been violated (NMPED, 2022a), NMPED created a strategic plan that includes supporting the whole child through literacy instruction that is culturally and linguistically responsive (NMPED, 2022b). Improving English learner students' English proficiency and the literacy skills of all students is a top priority of NMPED and the district and regional partners of REL Southwest. To address this problem, REL Southwest is implementing, refining, and building evidence for the Write to Succeed professional learning program. The core focus of the Write to Succeed program is scaffolded writing instruction that can support all students but with embedded opportunities to meet the language needs to English learner students. Prior to this study, the program will be further enhanced with supports for teacher collaboration and culturally and linguistically relevant instructional routines, as prior work with New
This study is designed to measure the efficacy and implementation of the Write to Succeed. The evaluation team plans to conduct an independent evaluation using a school-level, cluster randomized control trial design to assess the program's impact on teachers' practices and beliefs and students' language and literacy outcomes. The evaluation will also assess the implementation of the program and how it may be effectively scaled. The evaluation will take place in 40 schools across an estimated 10 districts in New Mexico and will focus on teachers and students in Grade 4-8. The evaluation will produce a report and presentations to study participants, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers, and infographics and blog posts for a wider audience of educators and policymakers. These will be designed to inform district and school leaders and teachers about scaffolded writing practices that could be beneficial for English learner students and all students.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information; reopening of public comment period.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) published a request for information (RFI) on November 27, 2023, inviting interested parties to provide input regarding the state of technology on the progression to net-zero emission propulsion technologies for the rail industry. DOE requested public comments by January 12, 2023. DOE received requests for an extension of the public comment period. DOE reviewed the requests and has determined it is necessary and appropriate to reopen the comment period to allow comments to be submitted until February 12, 2024.
The comment period for the RFI published on November 27, 2023 (88 FR 82870), which closed on January 12, 2024, is reopened. Responses to this RFI must be received no later than February 12, 2024.
Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to
Questions may be addressed to Ben Simon at
The U.S. National Blueprint for Transportation Decarbonization set the goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions in the transportation sector—including rail by 2050. This transformation to net-zero emission technologies requires coordination among all aspects of the rail supply chain, including feedstock supply, alternative fuel production, locomotive engine manufacturers, safety implementation, customer demand, and government regulation. To develop a national strategy to decarbonize the rail sector, two critical questions must be addressed:
1—Which alternative rail propulsion technologies are most promising?
2—What is the timeline for the rail sector to transition to net-zero emission technologies?
The purpose of this RFI is to understand what is driving the rail sector towards adopting alternative propulsion technologies, which technologies seem most promising, and what are the key barriers to achieving the transition to net-zero emissions by 2050.
On September 15, 2021, NFEnergía LLC (NFEnergía), 111 W 19th Street, New York, New York 10011, filed in Docket No. CP21-496-000 an application under section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), Parts 153 and 380 of the Commission's regulations, and the Order issued by the Commission on March 19, 2021, in Docket No. CP20-466-000 (Order on Show Cause),
On July 18, 2023, NFEnergía filed in Docket No. CP23-518-000 a request to construct and operate a 220-foot, 10-inch-diameter pipeline at the MFH
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions regarding these filings may be directed to Cameron MacDougall, General Counsel, NFEnergía LLC, 111 W 19th Street, New York, New York, 10011, by phone at (202) 479-1522, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 8, 2024. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before February 8, 2024.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket numbers CP23-518-000 and CP21-496-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You can file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket numbers (CP23-518-000 and CP21-496-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
All intervenors in the ongoing proceeding for the project (CP21-496-000) will be considered intervenors in this amendment proceeding (CP21-518-000) and do not need to file a new motion to intervene.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket numbers CP23-518-000 and CP21-496-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket numbers CP23-518-000 and CP21-496-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email at: Cameron MacDougall, General Counsel, NFEnergía LLC, 111 W 19th Street, New York, New York, 10011 or at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Yellow Pine Solar II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Grace Orchard Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is January 29, 2024.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On January 8, 2024, the Commission issued an order in Docket Nos. EL24-47-000, EL24-48-000, and EL24-49-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation to determine whether the revenue requirements set forth in Midwest
The refund effective date in Docket Nos. EL24-47-000, EL24-48-000, and EL24-49-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket Nos. EL24-47-000, EL24-48-000, or EL24-49-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2022), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFile” link at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On December 26, 2016, Woodland Pulp LLC filed an application to surrender the license for the Forest City Project No. 2660, located on the East Branch of the St. Croix River in Washington and Aroostook Counties, Maine. On December 15, 2023, Woodland Pulp LLC filed a notice withdrawing that application.
No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, and the Commission has taken no action to disallow it. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
This notice revises the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) schedule for processing Black Canyon Hydro, LLC's license application for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project. A prior notice issued on July 10, 2023, identified an anticipated schedule for issuance of draft and final National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and a final order for the project. After the issuance of that notice, Black Canyon Hydro, LLC requested an extension of time to complete additional studies with a final study report to be filed by September 30, 2024. Commission staff issued a letter approving the extension of time on October 31, 2023. To account for the additional time needed for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC to complete the studies and file the study reports, the application will be processed according to the following revised schedule.
In addition, in accordance with title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, enacted on December 4, 2015, agencies are to publish completion dates for all federal environmental reviews and authorizations. This notice identifies the Commission's anticipated schedule for issuance of the final order for the project, which is based on the revised issuance date for the final NEPA document. Accordingly, we currently anticipate issuing a final order for the project no later than:
If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will be provided so that interested parties and government agencies are kept informed of the project's progress.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Babbitt Ranch Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is January 29, 2024.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will hold a joint open meeting on Thursday, January 25, 2024, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting will be held in-person at the Commission's headquarters, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 in the Commission Meeting Room. Commissioners from both agencies are expected to participate.
The format for the joint meeting will consist of discussions between the two sets of Commissioners following presentations by their respective staffs. In addition, a representative of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) will attend and participate in this meeting.
The meeting will be open for the public to attend. Pre-registration is not required and there is no fee for attendance. Information on this meeting will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's website,
Commission meetings are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to
All interested persons are invited to the meeting. Questions about the meeting should be directed to Lodie White at
The license for the Center Rutland Hydroelectric Project No. 2445 was issued for a period ending December 31, 2023.
Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2445 is issued to Green Mountain Power Corporation for a period effective January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before December 31, 2024, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that Green Mountain Power Corporation is authorized to continue operation of the Center Rutland Hydroelectric Project under the terms and conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a subsequent license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
January 18, 2024, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Open to the public.
Agenda.
*
Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items stricken from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed online at the Commission's website at
A free webcast of this event is available through the Commission's website. Anyone with internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters but will not be telecast.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On July 1, 2019, South Sutter Water District (SSWD) filed, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act, an application for a new major license to continue operating the Camp Far West Hydroelectric Project No. 2997 (Camp Far West Project) located on the Bear River in Yuba, Nevada, and Placer Counties, California. On July 8, 2019, Commission staff issued a Notice of Application Tendered for Filing with the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments. On March 16, 2021, Commission staff issued a Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions. On December 28, 2023, SSWD filed an amendment to the license application.
The Camp Far West Project currently occupies about 2,864 acres. No federal or tribal lands occur within or adjacent to the project boundary or along the Bear River downstream of the project. The project operates to primarily provide water during the irrigation season, generate power, and meet streamflow requirements for the Bear River.
Existing project facilities include: (1) a 185-foot-high, 40-foot-wide, 2,070-foot-long, zoned, earth-filled main dam; (2) a 45-foot-high, 20-foot-wide, 1,060-foot-long, earth-filled south wing dam; (3) a 25-foot-high, 20-foot-wide, 1,460-foot-long earth-filled north wing dam; (4) a 15-foot-high, 20-foot-wide, 1,450-foot-long earth-filled dike; (5) a 1,886-acre reservoir with a gross storage capacity of about 93,737 acre-feet at the normal maximum water surface elevation (maximum water elevation) of 300 feet (NGVD 29); (6) an overflow spillway with a 15-foot-wide concrete approach apron, 300-foot-long ungated, ogee-type concrete structure, and a 77-foot-long downstream concrete chute with concrete sidewalls; (7) a 1,200-foot-long unlined rock channel that carries spill downstream to the Bear River; (8) a 22-foot-high concrete power intake tower with openings on three sides protected by steel trashracks; (9) a 760-foot-long, 8-foot-diameter concrete tunnel through the left abutment of the main dam that conveys water from the power intake to the powerhouse; (10) a steel-reinforced concrete powerhouse with a 6.8-megawatt vertical-shaft Francis-type turbine that discharges into the Bear River at the base of the main dam; (11) a 25.3-foot-high concrete vertical intake tower with openings on three sides protected by steel trashracks that receives water for the outlet works; (12) a 350-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter steel pipe that conveys water from the intake structure to a valve chamber for the outlet works; (13) a 400-foot-long, 7.5-foot-diameter concrete-lined horseshoe tunnel that connects to the valve chamber; (14) a 48-inch-diameter outlet valve with a 500-cubic-feet-per-second release capacity at maximum water elevation on the downstream face of the main dam that discharges directly into the Bear River; (15) a switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse; (16) two recreation areas with campgrounds, day-use areas, boat ramps, restrooms, and sewage holding ponds; and (17) a recreational water system that includes two pumps in the reservoir that deliver water to a treatment facility that is piped to a 60,000-gallon storage tank to supply water to recreation facilities. The estimated average annual generation (2010 to 2017) is 22,637 megawatt-hours.
In its amended license application, SSWD proposes to: (1) raise the maximum water elevation of the project reservoir from 300 feet to 304.8 feet; (2) replace and restore several recreation facilities; (3) add an existing 0.25-mile road as a primary project road to access the project powerhouse and switchyard; and (4) modify the project boundary to account for (a) the removal of the 1.9-mile-long transmission line from the license in 1991, (b) corrections based on current project operation and maintenance, and (c) changes to project facilities.
Additionally, to accommodate passage of the revised probable maximum flood (recalculated in 2005) and avoid overtopping the project dam, SSWD proposes to: (1) raise the crest of the existing spillway from an elevation of 300 feet to 304.8 feet; (2) construct a new reinforced-concrete secondary spillway consisting of an approximately
Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.35(f)(1)(ii)(A), the license application as amended constitutes a material amendment. Due to the material amendment, the application is no longer ready for environmental analysis at this time. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on SSWD's amended application as well as study requests. The deadline for filing comments and study requests is 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments and study requests using the Commission's eFiling system at
Copies of the application may be viewed on the Commission's website at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The amended application will be processed according to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of adoption of categorical exclusion.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adopting the Department of Energy's (DOE) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Categorical Exclusion (CE) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to use in EPA's program and funding opportunities administered by EPA. This notice describes the categories of proposed actions for which EPA intends to use DOE's CE and describes the consultation between the agencies.
This action is effective upon publication.
Michele Richoux, EPA Clean School Bus Program, by phone at 202-250-8852 or by email at
The National Environmental Policy Act, as amended at, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 (NEPA), requires all Federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their actions. Congress enacted NEPA in order to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humans and the environment, recognizing the profound impact of human activity and the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare of humankind. 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331. NEPA's twin aims are to ensure agencies consider the environmental effects of their proposed actions in their decision-making processes and inform and involve the public in that process. 42 U.S.C. 4331. NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which promulgated NEPA implementing regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 (CEQ regulations).
To comply with NEPA, agencies determine the appropriate level of review—an environmental impact statement (EIS), environmental assessment (EA), or CE. 42 U.S.C. 4336. If a proposed action is likely to have significant environmental effects, the agency must prepare an EIS and document its decision in a record of decision. 42 U.S.C. 4336. If the proposed action is not likely to have significant environmental effects or the effects are unknown, the agency may instead prepare an EA, which involves a more concise analysis and process than an EIS. 42 U.S.C. 4336. Following the EA, the agency may conclude the process with a finding of no significant impact if the analysis shows that the action will have no significant effects. If the analysis in the EA finds that the action is likely to have significant effects, however, then an EIS is required.
Under NEPA and the CEQ regulations, a Federal agency also can establish CEs—categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment—in their agency NEPA procedures. 42 U.S.C. 4336(e)(1); 40 CFR 1501.4, 1507.3(e)(2)(ii), 1508.1(d). If an agency determines that a CE covers a proposed action, it then evaluates the proposed action for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant effect. 40 CFR 1501.4(b). If no extraordinary circumstances are present or if further analysis determines that the extraordinary circumstances do not involve the potential for significant environmental impacts, the agency may apply the CE to the proposed action without preparing an EA or EIS. 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), 40 CFR 1501.4. If the extraordinary circumstances have the potential to result in significant effects, the agency is required to prepare an EA or EIS.
Section 109 of NEPA, enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, allows a Federal agency to “adopt” or use another agency's CEs for a category of proposed agency actions. 42 U.S.C. 4336(c). To use another agency's CEs under section 109, an agency must identify the relevant CEs listed in another agency's (“establishing agency”) NEPA procedures that cover its category of proposed actions or related actions; consult with the establishing agency to ensure that the proposed adoption of the CE to a category of actions is appropriate; identify to the public the CE that the agency plans to use for its proposed actions; and document adoption of the CE.
The Clean School Bus Program provides funding to eligible entities to incentivize and accelerate the replacement of existing school buses with clean and zero emissions school buses. Eligible activities include the replacement of existing internal-combustion engine school buses with electric, propane, or compressed natural gas school buses, as well as the purchase of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) (also referred to as Electric Vehicle Charging Stations) and EVSE installations. Eligible entities include state and local governmental entities that provide bus service, including public school districts; eligible contractors; nonprofit school transportation associations; Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, or Tribally-controlled schools responsible for the purchase, lease, license, or contract for service of school buses or for providing school bus service for a Bureau of Indian Affairs funded school.
DOE's electric vehicle charging stations CE is codified in DOE's NEPA procedures as CE B5.23 of 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B, as follows:
The installation, modification, operation, and removal of electric vehicle charging stations, using commercially available technology, within a previously disturbed or developed area. Covered actions are limited to areas where access and parking are in accordance with applicable requirements (such as local land use and zoning requirements) in the proposed project area and would incorporate appropriate control technologies and best management practices.
“Previously disturbed or developed” refers to land that has been changed such that its functioning ecological processes have been and remain altered by human activity. The phrase encompasses areas that have been transformed from natural cover to nonnative species or a managed state, including, but not limited to, utility and electric power transmission corridors and rights-of-way, and other areas where active utilities and currently used roads are readily available. 10 CFR 1021.410(g)(1).
The DOE CE also includes additional conditions referred to as integral elements (10 CFR part 1021 subpt. D, app. B). In order to apply this CE, the proposal must be one that would not:
(1) Threaten a violation of applicable statutory, regulatory, or permit requirements for environment, safety, and health, or similar requirements of EPA
(2) Require siting and construction or major expansion of waste storage, disposal, recovery, or treatment facilities (including incinerators), but the proposal may include categorically excluded waste storage, disposal, recovery, or treatment actions or facilities;
(3) Disturb hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or CERCLA excluded petroleum and natural gas products that preexist in the environment such that there would be uncontrolled or unpermitted releases;
(4) Have the potential to cause significant impacts on environmentally sensitive resources. An environmentally sensitive resource is typically a resource that has been identified as needing protection through Executive Order, statute, or regulation by Federal, state, or local government, or a federally recognized Indian tribe. An action may be categorically excluded if, although sensitive resources are present, the action would not have the potential to cause significant impacts on those resources (such as construction of a building with its foundation well above a sole-source aquifer or upland surface soil removal on a site that has wetlands). Environmentally sensitive resources include, but are not limited to:
(i) Property (such as sites, buildings, structures, and objects) of historic, archeological, or architectural significance designated by a Federal, state, or local government, federally recognized Indian tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization, or property determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places;
(ii) Federally listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat (including critical habitat) or Federally proposed or candidate species or their habitat (Endangered Species Act); state listed or state-proposed endangered or threatened species or their habitat; Federally-protected marine mammals and Essential Fish Habitat (Marine Mammal Protection Act; Magnuson-
(iii) Floodplains and wetlands;
(iv) Areas having a special designation such as Federally- and state designated wilderness areas, national parks, national monuments, national natural landmarks, wild and scenic rivers, state and Federal wildlife refuges, scenic areas (such as National Scenic and Historic Trails or National Scenic Areas), and marine sanctuaries;
(v) Prime or unique farmland, or other farmland of statewide or local importance, as defined at 7 CFR 658.2(a), “Farmland Protection Policy Act: Definitions,” or its successor;
(vi) Special sources of water (such as sole-source aquifers, wellhead protection areas, and other water sources that are vital in a region); and
(vii) Tundra, coral reefs, or rain forests; or
(5) Involve genetically engineered organisms, synthetic biology, governmentally designated noxious weeds, or invasive species, unless the proposed activity would be contained or confined in a manner designed and operated to prevent unauthorized release into the environment and conducted in accordance with applicable requirements, such as those of the Department of Agriculture, EPA, and the National Institutes of Health.
EPA intends to apply this categorical exclusion to electric vehicle charging station projects undertaken directly by EPA or that are financed in whole or in part through Federal funding opportunities, including those administered by the EPA Clean School Bus Program. The CE allows for the installation, modification, operation, and removal of electric vehicle charging stations. EPA will consider each proposal for the installation, modification, operation, or removal of electric vehicle charging stations to ensure that the proposal is within the scope of the CE. EPA intends to apply this CE in a manner consistent with DOE's application—to the same types of proposals (which have included a wide variety of locations on and off Federal property, differences in local conditions, various numbers of electric vehicle charging stations per proposal, and different types of equipment and technologies including Level 1, Level 2, and DC Fast Charging stations).
When applying this CE, EPA will evaluate the proposed action to ensure evaluation of the integral elements listed above. In addition, in considering extraordinary circumstances, EPA will consider whether the proposed action has the potential to result in significant effects as described in DOE's extraordinary circumstances listed at 10 CFR 1021.410(b)(2). DOE defines extraordinary circumstances as unique situations presented by specific proposals, including, but not limited to, scientific controversy about the environmental effects of the proposal; uncertain effects or effects involving unique or unknown risks; and unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.
EPA and DOE consulted on the appropriateness of EPA's adoption of the CE in October 2023. EPA and DOE's consultation included a review of DOE's experience developing and applying the CE, as well as the types of actions for which EPA plans to utilize the CE. These EPA actions are very similar to the type of projects for which DOE has applied the CE and therefore the impacts of EPA projects will be very similar to the impacts of DOE projects, which are not significant, absent the existence of extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, EPA has determined that its proposed use of the CE as described in this notice is appropriate.
This notice serves to identify to the public and document EPA's adoption of DOE's CE for electric vehicle charging stations. The notice identifies the types of actions to which EPA will apply the CE, as well as the considerations that EPA will use in determining whether an action is within the scope of the CE.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces the availability of and solicits public comment on the following Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA is planning to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): “Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act,” identified by EPA ICR No. 2446.04 and OMB Control No. 2070-0185. This ICR represents a renewal of an existing ICR that is currently approved through September 30, 2024. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0456, through
Katherine Sleasman, Mission Support Division (7602M), Office of Program Support, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 556-1204; email address:
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
There is an overall increase of 371,503 hours for the total estimated combined respondent burden from that which is currently approved by OMB. This difference is due to adjustments in EPA's estimates of the costs and burden. Several adjustments to the estimates were made, including revisions to the estimates for producers, TPC and AB; and revisions to labor and cost estimates to reflect 2022 and 2023; and inclusion of 2,241 laminators still using resins that are expected to incur costs and burden starting in 2024.
In addition, OMB has requested that EPA move towards using the 18-question format for ICR Supporting Statements used by other federal agencies and departments and is based on the submission instructions established by OMB in 1995, replacing the alternate format developed by EPA and OMB prior to 1995. Accordingly, EPA updated the Supporting Statement for this ICR to reflect the 18-question format. In doing so, the Agency does not expect the change in format has resulted in substantive changes to the information collection activities or related estimated burden and costs. Comments are specifically sought on the format and presentation of the estimates.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability.
This Notice of Data Availability is to alert stakeholders that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released data on production, consumption, and other activity related to hydrofluorocarbons regulated under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020. The Agency has published these data in the
January 17, 2024.
Rob Landolfi, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division, telephone number: 202-343-9161; or email address:
EPA has published information collected under mandatory reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 84 that support the hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) phasedown specified in the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act or Act) and codified at 42 U.S.C. 7675. Information regarding entities' HFC allowance usage has also been made available.
EPA is providing notice that the Agency has published the following data in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 18, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 18, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0006; -0114 and -0197).
Comments must be submitted on or before March 18, 2024.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza, Regulatory Counsel, 202-898-3767,
1.
2.
3.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of filing dates for special election.
Ohio has scheduled special elections on March 19, 2024, and June 11, 2024, to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat in the 6th Congressional District being vacated by Representative Bill Johnson. Committees required to file reports in connection with the Special Primary Election on March 19, 2024, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report. Committees required to file reports in connection with both the Special Primary and Special General Election on June 11, 2024, shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary, a 12-day Pre-General, and a 30-day Post-General Report.
Ms. Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information Division, 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694-1100; Toll Free (800) 424-9530.
All principal campaign committees of candidates who participate in the Ohio Special Primary and Special General Elections shall file a 12-day Pre-Primary Report on March 7, 2024; a 12-day Pre-General Report on May 30, 2024; and a 30-day Post-General Report on July 11, 2024. (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Note that these reports are in addition to the campaign committee's regular quarterly filings. (See charts below for the closing date for each report).
Political committees not filing monthly are subject to special election reporting if they make previously undisclosed contributions or expenditures in connection with the Ohio Special Primary or Special General Election by the close of books for the applicable report(s). (See charts below for the closing date for each report.)
Committees filing monthly that make contributions or expenditures in connection with the Ohio Special Primary or Special General Elections will continue to file according to the monthly reporting schedule.
Additional disclosure information for the Ohio special elections may be found on the FEC website at
Principal campaign committees, party committees and leadership PACs that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special elections must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L if they receive two or more bundled contributions from lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess of the lobbyist bundling threshold during the special election reporting periods. (See charts below for closing date of each period.) 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v), (b), 110.17(e)(2), (f).
The lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold for calendar year 2023 was $21,800. This threshold amount may change in 2024 based upon the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA). As soon as the adjusted threshold amount is available, the Commission will publish it in the
On behalf of the Commission,
Department
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite the public to comment on an extension concerning Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 3, Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of Federal Government acquisitions, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. OMB has approved this information collection for use through April 30, 2024. DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration date.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will consider all comments received by March 18, 2024.
DoD, GSA, and NASA invite interested persons to submit comments on this collection through
Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, at telephone 202-969-7207, or
9000-0018, Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 3: Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest.
This clearance covers the information that offerors and contractors must submit to comply with the following FAR part 3 requirements:
• FAR 52.203-2, Certificate of Independent Price Determination. This provision requires offerors to include with their offer a certification that their prices have been arrived at independently, have not been or will not be knowingly disclosed, and have not been submitted for the purpose of restricting competition. Prior to making an award, a contracting officer will ensure the offeror has provided the
• FAR 52.203-7, Anti-Kickback Procedures. This clause requires contractors to report in writing to the inspector general of the contracting agency, the head of the contracting agency if the agency does not have an inspector general, or the Attorney General possible violations of 41 U.S.C. chapter 87, Kickbacks. The clause also requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer when monies are withheld from sums owed a subcontractor under the prime contract, when the contracting officer has directed the prime contractor to do so to offset the amount of a kickback. The Federal agency will use the information reported by contractors to investigate suspected violations. The notification to the contracting officer of a withholding of payment to a subcontractor is used to help the contracting officer ensure the amount of a kickback is appropriately offset.
• FAR 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. This clause requires contractors and subcontractors to report to the agency Office of the Inspector General when the contractor has credible evidence that a principal, employee, agent, or subcontractor has committed a violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations found in title 18 U.S.C., or a violation of the Civil False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729-3733). The Federal agency will use the information reported by contractors to investigate suspected violations.
• FAR 52.203-16, Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest. This clause requires contractors and subcontractors to obtain and maintain from each employee a disclosure of interests that might be affected by the task to which the employee has been assigned under the contract. Contractors and subcontractors must report to the contracting officer any personal conflict of interest violation by an employee and the proposed corrective/follow-up actions to be taken. In exceptional circumstances, the contractor may request the head of the contracting activity approve a plan to mitigate a personal conflict of interest or waive the requirement to prevent personal conflicts of interest. The information is used by the contractor and the contracting officer to identify and mitigate personal conflicts of interest.
Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection regarding Federal Supply Schedule contract administration information.
Submit comments on or before: February 16, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Ms. Vernita Misidor, Procurement Analyst, at
GSA requires information from Federal Supply Schedule contractors that will be used to conduct award oversight or generate mandatory reports during contract administration. For these contractors, providing commercial supplies and services, much of this information is readily available to the public at large, or is routinely exchanged by firms during the normal course of business. This general information collection covers these contract administration requirements, as outlined in GSAR Subpart 538.2—Establishing and Administering Federal Supply Schedules.
This information collection requires no expenditure of resources to gather the information for submission, as the information is often exchanged by commercial business firms in their catalogs or other public documents during the normal course of business. The nominal amount of burden imposed on the public is simply to relay the requested information.
A 60-day notice was published in the
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Aerosols from cyanobacterial blooms: Exposures and Health Effects in a Highly Exposed Population” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on October 16, 2023 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to this 30-day notice.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Aerosols from Cyanobacterial Blooms: Exposures and Health Effects in a Highly Exposed Population (OMB Control No. 0920-1316, Exp. 1/31/2024)—Extension—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), requests a three-year Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance for a renewal of the information collection request titled Aerosols from Cyanobacterial Blooms: Exposures and Health Effects in a Highly Exposed Population. NCEH is authorized to conduct research under the Public Health Service Act, Section 301, “Research and investigation,” (42 U.S.C. 241).
Toxins produced by blooms of algae, cyanobacteria, and seaweed (herein called harmful algal blooms or HABS) are among the most potent natural chemicals. Exposure to these toxins can induce a wide variety of reported and documented effects in people and animals. Published studies demonstrate that people and animals are at risk for health effects from exposure to HABS, whether through eating contaminated food, drinking contaminated water, or inhaling contaminated aerosols. Although there is substantial published work describing the public health impacts from these blooms, unanswered questions remain, including quantitative assessments of exposure and characterization of the clinical presentations of illnesses associated with HAB exposures.
HAB events and associated environmental impacts (
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 1,273 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled ”National Surveillance of Community Water Systems and Corresponding Populations with the Recommended Fluoridation Level” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on August 21, 2023 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received three comments related to the previous notice. All comments were determined to be outside the scope of this project. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Surveillance of Community Water Systems and Corresponding Populations with the Recommended Fluoridation Level (OMB Control No. 0920-1319, Exp. 2/29/2024)—Extension—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Community water fluoridation is the process of adjusting the fluoride concentration of a community water system (CWS) to the level beneficial for prevention of dental caries as recommended by the US Public Health Service (PHS). CWS fluoridation is a major factor contributing to the large decline in caries in the U.S. in the past 75 years and is recognized as one of 10 great public health achievements of the twentieth century. Community water fluoridation reduces dental caries by 25% and is a safe and the most cost-effective way to deliver fluoride to people of all ages, regardless of education and income level. It is especially important for populations with limited access to preventive dental measures.
CDC is authorized to collect the information under the Public Health Service Act. This data collection aligns with CDC's strategy to use public health surveillance to inform programs and policies to improve the oral health of the nation by reducing disparities and expanding access to effective prevention programs. CDC uses the Water Fluoridation Reporting System (WFRS) to collect water fluoridation coverage and quality throughout the US. Respondents to the information collection are state fluoridation managers or other state government officials designated by the state dental director or drinking water administrator. State participation in the data collection is voluntary. This data allows CDC and states to monitor the performance and efficiency of their water fluoridation programs, which will improve and extend program delivery.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 2,783 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Statement in Support of Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility Under Immigration and Nationality Act” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on November 3, 2023 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Statement in Support of Application for Waiver of Inadmissibility Under Immigration and Nationality Act (OMB Control No. 0920-0006)—Reinstatement with Change—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 212(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that aliens with specific health related conditions are ineligible for admission into the United States. The Attorney General may waive application of this inadmissibility on health-related grounds if an application for waiver is filed and approved by the consular office considering the application for visa. CDC uses this application primarily to collect information to establish and maintain records of waiver applicants in order to notify the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services when terms, conditions and controls imposed by waiver are not met.
CDC is updating the name, signature, title and address of US public health service reviewing official field on the information collection form 4.422-1 because the previously listed individual has retired and no longer completes this action. The name, signature, title and address will be updated to reflect the current Branch Chief of the Immigrant Refugee and Migrant Health Branch in DGMH. CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 33 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is requesting a 3-year extension of the State Plan for Grants to States for Refugee Resettlement (Office of Management and Budget #0970-0351, expiration 6/30/2024). ORR is proposing changes to the form.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
ORR proposes the following changes to the previously approved State Plan for Grants to States for Refugee Resettlement:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by February 16, 2024.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
This information collection supports Agency regulation, guidance, and associated Form FDA 3880. Under section 413(a)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)(2)), the manufacturer or distributor of a new dietary ingredient (NDI) or a dietary supplement that contains the NDI, must submit an NDI notification (NDIN) to FDA (as delegate for the Secretary of Health and Human Services) at least 75 days before introducing the product into interstate commerce, unless the NDI and any other dietary ingredients in the dietary supplement “have been present in the food supply as an article used for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered” (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)(1)).
The notification must contain the information, including any citation to published articles, which provides the basis on which the manufacturer or distributor of the NDI or dietary supplement (the notifier) has concluded that the dietary supplement containing the NDI will reasonably be expected to be safe (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)(2)). If the required premarket notification is not submitted to FDA, section 413(a) of the
Section 190.6 (21 CFR 190.6) specifies the information a notifier must include in its NDIN and establishes the administrative procedures for these notifications. Section 190.6(a) requires each manufacturer or distributor of an NDI, or of a dietary supplement containing an NDI, to submit to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's (CFSAN's) Office of Dietary Supplement Programs (ODSP) notification of the basis for their conclusion that said supplement or ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe. Section 190.6(b) requires that the notification include the following: (1) the complete name and address of the manufacturer or distributor, (2) the name of the NDI, (3) a description of the dietary supplement(s) that contain the NDI, including the level of the new dietary ingredient in the dietary supplement and the dietary supplement's conditions of use, (4) the history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the dietary ingredient will reasonably be expected to be safe when used under the conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement, and (5) the signature of a responsible person designated by the manufacturer or distributor.
These NDIN requirements are designed to enable us to monitor the introduction into the marketplace of NDIs and dietary supplements that contain NDIs in order to protect consumers from ingredients and products whose safety is unknown. We use the information collected in the NDINs to evaluate more efficiently the safety of NDIs in dietary supplements and to support regulatory action against ingredients and products that are potentially unsafe.
FDA developed guidance to further assist industry with NDINs. In the
The 2016 revised draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to provide instruction and further assist industry in deciding when a premarket safety notification for a dietary supplement containing an NDI is necessary and in preparing an NDIN. The draft guidance discusses in question-and-answer format FDA's views on what qualifies as an NDI, when an NDIN is required, the types of data and information that manufacturers and distributors should consider when they evaluate the safety of a dietary supplement containing an NDI, and what should be included in an NDIN as well as other topics. We intend to divide the 2016 revised draft guidance into discrete sections for ease of use, consistent with stakeholder requests (including from industry) submitted in the form of comments to the docket for the draft guidance, and issue a series of several guidances. These guidances will reflect, among other things, public comments submitted to the docket in response to the 2011 draft guidance and the 2016 revised draft guidance. Sections of the 2016 revised draft guidance that FDA is prioritizing to issue at this time address administrative procedures, identity, safety, and master files. Per our standard process, FDA will announce guidance documents we plan to issue within a calendar year via our FDA Foods Program Guidance Agenda, available at
The recommendations found in section V, NDI Notification Procedures and Timeframes, of the 2016 revised draft guidance and certain recommendations in section IV.C., Other Questions About When an NDI Notification Is Necessary, provide instruction for certain ways manufacturers and distributors can reduce the number of NDINs they must file and provide some clarification with regard to when data and information from a previous NDIN may be used in a notification. We recommend that certain information should be provided in list form for ease of reference and to help ensure completeness.
Certain recommendations found in the 2016 revised draft guidance, section IV.C., Determining Whether a New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) Notification Is Required; Other Questions About When an NDI Notification Is Necessary, discusses information that should be included if referring to non-public information from a previous notification. Such information to include with a notification could involve written authorization to reference information from another firm. The option to reference certain information from a previous notification should reduce notifiers' burden for preparing and submitting identity, manufacturing, and safety information.
We encourage manufacturers or distributors of NDIs to submit their NDINs electronically via the CFSAN Online Submission Module (COSM). Although we encourage electronic submission, notifiers also have the option of submitting a paper NDIN for us to review. The recommendations found in the 2016 revised draft guidance, section V, Recommended Template for Organizing an NDI Notification, recommend that information in a paper NDIN should be organized in a specific manner, and that some information should be provided in list form, for ease of reference and to ensure completeness. Doing so will help notifiers provide a complete, well-organized NDIN, which should facilitate an efficient and timely FDA review.
These sections of the 2016 revised draft guidance provide instruction and help dietary supplement manufacturers and distributors understand what to
Certain recommendations found in the 2016 revised draft guidance, section VI.A., What to Include in an NDI Notification; Identity Information About the NDI and the Dietary Supplement, provide instruction and discuss information that is important in describing the identity of an NDI and the dietary supplement containing the NDI. We will recommend that certain information should be provided in table form for ease of reference and to help ensure completeness.
Certain recommendations in the 2016 revised draft guidance, sections VI.B., History of Use or Other Evidence of Safety, and VI.C., Summary of the Basis for Your Conclusion of Safety, as well as table 3, the Safety Testing Recommendations Matrix, provide instruction and discuss information that is important in describing the basis for which a dietary supplement containing the NDI will reasonably be expected to be safe. While the FD&C Act does not specify the type or amount of information that must be included in an NDIN, the notification should include a dietary supplement safety narrative containing the objective evaluation of the history of use or other evidence of safety cited in the notification, along with an explanation of how the evidence of safety provides a basis to conclude that the dietary supplement containing the NDI, when used under the conditions described in the NDIN, will reasonably be expected to be safe. Once finalized, the recommendations will instruct and help dietary supplement manufacturers and distributors understand what to consider when evaluating the safety of a dietary supplement containing an NDI and what should be included in an NDIN in this regard.
We developed an electronic portal that respondents may use to electronically submit their notifications to ODSP via COSM. COSM assists respondents filing regulatory submissions and is specifically designed to aid users wishing to file submissions with CFSAN. COSM allows safety and other information to be uploaded and submitted online via Form FDA 3880. This form provides a standard format to describe the history of use or other evidence of safety on which the manufacturer or distributor bases its conclusion that the NDI is reasonably expected to be safe under the conditions of use recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement, as well as a description of the ingredient and other information. Firms that prefer to submit a paper notification in a format of their own choosing have the option to do so; however, Form FDA 3880 prompts a notifier to input the elements of an NDIN in a standard format that we will be able to review efficiently. Form FDA 3880 may be accessed at
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Our estimate is based on our experience with information collections related to past NDIN submissions. The estimated burden also reflects an industry average, although the burden associated with individual submissions may vary depending on the complexity of the notification. Due to a program change, we are revising this information collection request to include recommendations found in the 2016 revised draft guidance. Therefore, we have increased our total burden hour estimate by 335. However, the number of respondents remains the same.
We estimate that 55 respondents each submits 1 NDIN annually. We estimate that extracting and summarizing the relevant information from what exists in the company's files and presenting it in a format that meets the requirements of § 190.6 will take approximately 20 hours of work per notification. We believe that the burden of the premarket notification requirement is reasonable because we are requesting only safety and identity information that the manufacturer or distributor should already have developed to satisfy itself that a dietary supplement containing the NDI is in compliance with the FD&C Act. If the required premarket notification is not submitted to FDA, section 413(a) of the FD&C Act provides that the dietary supplement containing the NDI is deemed to be adulterated under section 402(f) of the FD&C Act. Even if the notification is submitted as required, the dietary supplement containing the NDI is adulterated under section 402(f) of the FD&C Act unless there is a history of use or other evidence of safety establishing that the NDI, when used under the conditions recommended or suggested in the labeling of the dietary supplement, will reasonably be expected to be safe. This requirement is separate from and additional to the requirement to submit a premarket notification for the NDI.
FDA's regulation on NDINs, § 190.6(a), requires the manufacturer or distributor of the NDI or dietary supplement containing the NDI to submit to FDA the information that forms the basis for its conclusion that the NDI, or dietary supplement containing the NDI, will reasonably be expected to be safe. Thus, § 190.6 only requires the manufacturer or distributor to extract and summarize information that should have already been developed to meet the safety
We estimate that 95 percent of respondents submit electronically, leaving about 3 who submit their NDIN in paper format (5% × 55 = 2.75, rounded up to 3). However, we have seen a trend of decreased paper submissions over the past 2 years and expect usage to remain low. Thus, we estimate only one NDIN will be submitted in paper format. We estimate that information in this NDIN regarding the table of contents, names of contacts, and reference lists will be provided in list form. Because the underlying information should be already readily available, we estimate that it will take about 60 minutes to prepare the information in list form, which would create a burden of 1 hour (1 × 1 hour).
We estimate that 10 notifiers will each reference information once from a previous notification and will provide written authorization to do so. We estimate that it will take about 24 minutes to prepare a written authorization. We calculate that the burden for this activity will be 4 hours annually (10 notifiers × 1 authorization × 0.4 hour).
We estimate that 55 notifiers each will provide identity specifications in table form with their NDIN submissions. Because the underlining information should be already readily available, we estimate that it will take about 1 hour to prepare the information in table form, which would create a burden of 55 hours (55 tables × 1 hour).
We estimate that 55 notifiers each will provide information about the manufacturing process with their NDIN submissions. We estimate that it will take about 5 hours to prepare this information, which would create a burden of 275 hours (55 manufacturing process × 5 hours).
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice; correction.
HRSA published a document in the
Kim Morrison, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, 20857; 240-485-8419; or
In the
In the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 18, 2024.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
The proposed changes include additional components under “Access to Care” and “Population Demographic” sections that seek information about target population, counties served, direct services, and social determinants of health such as transportation barriers, housing, and food insecurity. Questions about Health Information Technology and Telehealth have been modified to reflect an updated telehealth definition and to improve understanding of how these important technologies are affecting HRSA award recipients. Sections previously titled “Care Coordination” and “Quality Improvement” were consolidated into one section titled “Care Coordination and Network Infrastructure” to improve clarity and ease of reporting for respondents. Part of the previous “Care Coordination” section was revised to include a section titled “Utilization” to improve clarity of instructions for related measures. Previously titled “Staffing” section was revised to “Leadership and Workforce Composition” to improve measure clarity and reduce overall burden for respondents by consolidating measures from previously separate “Staffing,” “Quality Improvement,” and “Care Coordination” sections. Revised National Quality Forum and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services measures were also included to allow uniform collection efforts throughout the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy.
The total number of measures has increased from 40 to 48 measures since the previous information collection request. Of the 48 measures, 11 measures are designated as “optional” or “complete as applicable.” The measures within Section 6: “Electronic Health Record” are noted as optional to grantees. In Section 9: “Clinical Measures/Improved Health Outcomes,” grantees are only required to respond to Clinical Measure 1: Care Coordination. Grantees can choose to provide data for Clinical Measures 2-10 if applicable to their projects. The total number of responses has remained at 10 since the previous information collection request. The new Care Coordination Program grant cycle maintained the same number of award recipients and number of respondents.
HRSA specifically requests comments on: (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
This notice provides an update of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines to account for last calendar
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201.
For information about how the guidelines are used or how income is defined in a particular program, contact the Federal, State, or local office that is responsible for that program. For information about poverty figures for immigration forms, the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program, and the number of people in poverty, use the specific telephone numbers and addresses given below.
For general questions about the poverty guidelines themselves, contact Kendall Swenson, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Room 404E.3, Humphrey Building, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201—telephone: (202) 695-2107—or visit
For general questions about the poverty guidelines themselves, visit
For information about the percentage multiple of the poverty guidelines to be used on immigration forms such as USCIS Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, contact U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at 1-800-375-5283. You also may visit
For information about the Hill-Burton Uncompensated Services Program (free or reduced-fee health care services at certain hospitals and other facilities for persons meeting eligibility criteria involving the poverty guidelines), visit
For information about the number of people in poverty, visit the Poverty section of the Census Bureau's website at
Section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to update the poverty guidelines at least annually, adjusting them on the basis of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The poverty guidelines are used as an eligibility criterion by Medicaid and a number of other Federal programs. The
As required by law, this update is accomplished by increasing the latest published Census Bureau poverty thresholds by the relevant percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The guidelines in this 2024 notice reflect the 4.1 percent price increase between calendar years 2022 and 2023. After this inflation adjustment, the guidelines are rounded and adjusted to standardize the differences between family sizes. In rare circumstances, the rounding and standardizing adjustments in the formula result in small decreases in the poverty guidelines for some household sizes even when the inflation factor is not negative. In cases where the year-to-year change in inflation is not negative and the rounding and standardizing adjustments in the formula result in reductions to the guidelines from the previous year for some household sizes, the guidelines for the affected household sizes are fixed at the prior year's guidelines. As in prior years, these 2024 guidelines are roughly equal to the poverty thresholds for calendar year 2023 which the Census Bureau expects to publish in final form in September 2024.
The poverty guidelines continue to be derived from the Census Bureau's current official poverty thresholds; they are not derived from the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).
The following guideline figures represent annual income.
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $5,380 for each additional person.
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $6,730 for each additional person.
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $6,190 for each additional person.
Separate poverty guideline figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the 1966-1970 period. (Note that the Census Bureau poverty thresholds—the version of the poverty measure used for statistical purposes—have never had separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii.) The poverty guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico or other outlying jurisdictions. In cases in which a Federal program using the poverty guidelines serves any of those jurisdictions, the Federal office that administers the program is generally responsible for deciding whether to use the contiguous-states-and-DC guidelines for those jurisdictions or to follow some other procedure.
Due to confusing legislative language dating back to 1972, the poverty guidelines sometimes have been mistakenly referred to as the “OMB” (Office of Management and Budget) poverty guidelines or poverty line. In fact, OMB has never issued the guidelines; the guidelines are issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The poverty
Some federal programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines (for example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines), as noted in relevant authorizing legislation or program regulations. Non-Federal organizations that use the poverty guidelines under their own authority in non-federally-funded activities also may choose to use a percentage multiple of the guidelines.
The poverty guidelines do not make a distinction between farm and non-farm families, or between aged and non-aged units. (Only the Census Bureau poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non-aged one-person and two-person units.)
This notice does not provide definitions of such terms as “income” or “family” as there is considerable variation of these terms among programs that use the poverty guidelines. The legislation or regulations governing each program define these terms and determine how the program applies the poverty guidelines. In cases where legislation or regulations do not establish these definitions, the entity that administers or funds the program is responsible to define such terms as “income” and “family.” Therefore, questions such as net or gross income, counted or excluded income, or household size should be directed to the entity that administers or funds the program.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) announces the public webinar “Implementing Computational Approaches for Regulatory Safety Assessments.” The webinar is organized on behalf of ICCVAM by the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM). Interested persons may participate via the web meeting platform. Time will be allotted for questions from the audience. Information about the webinar and registration are available at
Webinar web page:
Dr. Helena Hogberg, Staff Scientist, NICEATM, email:
Computational toxicology methods can be useful for generating bioactivity predictions for chemicals for which limited toxicity data are available. They can also help users understand and interpret large, diverse bioactivity data sets, or predict how a chemical might behave in the body. However, users with limited experience with such methods may find it difficult to use them or interpret their outputs, or even understand how the methods could be applied in a specific context.
This webinar will discuss how to establish confidence in computational approaches for regulatory applications. Ongoing activities and key insights will be described in three presentations by speakers from the U.S. government and the private sector focusing on applications of tools such as structure-based models to predict chemical bioactivity and pharmacokinetic models to support understanding of chemical metabolism and disposition. The preliminary agenda and additional information about presentations will be posted at
The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285
NICEATM administers ICCVAM, provides support for ICCVAM-related activities, and conducts and publishes analyses and evaluations of data from new, revised, and alternative testing approaches. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved testing approaches applicable to the needs of U.S. Federal agencies. NICEATM and ICCVAM welcome the public nomination of new,
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications/contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications/contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Dr. Cara Long, Health Science Policy Analyst, Office of Science Policy and Planning, NINDS, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Room 8A52, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number (301) 496-9271, or email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
The tracker follows minimization principles: it only collects relevant and necessary information to accomplish the purposes of program evaluation and communication, and it will interface with and pull in relevant information from existing NIH database systems database systems to minimize reporting burden. The database grants NINDS awardees the right to access their data held by NINDS and the ability to copy and correct any information errors. The information collection is consistent with NINDS's mission and mandate to conduct and support training in neuroscience (Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 285(j)). Also, this database aligns with the NIH-wide strategic plan to advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) through research and support analyses to identify and remove potential barriers to the implementation and expansion of promising and effective DEIA practices, policies, and procedures (Objective 3).
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 167.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Dr. Kimberly LeBlanc, Scientific Program Manager, Division of Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, C/O NIH Mail Center/Dock 11, 3WFN Room 09C77, MSC 6021, Gaithersburg, MD 20877 (20892 for USPS), or call non-toll-free number (301) 827-4102, or Email your request, including your address, to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Audience feedback activities will include a mix of asynchronous and scheduled, live data collection: web-based survey activities, virtual discussion boards, individual interviews, and discussions groups. Assembling a cohort of audience feedback participants who are familiar with the ABCD Study and participate in multiple data collection activities minimizes the burden required to familiarize new participants with the purpose of the Study and the expectations for audience feedback.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 172.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council (NAC) will meet on February 27, 2024, 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (EST).
The meeting is open to the public and will include consideration of minutes from the SAMHSA CSAT NAC meeting of August 29, 2023, a discussion with SAMHSA leadership, a discussion on housing and homelessness, a discussion on the activities of the Interdepartmental Substance Use Disorders Coordinating Committee, and a discussion on the following CSAT programs, the Minority Fellowship Program, the Center of Excellence, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities Center of Excellence in Behavioral Health. This meeting will also cover updates on CSAT activities from the Office of the Director; the Division of Pharmacologic Therapies; the Division of States and Community Systems; the Division of Services Improvement; Office of Program Analysis and Coordination; Office of Performance Analysis and Management.
The meeting will be held at SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 5N76, Rockville, MD 20857. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available and will be limited to the open sessions of the meeting. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations must notify the contact person, Tracy Goss, CSAT NAC Designated Federal Officer (DFO) on or before February 16, 2024. Up two minutes will be allotted for each approved public comment as time permits. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be considered for inclusion in the official record.
The open meeting session may also be accessed virtually. Please register on-line at
Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee website at
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting on February 27, 2024, of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council (CMHS NAC).
The meeting is open to the public and will include consideration of the meeting minutes from the August 29, 2023, SAMHSA, CMHS NAC meeting; updates from the CMHS Director; remarks from SAMHSA's Assistant Secretary; updates on Statewide Consumer Network Grants; updates on Subcommittee Tasks; Legislative updates; and Tribal updates. Agenda with call-in information will be posted on the SAMHSA website prior to the meeting at:
The meeting will be held at SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 5W11, Rockville, MD 20857. Attendance by the public will be
The open meeting session may also be accessed virtually. Please register on-line at
Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee website at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with foreign species that are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is issued that allows such activities. The ESA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing permits for any activity otherwise prohibited by the ESA with respect to any endangered species.
We must receive comments by February 16, 2024.
•
•
For more information, see Public Comment Procedures under
Timothy MacDonald, by phone at 703-358-2185 or via email at
We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods in
When submitting comments, please specify the name of the applicant and the permit number at the beginning of your comment. Provide sufficient information to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.
You may view and comment on others' public comments at
If you submit a comment at
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite comments on the following applications.
The applicant requests authorization to import biological samples derived from E. rufous mouse lemur [
The applicant requests a permit to export two captive-bred Coquerel's sifakas (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
After the comment period closes, we will make decisions regarding permit issuance. If we issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from St. John Methodist Church of Sebring Inc. (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed sand skink (
We must receive your written comments on or before February 16, 2024.
•
•
Alfredo Begazo, by telephone at 772-469-4234 or via email at
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from St. John Methodist Church of Sebring Inc. (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a 5-year ITP to take skinks via the conversion of approximately 1.33 acres (ac) of occupied nesting, foraging, and sheltering skink habitat incidental to the construction and operation of a church on a 16.33-ac parcel in Section 22, Township 34 South, Range 28 East, Highlands County, Florida. The applicant proposes to mitigate for take of the skinks by purchasing credits equivalent to 2.66 ac of skink-occupied habitat from a Service-approved conservation bank. The Service would require the applicant to purchase the credits prior to engaging in any construction phase of the project.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project, including the construction of a church, driveways, parking spaces, green areas, stormwater pond, and associated infrastructure (
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments to determine whether to issue the requested permit. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue ITP number PER5348829 to St. John Methodist Church of Sebring Inc.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of permit application; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for an
We must receive your written comments on or before February 16, 2024.
•
•
For more information, see Public Comments and Public Availability of Comments, under
Joseph Terry, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, or Ryan Olah, Supervisor, Coast Bay Division, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, by phone at 916-414-6600. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment, prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered; as applicable to the species affected by the proposed action, the ESA implementing regulations also prohibit take of fish or wildlife species listed as threatened, including the Central California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog, with exceptions for certain ranching activities on private and Tribal lands as described in 50 CFR 17.43(c)(3)(i)-(xi) and 50 CFR 17.43(d)(3)(i)-(xi). Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32. For more about the Federal habitat conservation plan (HCP) program, go to
The proposed ITP issuance triggers the need for NEPA compliance (42 U.S.C. 4321
Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the Service would issue an ITP to the applicant for a period of 32 years for certain covered activities (described below). The applicant has requested an ITP for three federally listed species, one Federal candidate species, and one non-listed species protected by the Eagle Act (described below).
The geographic scope of the draft HCP encompasses a 398-acre (ac) project permit area and a 453-ac mitigation permit area. The project permit area comprises an approximately 398-ac site where the power-generating facilities and battery energy storage system would be constructed in the unincorporated North Livermore area of Alameda County, California, approximately 2.25 miles north of the Livermore city limits and Interstate 580. The project permit area is bounded by Manning Road to the north, North Livermore Avenue to the east, and a private driveway to the south. The mitigation permit area is a 453-ac site located at Vieira Ranch, south of Patterson Pass Road and north of Tesla Road, in unincorporated eastern Alameda County, California.
Retrofitting power poles with a high risk of avian electrocution in accordance with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee guidelines is the only form of compensatory mitigation that enables benefits to golden eagles to be quantified with reasonable certainty at this time. High-risk poles would be retrofitted within the eagle management unit. To offset the predicted loss of golden eagle productivity due to disturbance take and loss of breeding productivity to one breeding territory in the vicinity of the project permit area and the disturbance of one breeding territory during two breeding seasons at the mitigation permit area, the applicant would need to retrofit approximately 129 to 298 power poles to offset 8.26 fledged young lost at a 1.2:1 ratio. The final power pole number depends on
To address the high cumulative impacts on golden eagle populations in this area, primarily due to mortality from wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, severe drought, and urban development, the applicant's proposed off-site 453-ac habitat mitigation area includes a known golden eagle nest site and overlaps in part with one golden eagle breeding territory. This nest site and the mitigation lands would be protected and managed to benefit golden eagles as described in the draft HCP.
The proposed ESA section 10 ITP would allow take of the California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, San Joaquin kit fox, monarch butterfly, and golden eagle from covered activities in the proposed HCP area, including all ground-disturbing activities and impacts from construction, operation and maintenance activities, and site decommissioning or repowering of the project, as well as activities necessary to implement management actions at the mitigation permit area. Covered activities at the 398-ac project permit area include all ground-disturbing activities and impacts from construction, including: (1) site access, staging, and preparation, including development of access roads, internal project area roads, parking areas, and equipment staging areas, as well as limited excavation activities for utility poles and building foundations; (2) installation of a 100-megawatt solar photovoltaic and electrical collection system, including solar arrays, fencing, and utility lines; (3) installation of a project substation and generation intertie line occupying a 5,000 square foot area, and utility lines; (4) installation of a battery energy storage system occupying a 5-ac portion of the project permit area; (5) construction of an operation and maintenance (O&M) building and electrical controls occupying approximately 400 square-feet of the project permit area; (6) construction of project entrances and internal driveways to provide access for routine maintenance of the system; (7) installation of fences, lighting, and signage designed to enable passage of covered species while keeping the project area secure; (8) construction of a detention basin approximately 0.4 ac in size, designed to avoid water ponding, prevent the discharge of off-site stormwater runoff, allow for onsite infiltration within 48 hours (the basin would be routinely maintained to remove vegetative growth); (9) installation of water storage tanks onsite for fire suppression for the battery energy storage system, use for O&M activities, and to maintain proposed landscaping and vegetation; (10) installation of a agricultural landscaping buffer as a visual screen (
The applicant has requested an ITP for two federally listed threatened species, one federally listed endangered species, one Federal candidate species, and one non-listed species protected by the Eagle Act: the threatened California red-legged frog (
Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not issue an ITP, and the HCP would not be implemented. Permit denial would prevent the applicant from proceeding with the covered activities because there would be no other alternative means of complying with the ESA and Eagle Act. Under the No Action Alternative there would be no take of federally listed species, monarch butterflies, or golden eagles, and permanent protection of habitat for federally listed species, monarch butterflies, and the golden eagle at Vieira Ranch would not occur. The retrofit of power poles would also not occur. Under the No Action Alternative, agricultural uses (dry-land farming and grazing) would continue at the project site, and a new source of renewable solar energy would not be available to public utilities, municipal utilities, or private consumers.
We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice, the draft environmental assessment, and the draft HCP. We particularly seek comments on the following:
1. Biological information concerning the species;
2. Relevant data concerning the species;
3. Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the species;
4. Current or planned activities in the area and their possible impacts on the species;
5. Information on the seasonal use of the mitigation permit area by the monarch butterfly;
6. Information on establishing a monitoring program for the monarch butterfly at the mitigation permit area to inform adaptive management for the benefit of the species;
7. Information on how to enhance, restore, and adaptively manage breeding and nectar habitat for the monarch butterfly at the mitigation permit area while maintaining cattle grazing throughout the mitigation permit area to enhance upland refugia and dispersal
8. Information on how to incorporate climate change into an adaptive management plan at the mitigation permit area for the benefit of the Central California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, San Joaquin kit fox, monarch butterfly, and golden eagle;
9. Information on the effects of photovoltaic solar panels on annual grassland habitat quality, burrowing mammal activity, amphibians (
10. Information on the effects of sheep grazing and chicken rearing on pollinators (
11. The presence of archeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act; and
12. Any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed development and permit action.
Before including your address, phone number, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—might be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Issuance of an incidental take permit is a Federal proposed action subject to compliance with NEPA and section 7 of the ESA. We will evaluate the application, associated documents, and any public comments we receive as part of our NEPA compliance process to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA. If we determine that those requirements are met, we will conduct an intra-Service consultation under section 7 of the ESA for the Federal action for the potential issuance of an ITP. If the intra-Service consultation confirms that issuance of the ITP will not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the covered species.
We publish this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
TF Cibolo Canyons, LP (applicant) has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an amendment to their existing incidental take permit (ITP) supported by the proposed amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan for a portion of the Cibolo Canyon Property (Master Phase II) (HCP) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The requested amendment to the ITP, if approved, would continue authorization of incidental take of the golden-cheeked warbler (
•
•
Please note which documents your comment references. For more information, see Public Availability of Comments.
Karen Myers, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, Austin, Texas; telephone (512) 937-7371. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received and make available a proposed amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan for a portion of the Cibolo Canyon Property (Master Phase II) (HCP) in Bexar County, Texas, and an associated draft screening form. TF Cibolo Canyons, LP (applicant) has applied for an amended incidental take permit (ITP) (TE102437-0) supported by the proposed amendment to their HCP. If approved, the amended permit would continue for the remainder of the 30 years of the original permit to authorize incidental take of the federally listed, endangered golden-cheeked warbler
In addition, in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
1. We have prepared a draft NEPA screening form to evaluate the proposed amendment to the HCP and potential ITP issuance. We are accepting comments on the proposed amendment to the HCP and draft NEPA screening form.
2. The applicant and the Service have developed the proposed amendment to the HCP, which describes the measures the applicant has volunteered to take to meet the issuance criteria for a 10(a)(1)(B) ITP associated with the HCP. The issuance criteria are found at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(2).
3. The HCP would be implemented by the applicant and would remain effective until the expiration of the HCP and associated ITP.
4. As described in the HCP, the potential incidental take of the warbler could result from otherwise lawful activities covered by the HCP.
Section 9 of the ESA and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 17 prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the ESA as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed animal species, or to attempt to engage in such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1538(19)). However, under section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity.
Regulations governing such take of endangered and threatened species are found at 50 CFR 17.21-22 and 50 CFR 17.31-32, respectively.
The proposed action involves the issuance of an amended 10(a)(1)(B) ITP to TF Cibolo Canyons, LP and approval of the proposed amendment to the HCP. The ITP would cover incidental “take” of the species associated with vegetation clearing and construction of homes, apartments, and other such facilities as described in the ITP and HCP.
The existing ITP expires February 18, 2036, and no extension has been requested. The original permit authorized incidental take of the species on 846 acres (ac) and resulted in 768 ac of mitigation on site (May 2, 2005; 70 FR 22682). The proposed amendment would add 144 ac of the original development area to the mitigation lands in exchange for an unoccupied 30-ac tract of the original preserve area, which would reduce the development area from 846 ac to 732 ac and increase the preserve area from 768 ac to 882 ac. The 144 acres being added to the preserve has sufficient habitat to support warblers periodically, while the 30 acres being removed does not contain warbler habitat and, therefore, does not support warblers. The proposed swap will result in less edge-to-area ratio in the preserve area, a reduction in the amount of habitat loss and take of the warbler due to the implementation of the HCP and will provide contiguity between two occupied portions of the preserve.
To meet the requirements of a section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP, the applicant would continue to implement the amended HCP. The HCP describes the conservation measures the applicant has agreed to undertake to minimize and mitigate incidental take, to the maximum extent practicable and ensures that incidental take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of species in the wild.
We will evaluate the ITP application, proposed amendment to the HCP, draft NEPA screening form, and comments we receive to determine whether the HCP application meets the requirements of the ESA, NEPA, and implementing regulations. If we determine that all requirements are met, we will approve the proposed amendment to the HCP and issue the amended ITP to the applicant under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA in accordance with the terms of the HCP and specific terms and conditions of the authorizing ITP. We will not make our final decision until after the 30-day comment period ends, and we have fully considered all comments received during the public comment period.
All comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Requests for copies of comments will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, NEPA, and Service and Department of the Interior policies and procedures. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under the authority of section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed withdrawal extension.
The Secretary of the Interior proposes to extend Public Land Order (PLO) No. 7628 for an additional 20-year term. PLO No. 7628 withdrew 1,960.10 acres of public lands in Big Horn County, Wyoming, from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, to protect the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range. The withdrawal created by PLO No. 7628 will expire on March 7, 2025, unless extended. This notice announces to the public the opportunity to comment on the proposal and announces the date, time, and location of the public meeting to be held in conjunction with this withdrawal extension application.
Interested parties who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the withdrawal extension application may submit their views in writing to the Billings Field Office Manager by April 16, 2024 to the address below. Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will hold a public meeting in connection with the withdrawal extension application on February 29, 2024 at 4 p.m. at the Lovell Community Center, 1925 US 310, Lovell, WY 82431.
Written comments may be mailed or hand delivered to BLM, Billings Field Office Manager, Attn: Pryor Mountain Proposed Withdrawal Extension, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101.
Marzha Fritzler, BLM Realty Specialist, Billings Field Office, (406) 896-5244, or via email at
The withdrawal established by PLO No. 7628 (70 FR 11271, March 8, 2005) and serialized as WYW-152420 will expire on March 7, 2025, unless extended. At the request of the BLM, the Secretary is proposing to extend PLO No. 7628 for an additional 20-year term for the protection of wild horse and wildlife habitat, and watershed, recreation, cultural, and scenic values within the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range.
The proposed withdrawal extension would encompass the same 1,960.10 acres withdrawn in 2005 by PLO No. 7628. The BLM has updated the legal description of the lands to conform to Specifications for Descriptions of Land Status (2017) and described as follows:
The area described contains 1,960.10 acres.
The use of a right-of-way would not provide adequate protection.
There are no suitable alternative sites available.
Water is required and protected pursuant to a Public Water Reserve No. 107, established pursuant to an Executive order dated April 17, 1926.
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Billings Field Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101, during regular business.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask the BLM in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This withdrawal extension proposal will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2310.4.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 16, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 18, 2024.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Mark Gehlhar, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, Room 4556-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 18, 2024.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Mark Gehlhar, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1849 C Street NW, Room 4556-MIB, Washington, DC 20240, or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Mark Gehlhar by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
We are soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of remand proceedings.
The U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) hereby gives notice of the procedures it intends to follow to comply with the court-ordered remand of its final determination in the antidumping duty investigation of methionine from Spain. For further information concerning the conduct of these remand proceedings and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
January 11, 2024.
Calvin Chang ((202) 205-3358), Office of Investigations, or Noah Meyer ((202) 708-1521), Office of General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
The comments must be based solely on the information in the Commission's record. The Commission will reject submissions containing additional factual information or arguments pertaining to issues other than those on which the court has remanded this matter. The deadline for filing comments is Feb 16, 2024. Comments must be limited to no more than ten (10) double-spaced and single-sided pages of textual material, inclusive of attachments and exhibits.
Parties are advised to consult with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for provisions of general applicability concerning written submissions to the Commission. All written submissions must conform to the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings at this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, will not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
January 24, 2024 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-684 and 731-TA-1597 (Final) (Gas Powered Pressure Washers from China). The Commission currently is scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on February 5, 2024.
5.
Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.
The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint regarding
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Altronic, LLC on January 10, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain capacitive discharge ignition systems, components thereof, and products containing the same. The complaint names as respondents: MOTORTECH GmbH of Germany; and MOTORTECH Americas, LLC of New Orleans, LA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3717”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
January 25, 2024 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-489 and 731-TA-1201 (Second Review) (Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks (DSSS) from China). The Commission currently is scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on February 1, 2024.
5.
Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.
The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
December 5, 2023.
(Stamen Borisson (202) 205-3125), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
On January 10, 2024, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case captioned
The United States filed a Complaint in this lawsuit seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief from Defendant Cummins Inc. (“Cummins”) for alleged violations of title II of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7521-7590, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, which aim to protect human health and the environment by reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NO
The United States' Complaint alleges that Cummins violated the Clean Air Act through the company's production and sale of diesel motor vehicle engines—along with associated engine control and emission control systems—that were installed in nearly one million pickup trucks sold in the United States under the RAM 2500 and RAM 3500 model names. The United States alleges that Cummins' applications to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Certificates of Conformity for those trucks did not disclose multiple software-based features that affect their emission control systems. In addition, the United States alleges that some of these undisclosed software features qualify as illegal “defeat devices” that bypass, defeat and/or render inoperative emission control systems in more than 630,000 model year 2013-2019 RAM 2500 and RAM 3500 trucks, causing those vehicles to emit substantially higher levels of NO
When the United States' Complaint was filed, the United States also lodged a proposed Consent Decree among the United States (on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), the State of California (on behalf of the California Air Resources Board), and Cummins (the “Joint Consent Decree”). If approved by the Court, the Joint Consent Decree would resolve the claims against Cummins in the United States' Complaint on agreed terms and conditions. The Joint Consent Decree also would partially resolve the claims against Cummins in the California Complaint. A separate proposed Consent Decree between Cummins and California (the “California Partial Consent Decree”) was lodged concurrently with the proposed Joint Consent Decree. The California Partial Consent Decree would resolve the remaining claims in the California Complaint, including claims brought by the California Attorney General.
The Joint Consent Decree would require Cummins to: (i) pay the United States a $1.478 billion civil penalty; (ii) pay the California Air Resources Board a $164 million penalty; and (iii)) take various steps to remedy the alleged violations, including conducting vehicle recall campaigns to replace the software in model year 2013-2019 RAM trucks and satisfying mitigation requirements to offset the excess NO
The California Partial Consent Decree would require Cummins to pay $33 million in civil penalties to the California Attorney General and make an additional payment to fund actions or projects that reduce NO
Taken together, the Joint Consent Decree and the California Partial Consent Decree would require Cummins to pay more than $2 billion to resolve the violations alleged by the United States and California, including $1.675 billion in civil penalties.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the United States' proposed Joint Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Joint Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
We will provide a paper copy of the proposed Joint Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
Please enclose a check or money order for $45.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On January 8, 2024, the Department of Justice lodged five proposed consent decrees with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed a Complaint alleging claims against Ohio Refining Co., LLC, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Energy Transfer (R&M), LLC, Pilkington North America, Inc., and Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the Clean Water Act, and the Oil Pollution Act for recovery of damages for injury to, loss of, or destruction of natural resources resulting from the release of hazardous substances and oil at the Duck & Otter Creeks NRDA Site located near Toledo, Ohio. Each Defendant or its predecessor historically owned and/or operated an industrial facility within the Site which discharged polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (“PAH”) compounds,
Under the proposed Consent Decrees, the Defendants will collectively pay $7,225,909 in natural resource damages (“NRD”), consisting of $6,322,670 for Trustee-sponsored NRD restoration projects—as identified in a draft Department of the Interior (“DOI”) Restoration Plan, and $903,239 as reimbursement for NRD assessment costs incurred by DOI as Federal Trustee.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decrees. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the proposed Modified Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Please enclose a check or money order for $33.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 16, 2024.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact: Tiffany Locklear, Unit Chief Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20535,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
If additional information is required, contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before February 16, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
The O*NET Data Collection Program is an ongoing effort to collect and maintain current information on the detailed characteristics of occupations and skills for more than 900 occupations. The resulting database provides the most comprehensive standardized source of occupational and skills information in the nation. O*NET information is used by a wide range of audiences, including individuals making career decisions, public agencies and schools providing career exploration services or education and training programs, and businesses making staffing and training decisions. The O*NET system provides a common language, framework and database to meet the administrative needs of various federal programs, including workforce investment and training programs supported by funding from the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before February 16, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The Producer Price Index (PPI), one of the Nation's leading economic indicators, is used as a measure of price movements, as an indicator of inflationary trends, for inventory valuation, and as a measure of purchasing power of the dollar at the primary market level. It also is used for market and economic research and as a basis for escalation in long-term contracts and purchase agreements. The purpose of the PPI collection is to accumulate data for the ongoing monthly publication of the PPI family of indexes. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) Board of Directors and its committees will meet January 21-23, 2024. On Sunday, January 21, the first meeting will begin at 12:30 p.m. CT, with the next meeting commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Monday, January 22, the first meeting will again begin at 9:00 a.m. CT, with the next meeting commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Tuesday, January 23, the first meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. CT, with the next meeting commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting.
Public Notice of Hybrid Meeting.
LSC will conduct its January 21-23, 2024, meetings at the Magnolia Hotel Houston, 1100 Texas Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, and virtually via Zoom.
Once connected to Zoom, please immediately mute your computer or telephone. Members of the public are asked to keep their computers or telephones muted to eliminate background noise. To avoid disrupting the meetings, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound.
From time to time, the Board or Committee Chair may solicit comments from the public. To participate in the meeting during public comment, use the `raise your hand' or `chat' functions in Zoom and wait to be recognized by the Chair before stating your questions and/or comments.
Open, except as noted below.
Any portion of the closed session consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session.
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed sessions of the Finance, Audit, Institutional Advancement Committee and Board of Directors meetings. The transcript of any portions of the closed sessions falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), (7), (9) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
1. Operations & Regulations Committee Meeting, 12:30 p.m. CT
a. Matters to be discussed include the Committee's self-evaluation for 2023 and goals for 2024; Management's report on implementation of LSC's Strategic Plan for 2021-2024; public comments for Part 1638—Restrictions on Solicitation; and reprioritization of rulemaking (Parts 1621, 1624, and 1609).
2. Finance Committee Meeting
a. Matters to be discussed include the Committee's self-evaluation for 2023 and goals for 2024; LSC's Fiscal Year
3. Delivery of Legal Services Committee
a. Matters to be discussed include the Committee's self-evaluation for 2023 and goals for 2024; LSC's performance criteria revisions process and timeline; and the opportunity to recognize long-serving legal aid organization staff during LSC's 50th Anniversary year.
1. Audit Committee Meeting, 9:00 a.m. CT
a. Matters to be discussed include the Committee's self-evaluation for 2023 and goals for 2024; update on reassessment of the Committee's Charter; briefing by the Office of Inspector General; review of LSC's and the Office of Inspector General's mechanisms for the submission of confidential complaints regarding suspected fraud, theft, corruption, or misuse of funds, or problems involving internal controls, auditing, or accounting, and that there are proper procedures in place for the receipt, retention, and handling of such complaints; management update regarding Risk Management; annual 403(b) plan audit; and a briefing regarding follow-up by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on referrals by the Office of Inspector General regarding audits and annual independent public audits of grantees.
2. Governance and Performance Review Committee
a. Matters to be discussed include annual Board and Committee self-evaluations; the Committee's self-evaluation for 2023 and goals for 2024; the recent meeting of the Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable; the LSC President's 2023 self-evaluation; and the Inspector General's 2023 activities.
1. Communications Subcommittee of the Institutional Advancement Committee, 8:30 a.m. CT
a. Matters to be discussed include the Committee's self-evaluation for 2023 and goals for 2024 and the quarterly communications and social media update.
2. Institutional Advancement Committee
a. Matters to be discussed include the Committee's self-evaluation for 2023 and goals for 2024; Leaders Council and Emerging Leaders Council updates; development activities; and the status of special and privately funded projects (including the Opioid, Veterans, and Rural Justice Task Forces and the Eviction Study).
3. LSC Board of Directors
a. Matters to be discussed include consideration of Resolution #2024-XXX: In Memoriam of David Hall; Chairman's Report; Members' Reports; President's Report; LSC's 50th Anniversary Campaign, with a guest presentation by Joseph LaMountain, Reingold, Inc.; and consideration of reports from the Institutional Advancement, Finance, Audit, Operations and Regulations, Governance & Performance Review, and Delivery of Legal Services Committees.
Please refer to the LSC website
Jessica Wechter, Special Assistant to the President, at (202) 295-1626. Questions may also be sent by electronic mail to
Non-Confidential Meeting Materials: Non-confidential meeting materials will be made available in electronic format at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the LSC website, at
10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 18, 2024.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7B, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
1. Board Briefing, NCUA's 2024-2026 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan.
2. NCUA's 2024 Annual Performance Plan.
Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
This notice announces the membership of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB).
Applicable immediately and until December 1, 2024.
Send comments concerning this notice to: U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1300, Arlington, VA 22201-3367.
Neysa M. Slater-Chandler, Director of Administration,
Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5 of the United States Code, requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards. Section 4314(c)(4) of Title 5 requires that notice of appointment of board members be published in the
The following executives have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board for the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board:
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
On December 29, 2023, the Postal Service filed the FY 2023 Performance Report and FY 2024 Performance Plan with its FY 2023 Annual Compliance Report. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Each year the Postal Service must submit to the Commission its most recent annual performance plan and annual performance report.
The FY 2024 Plan reviews the Postal Service's plans for FY 2024. The FY 2023 Report discusses the Postal Service's progress during FY 2023 toward its four performance goals:
Each year, the Commission must evaluate whether the Postal Service met the performance goals established in the
Since Docket No. ACR2013, the Commission has evaluated whether the Postal Service met its performance goals in reports separate from the Annual Compliance Determination.
• Did the Postal Service meet its performance goals in FY 2023?
• Do the FY 2023 Report and the FY 2024 Plan meet applicable statutory requirements, including 39 U.S.C. 2803 and 2804?
• What recommendations should the Commission provide to the Postal Service that relate to protecting or promoting public policy objectives in Title 39?
• For the Excellent Customer Experience performance goal, are there any customer experience (CX) metrics the Postal Service should add to measure CX?
• What recommendations or observations should the Commission make concerning the Postal Service's strategic initiatives?
• What other matters are relevant to the Commission's analysis of the FY 2023 Report and the FY 2024 Plan under 39 U.S.C. 3653(d)?
Comments by interested persons are due no later than March 15, 2024. Reply comments are due no later than March 29, 2024. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth R. Moeller is appointed to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding with respect to issues related to the Commission's analysis of the FY 2023 Report and the FY 2024 Plan.
1. The Commission invites public comment on the Postal Service's FY 2023 Report and FY 2024 Plan.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller to serve as Public Representative to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding with respect to issues related to the Commission's analysis of the FY 2023 Report and the FY 2024 Plan.
3. Comments are due no later than March 15, 2024.
4. Reply comments are due no later than March 29, 2024.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to adopt fees to be assessed to individuals that elect to subscribe to the Short Interest Reports, effective January 2, 2024.
On December 11, 2023 the Exchange proposed to adopt a new data product known as the Short Interest Report.
The Short Interest Report is available for purchase by both Members
The Exchange now proposes to adopt fees applicable to individuals that subscribe to the Short Interest Reports. As proposed, the Exchange would assess a monthly
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to adopt fees for the Short Interest Report provided on a historical basis. As
The Exchange anticipates that a wide variety of market participants will purchase the Short Interest Report, including, but not limited to, active equity trading firms and academic institutions. For example, the Exchange notes that academic institutions may utilize the Short Interest Report data and as a result promote research and studies of the equities industry to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange further believes the Short Interest Report may provide helpful trading information regarding investor sentiment that may allow market participants to make more informed trading decisions and may be used to create and test trading models and analytical strategies and provide comprehensive insight into trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that the Short Interest Report is a completely voluntary product, in that the Exchange is not required by any rule or regulation to make the reports or services available and that potential subscribers may purchase it only if they voluntarily choose to do so. Further, the Exchange notes that other exchanges offer similar products for a fee.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the Short Interest Report further broadens the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS. The Short Interest Report also promotes increased transparency through the dissemination of short interest data. The Short Interest Report benefits investors by providing access to the Short Interest Report data, which may promote better informed trading, as well as research and studies of the equities industry.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered equities exchanges that trade equities. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 13% of the equity market share.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the Short Interest Report are consistent with the Act in that they are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because they are reasonably aligned with the value and benefits provided to users that choose to subscribe to the Short Interest Report on the Exchange. As discussed above, the Short Interest Report may be beneficial to Members and non-Members as it may provide helpful trading information regarding investor sentiment that may allow market participants to make more informed trading decisions and may be used to create and test trading models and analytical strategies and provide comprehensive insight into trading on the Exchange. Therefore, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to assess a modest fee to users that subscribe to the Short Interest Report.
The Exchange further believes the proposed fee is reasonable because the amount assessed is less than the analogous fees charged by competitor exchanges. For example, for its Short Interest Reports, Nasdaq charges $500
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply to all similarly situated Members and non-Members that choose to subscribe to the Short Interest Report equally. As stated, the Short Interest Report is completely optional and not necessary for trading. Rather, the Exchange voluntarily makes the Short Interest Report available, and users may choose to subscribe (and pay for) the report based on their own individual business needs. Potential subscribers may subscribe to the Short Interest Report at any time if they believe it to be valuable or may decline to purchase it.
The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge an External Distributor of the Short Interest Report a higher fee than an Internal Distributor as an External Distributor may provide the data on their platform. External Distributors, unlike Internal Distributors, are typically compensated for the distribution of short sale data through subscription fees or other mechanisms. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge a higher fee for display use redistribution, as it reflects the additional value these distributors may gain from the Short Interest product. Additionally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge an Internal Distributor of the Short Interest Report a higher fee than an individual, as an Internal Distributor may distribute the data to one or more users within the Distributor's own entity; thus, the higher fee reflects the additional value such Internal Distributors may gain from the Short Interest product. Further, the proposed fee will apply equally to similarly situated individuals, Internal Distributors and External Distributors, respectively. Moreover, as described above, another Exchange similarly charges Internal and External Distributors higher fees as compared to individuals for a similar data product.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the Short Interest Report will be available equally to all Members and non-Members that choose to subscribe to the report. Market participants are not required to purchase the Short Interest Report, and the Exchange is not required to make the Short Interest Report available to investors. Rather, the Exchange is voluntarily making the Short Interest Report available, and market participants may choose to receive (and pay for) this data based on their own business needs. Potential purchasers may request the data at any time if they believe it to be valuable or may decline to purchase such data. Given the above, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Additionally, as discussed above, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge Internal and External Distributors higher fees as compared to individuals, as the higher fees reflect the additional value such Internal Distributors and External Distributors may gain from the Short Interest product.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, similar products offered by Nasdaq are priced higher than the Short Volume Report. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.” The fact that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
Further, making similar data products available to market participants fosters competition in the marketplace, and constrains the ability of exchanges to charge supracompetitive fees. In the event that a market participant views one exchange's data product as more attractive than the competition, that market participant can, and often does, switch between similar products. The proposed fees are a result of the competitive environment of the U.S. equities industry as the Exchange seeks to adopt fees to attract purchasers of the Short Interest Report. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable and set at a level to compete with other equity exchanges that offer similar reports. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposal imposes any burden on competition that is not necessary or
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 11.24 to introduce an Enhanced RPI Order and expand its Retail Price Improvement program to include securities priced below $1.00. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.24 to enhance the Exchange's Retail Price Improvement Program (the “Program”) for the benefit of retail investors. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to introduce a new Retail Price Improvement Order type (“RPI Order”)
In November 2012, the Exchange received approval to operate its Program on a pilot basis.
The Exchange developed this Program with the goal of incentivizing RMOs to execute their Retail Orders on the Exchange, rather than off-exchange venues, by providing Retail Orders with greater access to potential opportunities for price improvement on the Exchange. However, as noted by the Commission, even with the presence of retail liquidity programs (“RLPs”) offered by Cboe and other national securities exchanges,
Accordingly, the Exchange now seeks to enhance its current Program by offering retail liquidity providers an optional Enhanced RPI Order type. The Exchange believes the Enhanced Order type will incentivize additional retail liquidity provision by enabling RPI liquidity providers to submit an order that is ranked at a less aggressive price than the step-up range at which the provider is willing to execute, but have the opportunity to “step up” to provide a greater amount of price improvement as compared to other higher priority resting orders on the same side of the BYX Book in order to execute with an incoming contra-side Retail Order. As discussed in more detail, below, the Enhanced RPI Order type will have price priority over resting orders when its step-up range allows for additional price improvement when a contra-side Retail Order is submitted to the Exchange. With the deeper pool of retail liquidity-providing orders, the Exchange believes that RMOs will see increased opportunities for on-exchange price improvement and seek to execute more of their Retail Orders on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.24(a) to include the proposed Enhanced RPI Order, which allows a retail liquidity provider to post a limit order to the Exchange, but also the opportunity to “step-up” its price within their defined step-up range by providing a greater amount of price improvement as compared to orders with higher priority that are resting on the same side of the BYX Book in order to execute against an incoming Retail Order seeking to remove liquidity. An Enhanced RPI Order is designed to be entered with a limit price, but must also include a step-up range, which is the most aggressive price it is willing to execute against a contra-side Retail Order. If the Enhanced RPI Order includes a step-up range that improves against the price of the highest-ranked resting order on the same side of the BYX Book, the Enhanced RPI Order will be given price priority over the highest-ranked resting order. In order for an Enhanced RPI Order to receive price priority, the Enhanced RPI Order must be able to provide a greater amount of price improvement to an incoming contra-side Retail Order than would otherwise be available by stepping up to the next valid tick increment.
The Exchange believes this proposed change would further the purpose of the Program to attract retail marketable order flow to the Exchange, while also increasing opportunities for price improvement. By offering the Enhanced RPI Order, the Exchange has created an enhancement to its current Program that offers a greater incentive for liquidity providers to provide liquidity eligible to execute against marketable retail order flow on the Exchange. The Enhanced RPI Order would allow Users to post orders at their limit price but step-up to a more aggressive price in order to execute against marketable retail order flow that is less prone to adverse selection. Marketable retail order flow, in turn, would receive price improvement greater than what is currently available under the Program. The Exchange believes that the proposed change will lead to increased participation in the Program by Users seeking to provide liquidity for marketable retail order flow, which in turn will attract additional marketable retail order flow to the Exchange in search of price improvement opportunities.
The Exchange also proposes to introduce Rule 11.24(a)(5) in order to define the term RPI Interest as either RPI Orders or Enhanced RPI Orders. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.24(g) in order to describe order priority for Enhanced RPI Orders. The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes within Rule 11.24 to replace certain references to RPI Order with the term RPI Interest in order to have language inclusive of both RPI Orders and Enhanced RPI Orders. Further, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 11.24(h), as the Exchange proposes to expand the Program to sub-dollar securities. The Exchange will announce that the RPI Program has expanded to all securities in a Trade Desk notice, and periodic updates will no longer be required. The Exchange also proposes to renumber Rule 11.24(i) in conjunction with the deletion of Rule 11.24(h).
Additionally, with the introduction of the Enhanced RPI Order, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.24(a)(2) to permit a Retail Order to be entered as a Mid-Point Peg Order.
Rule 11.24(a)(3) currently defines an RPI Order as “non-displayed interest on the Exchange that is priced better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO by at least $0.001 and that is identified as such.”
As stated in Rule 11.24(a)(3), RPI Orders are non-displayed and are ranked in accordance with Rule 11.12(a). Furthermore, under Rule 11.24(g), competing RPI Orders in the same security are ranked and allocated according to price then time of entry into the System. Executions occur in price/time priority in accordance with Rule 11.12. Any remaining unexecuted RPI interest remains available to interact with other incoming Retail Orders if such interest is at an eligible price. Any remaining unexecuted portion of the Retail Order will cancel or execute in accordance with Rule 11.24(f). The following example illustrates this method:
An incoming Retail Order to sell ABC for 1,000 shares executes first against User 3's bid for 500 shares at $10.035, because it is the best priced bid, then against User 2's bid for 500 shares at $10.02, because it is the next best priced bid. User 1 is not filled because the entire size of the Retail Order to sell 1,000 shares is depleted. The Retail Order executes against RPI Orders in price/time priority.
The Exchange now proposes to introduce a new type of RPI Order that Users seeking to provide RPI liquidity may utilize on an optional basis. The proposed Enhanced RPI Order will be eligible to obtain price priority over resting orders in the same security on the same side of the BYX Book in order to execute against a Retail Order by including a step-up range when entered. Enhanced RPI Orders will be ranked in accordance with proposed Rule 11.24(g)(2) (discussed
• An “Enhanced Retail Price Improvement Order” or “Enhanced RPI Order” consists of non-displayed interest on the Exchange that is eligible to execute against contra-side Retail Orders. An Enhanced RPI Order will be ranked at its limit price and must also include a step-up range, which is the maximum price (for buy orders) or minimum price (for sell orders) at which the Enhanced RPI Order is willing to execute. An Enhanced RPI Order may execute at: (i) its limit price; (ii) for securities priced at or above $1.00, at a price within the step-up range that is able to improve upon the price of a same-side resting order on the BYX Book by stepping up to the next half cent or full cent, and for securities priced below $1.00 by stepping up to the next valid tick increment; or (iii) at a price within the step-up range when the limit price of a contra-side Retail Order is within the step-up range. An Enhanced RPI Order may be a primary pegged order or a limit order. The System will monitor whether Enhanced RPI interest, including the step-up range, and adjusted by any offset and subject to the ceiling or floor price, is eligible to interact with incoming Retail Orders. An Enhanced RPI Order (the buy or sell interest, the step-up range, the offset, and the ceiling or floor) remains non-displayed in its entirety. Any User is permitted, but not required,
The price of an Enhanced RPI Order will be determined by a User's entry of the following into the Exchange: (1) Enhanced RPI buy or sell interest; (2) the step-up range; (3) an offset, if any; and (4) a ceiling or floor price, if any. The step-up range of an Enhanced RPI Order is the maximum amount above the order's limit price at which a User is willing to execute. If the Enhanced RPI Order can improve upon resting liquidity on the same side of the BYX Book by stepping up to the nearest whole cent tick or half cent midpoint tick, it will receive price priority over the resting liquidity on the BYX Book. An Enhanced RPI Order, however, will not improve upon the price of another resting Enhanced RPI Order to receive price priority.
As discussed above, the proposed Enhanced RPI Order will be ranked at its limit price, which is less aggressive than its step-up range. With the introduction of the proposed Enhanced RPI Order, the Exchange proposes to reorganize Rule 11.24(g) into Rule 11.24(g)(1) and (2). Proposed Rule 11.24(g)(1) would contain the existing rule text that describes order priority with respect to RPI Orders, which the Exchange does not propose to amend. Proposed Rule 11.24(g)(2) would describe order priority with respect to Enhanced RPI Orders.
An Enhanced RPI Order will be ranked and allocated according to its limit price then time of entry into the System. The Exchange proposes, however, that an Enhanced RPI Order will be granted price priority over orders resting on the BYX Book in the event that the Enhanced RPI Order is able to provide a greater amount of price improvement to an incoming contra-side Retail Order by stepping up to the next half cent
The Exchange has included the examples below to show how order priority with an Enhanced RPI Order will be determined. In the examples below, the Retail Liquidity Identifier (discussed
In order to illustrate priority of an Enhanced RPI Order over other non-displayed orders resting on the BYX Book, consider the following example:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters a Mid-Point Peg order to buy ABC at $10.03 for 100. User 1's order is ranked at $10.025 as the User elected that the Mid-Point Peg order be pegged to the mid-point of the NBBO.
○ User 2 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 2's step-up range is $10.03. User 2's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
If the best-priced resting order on the BYX Book is ranked at a whole cent, the Enhanced RPI Order may only need to step-up one-half cent in order to provide meaningful price improvement. Consider the following example:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters a non-displayed order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 100.
○ User 2 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 2's step-up range is $10.03. User 2's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
There are instances where an Enhanced RPI Order may need to step-up a full penny in order to provide meaningful price improvement. Consider the following:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.10.
○ User 1 enters a non-displayed order to buy ABC at $10.03 for 100.
○ User 2 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 2's step-up range is $10.05. User 2's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
There may be instances where there is no other liquidity resting on the BYX Book against which the Enhanced RPI Order can step up against. In these instances, the Enhanced RPI Order will trade at its ranked price. Consider the following example.
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 1's step-up range is $10.025. User 1's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 2 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
Enhanced RPI Orders will only have priority against other better-priced liquidity resting on the BYX Book in the event that the Enhanced RPI Order can step-up to the next half cent or full cent. In the example below, the Enhanced RPI Order is unable to step up against the best priced order on the BYX Book but is able to step up against an order ranked at the next best price level. Consider the following example:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters a non-displayed order to buy ABC at $10.04 for 100.
○ User 2 enters a non-displayed order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 100.
○ User 3 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 3's step-up range is $10.04. User 3's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 4 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 150.
•
Enhanced RPI Orders will execute within their step-up range when the incoming Retail Order's price is not executable at the Enhanced RPI Order's ranked price. Consider the following example:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 1's step-up range is $10.04. User 1's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 2 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.03 for 100.
•
When there are multiple Enhanced RPI Orders resting on the BYX Book, no other same side liquidity with higher priority, and the contra-side Retail Order is priced more aggressively than the resting Enhanced RPI Orders, execution priority will be determined by the higher ranked price and not by the step-up ranges of the Enhanced RPI Orders. Consider the following example:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 1's step-up range is $10.05. User 1's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 2 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 100. User 2's step-up range is $10.04. User 2's order is ranked at $10.02.
○ User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
The step-up range will be used to determine order book priority in situations where: (i) a contra-side Retail Order is entered at a less aggressive price than the Enhanced RPI Order's limit price and all other resting liquidity in the same security and (ii) the Enhanced RPI Order's step-up range is equal to or more aggressively priced than the Retail Order's limit price. Consider the following example:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 1's step-up range is $10.05. User 1's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 2 enters a non-displayed order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 100. User 2's order is ranked at $10.02.
○ User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.03 for 100.
•
The step-up range will be used to determine order book priority in situations where multiple Enhanced RPI Orders are resting on the BYX Book and are eligible to trade ahead of higher priority orders resting on the BYX Book. Consider the following example:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 1's step-up range is $10.05. User 1's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 2 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.02 for 100. User 2's step-up range is $10.04. User 2's order is ranked at $10.02.
○ User 3 enters a non-displayed order to buy ABC at $10.03 for 100. User 3's order is ranked at $10.03.
○ User 4 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.03 for 100.
•
Enhanced RPI Orders will have price priority over resting RPI orders (that do not contain a step-up range) on the BYX Book so long as the step-up range of the Enhanced RPI Order is greater than the limit price of the resting RPI order. Consider the following example:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.01 for 100. User 1's step-up range is $10.05. User 1's order is ranked at $10.01.
○ User 2 enters an RPI Order to buy ABC at $10.02.
○ User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
Enhanced RPI Orders may also improve against displayed orders resting on the BYX Book in order to provide price improvement to a contra-side Retail Order. Consider the following example:
• The Protected NBBO for security ABC is $10.00 × $10.05.
○ User 1 enters an Enhanced RPI Order to buy ABC at $9.99 for 100. User 1's step-up range is $10.05. User 1's order is ranked at $9.99. The Retail Liquidity Identifier is not displayed as the limit price of $9.99 is below the NBB and the Retail Liquidity Identifier will only display when there is RPI interest priced at least $0.001 better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO.
○ User 2 enters a displayed order to buy ABC at $10.00 for 100.
○ User 3 enters a Retail Order to sell ABC at $10.00 for 100.
•
As demonstrated in the examples above, the Exchange is proposing to grant an Enhanced RPI Order price priority over equal-priced or better-priced resting orders on the BYX Book so long as the Enhanced RPI Order can provide meaningful price improvement over such resting orders. The Exchange believes that allowing liquidity providers to post orders outside of the range at which they are willing to execute yet maintain the opportunity to step-up against resting orders on the same side of the BYX Book in exchange for price priority will incentivize these liquidity providers to provide additional liquidity on the Exchange. As a result of additional, aggressively priced liquidity submitted to the Exchange designed specifically to interact with Retail Orders, RMOs will therefore be incentivized to submit additional retail order flow to the Exchange which has the potential to interact with an Enhanced RPI Order and receive meaningful price improvement.
The Exchange currently disseminates an identifier pursuant to Rule 11.24(e) when RPI interest priced at least $0.001 better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO for a particular security
The Exchange proposes to continue to disseminate the Retail Liquidity Identifier in its current form should the Enhanced RPI Order be approved. For Enhanced RPI orders, the indicator will be based off of the ranked price only and the step-up range will not be used. The purpose of the Identifier is to provide relevant market information to RMOs that there is available RPI interest available on the Exchange, thereby incentivizing RMOs to send Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to make clear in Rule 11.24(e) that both RPI Orders and Enhanced RPI Orders constitute RPI interest and that the Retail Liquidity Identifier shall be disseminated when RPI Interest (as defined in proposed Rule 11.24(e)) priced at least $0.001 better than the Protected NBB or Protected NBO for a particular security is available in the System. A separate liquidity identifier that identifies Enhanced RPI Order interest will not be disseminated. Because the proposed Enhanced RPI Order is an extension of the existing RPI Order, it will automatically offer at least $0.001 of price improvement over the Protected NBB or Protected NBO. As such, displaying the Retail Liquidity Identifier will provide an indication to RMOs that
As discussed below, the Exchange proposes to expand the Program to include securities priced below $1.00. Given that the minimum price variation (“MPV”) of a sub-dollar security is $0.0001,
Rule 11.24(h) currently limits the Program to trades occurring at prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share and the Exchange periodically notifies Members
As trading in sub-dollar securities has grown steadily since 2020, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to expand the Program to include securities priced below $1.00. The Exchange notes, however, that the MPV for sub-dollar securities differs from the MPV for securities priced at or above $1.00. As provided for by Regulation NMS Rule 612, for securities priced below $1.00, the MPV is $0.0001, whereas for securities priced at or above $1.00 the MPV is $0.01.
The Exchange plans to implement the proposed rule change during the second half of 2024 and will announce the implementation date via Trade Desk Notice.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Commission has repeatedly emphasized that the U.S. capital markets should be structured with the interests of retail investors in mind
The Exchange believes the proposed Enhanced RPI Order promotes just and equitable principles of trade and is not unfairly discriminatory because the order type will be available for all Users, and is not limited to a certain subset of market participants. Even though Enhanced RPI Orders may be entered by any market participant, the Exchange believes that the majority of Enhanced RPI Orders will be entered by or on behalf of institutional investors that are willing to provide additional price improvement as a way to minimize their adverse selection costs.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed Enhanced RPI Order type is not unfairly discriminatory to institutional investors as it rewards the User that enters the most aggressively priced Enhanced RPI Order with order book priority. Ultimately, execution priority amongst orders resting on the BYX Book will be determined by the step-up range entered on each Enhanced RPI Order. If the step-up range for an Enhanced RPI Order provides a marketable, contra-side Retail Order with greater price improvement than would otherwise be available from other resting orders by stepping up to the next half cent or full cent (for securities priced at or above $1.00) or the valid tick increment (for securities priced below $1.00), then the Enhanced RPI Order will be granted order book priority. In the event that multiple Enhanced RPI Orders are resting on the BYX Book, the Enhanced RPI Order with the highest step-up range will be given order book priority. The Exchange believes rewarding the most aggressively priced step-up range will encourage Users to submit Enhanced RPI Orders with step-up ranges that are likely to provide meaningful price improvement to Retail Orders, which ultimately benefits both retail investors, who will receive price improvement over the NBBO, and the User entering the Enhanced RPI Order, who is able to execute against a marketable Retail Order to minimize its adverse selection costs and interact with retail order flow that they are currently unable to access on the Exchange given that such order flow is largely executed off-exchange.
As noted in the Exchange's initial RPI filings,
As discussed earlier, the proposed introduction of the Enhanced RPI Order is designed to provide retail investors with enhanced opportunities to obtain meaningful price improvement by providing them with potential opportunities to execute versus non-displayed Enhanced RPI Orders that offer price improvement beyond that offered by resting orders on the Exchange. Marketable retail order flow is routinely executed in full on entry at the national best bid or offer or better,
Giving queue priority to certain order types is not a novel concept in the securities markets. In fact, on the Exchange's affiliate, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), the displayed portion of Retail Orders are given allocation priority ahead of all other available interest on the EDGX Book (“EDGX Retail Priority”).
The Exchange believes that the prioritization of Enhanced RPI Orders that offer meaningful price improvement over other resting orders on the same side of the BYX Book promotes just and equitable principles of trade and is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act as it encourages Users to submit aggressively priced Enhanced RPI Orders in exchange for queue priority ahead of all resting orders on the same side of the BYX Book so long as meaningful price improvement is provided to a contra-side Retail Order. The Exchange proposes to provide queue priority for Enhanced RPI Orders over all other types of orders and is not limiting queue priority to a certain subset of order types. As previously stated, all Users are eligible to submit Enhanced RPI Orders. And while the Exchange believes that most Enhanced RPI Orders will be submitted by or on behalf of professional traders, retail investors will have the opportunity to receive better-priced executions should they choose to submit a marketable Retail Order to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the introduction of Enhanced RPI Orders will deepen the Exchange's pool of available liquidity, increase marketable retail order flow to the Exchange and provide additional competition for marketable retail order flow, most of which is currently executed off-exchange in the OTC markets. Promoting competition for retail order flow among execution venues stands to benefit retail investors, who may be eligible to receive greater price improvement on the Exchange by interacting with an Enhanced RPI Order than they would if their order was internalized by a broker-dealer on the OTC market.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that its proposal to limit the use of the step-up range to determine order book priority is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because the use of the step-up range rather than limit price to determine order priority is limited to the following: (1) the range is needed to gain priority over a resting order with higher order book priority; (2) in situations where (i) a contra-side Retail Order is entered at a less aggressive price than the Enhanced RPI Order's limit price and all other resting liquidity in the same security and (ii) the Enhanced RPI Order's step-up range is equal to or more aggressively priced than the Retail Order's limit price; and (3) to determine order book priority when multiple Enhanced RPI Orders are resting on the BYX Book and are eligible to trade ahead of higher priority orders. The primary use case of the Enhanced RPI Order identified in the first scenario listed above is to provide price improvement to marketable retail order flow. As previously discussed in the Statutory Basis section, the Exchange believes allowing the use of a step-up range in order to provide an additional, more aggressive price at which an Enhanced RPI Order may execute is essential in order to deepen the pool of liquidity available to retail investors. In exchange for providing aggressively priced orders, these liquidity providers will be rewarded with executions against marketable retail order flow, which is generally preferred over more informed order flow. Retail investors, on the other hand, will receive meaningful price improvement should their order execute against an Enhanced RPI Order.
In the situation where (i) a contra-side Retail Order is entered at a less aggressive price than the Enhanced RPI Order's limit price and all other resting liquidity in the same security and (ii) the Enhanced RPI Order's step-up range is equal to or more aggressively priced than the limit price of the Retail Order, the Exchange believes using the step-up range to determine order priority promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it rewards the Enhanced RPI Order with the most aggressive step-up range rather than forego an execution due to the limit price of all orders resting on the BYX Book being ineligible to trade with the contra-side Retail Order. The intent of the Enhanced RPI Order is to reward aggressively priced liquidity with queue priority while simultaneously providing price improvement to Retail Orders. The Exchange believes that determining order priority using the step-up range in this limited situation is aligned with the intent of liquidity providers that choose to submit Enhanced RPI Orders and emphasizes a benefit of using the Enhanced RPI Order—the ability to enter an order at a less aggressive price yet also provide a step-up range that the liquidity provider is willing to execute in order to execute against marketable retail order flow rather than forego an
Likewise, using the step-up range rather than the limit price of an Enhanced RPI Order in situations where multiple Enhanced RPI Orders are resting on the BYX Book and are eligible to trade ahead of higher priority orders promotes the use of the Enhanced RPI Order type as the Exchange seeks to encourage RMOs to submit marketable Retail Orders to the Exchange. Determining order priority of Enhanced Orders based on their step-up range over the limit price of all other higher priority orders rewards the Enhanced RPI Order that provides the most aggressive execution price. The Exchange believes that using the step-up range rather than the limit price in situations where there are multiple Enhanced RPI Orders will encourage Users to submit aggressively priced Enhanced RPI Orders to the Exchange, as they will be given priority to interact with more desirable marketable retail order flow based on their step-up range. Additionally, the Exchange believes that RMOs will be encouraged to direct marketable retail order flow to the Exchange knowing that the
An analysis of internal Exchange data found that the current Program provided approximately $33 million in price improvement to retail investors during calendar year 2022, which is a substantial increase from the 4.5 million provided to retail investors between January 2016 and June 2018.
In addition to the proposed introduction of the Enhanced RPI Order, the Exchange also believes that expanding the Program to include securities priced below $1.00 is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it promotes just and equitable principles of trade by allowing liquidity providers to submit orders designed to interact with retail order flow in all securities, rather than only in securities priced at or above $1.00. As stated above, a significant majority of the increased volume in sub-dollar securities comes from executions occurring off-exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, the proposed rule change is designed to increase intramarket competition for retail order flow by introducing a new order type that is designed to provide price improvement to Retail Orders in exchange for price priority over resting orders on the same side of the BYX Book. The proposal, which seeks to provide an innovative form of price improvement to Retail Orders through the creation of the Enhanced RPI Order, represents an effort by the Exchange to encourage on-exchange liquidity an incentivize the trading of Retail Orders on a national securities exchange.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. As discussed above, IEX, NYSE, NYSE Arca, and Nasdaq BX each operate RLPs and the Exchange believes that its proposed rule change will allow it to compete for additional retail order flow with the aforementioned exchanges.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBYX-2023-020 and should be submitted on or before February 7, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 18a-5 enumerates the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for security-based swap dealers (“SBSDs”) and major security-based swap participants (“MSBSPs”). More specifically, Rule 18a-5 establishes recordkeeping requirements applicable to stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs. Rule 18a-5 was modeled on Rule 17a-3 under the Exchange Act, which applies to broker-dealers, but Rule 18a-5 does not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a-3 because some of the requirements in Rule 17a-3 relate to activities that are not expected or permitted of SBSDs and MSBSPs. The collections of information under Rule 18a-5 include the following types of records that are required to be created: trade blotters, general ledger, ledgers for customers and non-customer accounts, stock record, memoranda of brokerage orders, memoranda of proprietary orders, confirmations, accountholder information, options positions, trial balances and computation of net capital, associated person's employment application, account equity and margin calculations under Rule 18a-3, possession or control requirements for security-based swap customers, customer reserve requirements for security-based swap customers, unverified transactions, political contributions, and compliance with business conduct requirements. The purpose of requiring stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs to create the records specified in Rule 18a-5 is to enhance regulators' ability to protect investors. These records and the information contained therein are used by examiners and other representatives of the Commission to determine whether stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs are in compliance with the Commission's anti-fraud and anti-manipulation rules, financial responsibility program, and other laws, rules, and regulations.
Not all types of records enumerated in Rule 18a-5 are required to be made by each of the entities to which Rule 18a-5 applies. For example, Rule 18a-5 requires thirteen types of records to be made and kept current by stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs.
As of November 30, 2023, there are 11 stand-alone SBSDs, zero stand-alone MSBSPs, 29 bank SBSDs, and zero bank MSBSPs registered with the Commission. The Commission estimates that each recordkeeping provision of Rule 18a-5 imposes on each firm that is subject to the provision an initial burden and an ongoing annual burden. The total initial industry hour burden attributable to Rule 18a-5 is estimated to be 11,060 hours in the first year and the total industry ongoing hour burden attributable to Rule 18a-5 is estimated to be 13,825 hours per year (including the first year). Over a three-year period, the total estimated industry burden is estimated to be 52,535 hours, or about 17,511 hours per year when annualized. These burdens are recordkeeping burdens.
In addition, the Commission estimates that Rule 18a-5 causes a stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP to incur an initial dollar cost of approximately $1,000 to purchase recordkeeping system software and an ongoing dollar cost of $4,650 per year to provide adequate physical space and computer hardware and software for storage. As of November 30, 2023, there are 11 respondents (11 stand-alone SBSDs and zero stand-alone MSBSPs), resulting in an estimated industry-wide initial burden of $11,000 and an industry-wide ongoing burden of $51,150 per year. Over a three-year period, the total estimated industry burden would be $164,450, or about $54,817 per year when annualized.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by March 18, 2024.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) by deleting the Cross Asset Tier (and a related definition) from the Fee Schedule. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective January 2, 2024.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
Under footnote 2 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange offers various Step-Up Tiers that provide enhanced rebates for orders yielding fee codes B,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate the Cross Asset Tier and the related definition of Customer ADAV from the Fee Schedule is reasonable because the tier has expired. Additionally, the Exchange is not required to maintain this tier by amending the criteria or extending the expiration date to a date in the future nor is it required to provide Members an opportunity to receive enhanced rebates. The Exchange believes its proposal to let the tier expire is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all Members (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed change to not renew the Cross Asset Tier and delete it and the related definition of Customer ADAV from the Fee Schedule will not impose any burden on intramarket competition because the changes apply to all Members uniformly, as in, the tier will no longer be available to any Member in accordance with its expiration date.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 15% of the market share.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order pursuant to section 11 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”).
Applicants request an order approving the terms of an offer of exchange of certain annuity contracts issued by Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company (“EFLIC”) and made available through Separate Account No. 49 of Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company for virtually identical annuity contracts issued by Venerable Insurance and Annuity Company (“VIAC”) and made available through the Separate Account EQ of Venerable Insurance and Annuity Company, pursuant to an assumption reinsurance agreement between VIAC and EFLIC.
Venerable Insurance and Annuity Company, Separate Account EQ of Venerable Insurance and Annuity Company, and Directed Services LLC.
The application was filed on June 27, 2023 and amended on October 13, 2023.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, or Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended and restated application, dated October 13, 2023, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at,
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Each of the foregoing proposed rule changes, as modified by their respective amendments, is referred to herein as a “Proposal” and collectively as the “Proposals.” Each trust (or series of a trust) described in a Proposal is referred to herein as a “Trust” and collectively as the “Trusts.” As described in more detail in the Proposals' respective amended filings,
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Proposals are consistent with the Exchange Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
When considering previous proposals to list bitcoin-based commodity trusts and bitcoin-based trust issued receipts,
The Commission also has consistently recognized, however, that having a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to the underlying or reference bitcoin assets is not the
In the Grayscale Order,
The Commission is considering in this order the remand of the Grayscale Order and the other Proposals referenced above. For the reasons discussed below, based on the record before the Commission and the Commission's analysis of available data and information, the Commission finds that sufficient “other means” of preventing fraud and manipulation in this context have been demonstrated.
Each Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME via their common membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group.
Spot bitcoin, however, does not trade on the CME and the CME does not engage in surveillance of spot bitcoin markets. As with prior proposals, this raises questions regarding the sufficiency of a surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME in preventing fraud and manipulation when the proposed ETPs hold spot bitcoin. If a would-be manipulator of a spot bitcoin ETP engages in misconduct (such as fraud, manipulation, or other trading abuses) on the CME itself, the CME's surveillance can be reasonably expected to detect such misconduct. But if the would-be manipulator is not transacting on the CME itself, the impacts of its misconduct would not necessarily be surveilled by the CME unless the misconduct also impacts the CME bitcoin futures market. Thus, when assessing the sufficiency of a surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME, it is critical to establish whether, and to what extent, fraud or manipulation that impacts the spot bitcoin market also impacts the CME bitcoin futures market.
In making that assessment, the Commission begins with a correlation analysis provided in one Proposal (the “ARK Analysis”) that examines the relationship between prices in the CME bitcoin futures market and the spot bitcoin market.
The Commission undertook to verify the ARK Analysis' correlation results for a subset of its selected spot bitcoin markets, as well as to supplement the analysis by assessing the
The results of the Commission's analysis confirm that the CME bitcoin futures market has been consistently highly correlated with this subset of the spot bitcoin market throughout the past 2.5 years. The correlation between the CME bitcoin futures market and this subset of spot bitcoin platforms for the full sample period is no less than 98.4 percent using data at an hourly interval, 94.2 percent using data at a five-minute interval, and 76.9 percent using data at a one-minute interval. The rolling three-month correlation results are similar: ranging between 95.0 and 99.2 percent using data at an hourly interval, 84.0 and 94.5 percent using data at a five-minute interval, and 67.9 and 83.2 percent using data at a one-minute interval.
Moreover, the results of the Commission's robust correlation analysis
Each Proposal sets forth aspects of its proposed ETP, including the availability of pricing information, transparency of portfolio holdings, and types of surveillance procedures, that are consistent with other spot commodity ETPs that the Commission has approved.
The Commission therefore believes that the Proposals, as with the other spot commodity ETPs that the Commission has approved,
Some commenters assert that the Commission must approve the Proposals because exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) and ETPs holding CME bitcoin futures, including leveraged ETFs, are already trading on national securities exchanges.
The Commission has considered and, for the reasons described above, is approving the Proposals on their own merits and under the standards applicable to them; namely, the standards provided by Section 6(b)(5) and Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act.
Some commenters state that the Commission should approve the Proposals for a variety of investor protection reasons, including that spot bitcoin ETPs would offer a less costly and more efficient way to gain exposure to bitcoin,
The Commission has considered these potential benefits and concerns in the broader context of whether the Proposals meet each of the applicable requirements of the Exchange Act,
Some commenters contend that the Commission should disapprove the Proposals because the bitcoin market has been, is being, and/or will likely continue to be, manipulated.
Commenters also raise concerns regarding the custody of spot bitcoin. Some commenters express concern that the Bitcoin blockchain is susceptible to hacking and that the Trusts' bitcoin could be susceptible to “reverse hacking.”
Conversely, some commenters consider the transparency of the Bitcoin blockchain to be an advantage over traditional asset classes, because it could enable the real-time tracking of the Trusts' bitcoin holdings.
The Commission acknowledges that the aggregation of bitcoin under the Trusts' control, and the fact that bitcoin custodians only hold keys to such bitcoin and not the bitcoin itself, could introduce risks. As noted above, however, the Commission must approve a proposed rule change filed by a national securities exchange if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the applicable requirements of the Exchange Act.
Commenters also address, among other things: the nature, uses, merits, and drawbacks of bitcoin, other crypto assets, and blockchain technology;
The Commission finds good cause to approve the Proposals prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of the Exchanges' amended filings
This approval order is based on all of the Exchanges' representations and descriptions in their respective amended filings, which the Commission has carefully evaluated as discussed above.
By the Commission.
Small Business Administration.
Notification of virtual public forums on size standards review and methodology.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is holding a series of two virtual public forums on size standards to update the public on the status of the forthcoming third five-year review of size standards, as mandated by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, and to consider public testimony on proposed changes to the SBA's size standards methodology for establishing, reviewing, or modifying size standards, as detailed in SBA's
The virtual forum dates are as follows:
• Tuesday, January 23, 2024, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., EST.
• Thursday, January 25, 2024, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., EST.
The forums will be held via the Microsoft Teams platform. Registration is required to attend these virtual events. Visit SBA's size standards web page at
Samuel Castilla, Economist, Office of Size Standards, (202) 619-0389 or
SBA is seeking public comments on its SBA's
SBA is proposing changes to its methodology for reviewing size standards in order to address public comments received under the second five-year review of size standards and to make certain analytical improvements. Major changes to the size standards methodology include: (1) Replacing the current approach to account for the Federal contracting factor with the “disparity ratio” approach; (2) Using the Federal Procurement Data System—Next Generation (FPDS-NG) and the System for Award Management (SAM) data to compute the 20th percentile and 80th percentile values of industry factors for evaluating size standards at subindustry levels (“exceptions”), instead of having those calculated based on the Economic Census data; (3) Updating the minimum and maximum size standard levels; and (4) Updating the 20th percentile and 80th percentile values of industry factors, derived from the 2017 Economic Census (latest available) and other industry data, used to evaluate the structure of each industry.
Comments solicited by SBA on the 2023 Revised Methodology are not industry specific, but rather, focused on SBA's process and assumptions for evaluating size standards more generally. After evaluating all comments received and finalizing the 2023 Revised Methodology, SBA will later issue proposed rules detailing the proposed revisions to size standards using the process described in the finalized size standards methodology.
Generally, SBA accepts comments on size standards for specific industries under the relevant proposed rule detailing the proposed revisions to size standards for a particular industry or a group of industries. This is to ensure that commenters are fully informed of the impacts of SBA's finalized size standards methodology on the industries for which they are interested in, and to offer stakeholders the opportunity to provide SBA with comments, data, and analysis assessing the appropriateness of SBA's proposed size standards. As such, SBA encourages commenters with industry-specific comments to share their feedback under the relevant forthcoming proposed rule after reviewing SBA's proposed size standard for their specific industry, or group of industries, of interest. After evaluating all public comments to the proposed rule, SBA will issue a final rule adjusting size standards under the forthcoming third five-year review of size standards.
Under this notice, SBA is advising the public that it is hosting a series of two virtual public forums on size standards to update the public on the status of the forthcoming third five-year review of size standards under the Jobs Act and consider public testimony on proposed changes contained in the 2023 Revised Methodology. These forums also conform to the requirements of section 1344 of the Jobs Act which mandates that SBA hold not less than two public forums during its quinquennial review of size standards.
As part of fulfilling that mandate under the recently completed second five-year review of size standards, on June 14 and June 16, 2022, SBA held a series of two virtual forums on size standards in order to update the public on the status of the ongoing second five-year review of size standards and consider public testimony on proposed changes to size standards contained in the proposed rule covering Manufacturing and other industries with employee-based size standards (87 FR 24752; April 26, 2022). Comments received during the virtual sessions were entered into the public docket for the rule and used to further refine SBA's evaluation of size standards. SBA responded to all comments received during the virtual sessions in the final rule for Manufacturing and other industries with employee-based size standards (88 FR 9970; February 15, 2023). SBA will use a similar format for soliciting and evaluating comments on the 2023 Revised Methodology.
SBA will hold additional public forums after issuing proposed rules evaluating size standards under the third five-year review of size standards. SBA encourages commenters with industry-specific comments to share their feedback at this later stage after reviewing SBA's proposed changes to size standards. SBA considers public forums on size standards as a valuable component of its deliberations and public engagement and believes that these forums allow for constructive dialogue with small businesses and their representatives, industry trade associations, participants in SBA's contracting and financial assistance programs, and other stakeholders.
The format of the public forums on the SBA's 2023 Revised Methodology will consist of a panel of SBA representatives who will preside over the session. The oral and written testimony as well as any comments SBA receives during the public forums will become part of the administrative record for SBA's consideration in finalizing its size standards methodology. Written testimony may be submitted in lieu of oral testimony on or before February 9, 2024, at
In the December 11, 2023,
Presenters are encouraged to provide a written copy of their testimony. SBA will accept written material that the presenter wishes to provide that further supplements his or her testimony during the public forums. Electronic or digitized submissions are encouraged. The two virtual public forums on size standards will be held on Tuesday, January 16, 2024 and Thursday, January 18, 2024, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST; SBA will adjourn early if all testimony has been delivered before the end time.
Participants must pre-register to attend either of the two virtual public forums on size standards by visiting SBA's size standards web page at
For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance contact Samuel Castilla at the telephone number or email address indicated above under the
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to March 18, 2024.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Andrea Battista, who may be reached at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, in accordance with the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2751
ITAR §§ 122.4 and 129.8 requires registrants to notify DDTC in the event of a change in registration information or if the registrant is a party to a merger, acquisition, or divestiture of an entity producing or marketing ITAR-controlled items. Based on certain conditions enunciated in the ITAR, respondents must notify DDTC of these changes at differing intervals—no less than 60 days prior to the event, if a foreign person is acquiring a registered entity, and/or within 5 days of its culmination. This information is necessary for DDTC to ensure registration records are accurate and to determine whether the transaction is in compliance with the regulations (
This information will be collected by DDTC's electronic case management system and respondents will certify the data via electronic signature.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Record of decision.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has decided to adopt the Preferred Alternative identified in the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Subsequent License Renewal (SLR) project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS). The Notice of Availability of the Final SEIS for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Subsequent License Renewal project was published in the
J. Taylor Johnson, NEPA Compliance Specialist, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, BR 2C-C, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402; by telephone (423) 751-2732, or email at
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 through 1508) and TVA's NEPA procedures 18 CFR part 1318. TVA is a corporate agency and instrumentality of the United States that provides electricity for business customers and local power distributors serving 10 million people in the Tennessee Valley—an 80,000-square-mile region comprised of Tennessee and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia. TVA receives no taxpayer funding and derives virtually all revenues from the sale of electricity. In addition to operating and investing revenues in its power system, TVA provides flood control, navigation, and land management for the Tennessee Valley watershed, and provides economic development and job creation assistance within the Tennessee Valley power service area.
In March 2002 and June 2002, TVA issued a Final SEIS and a ROD for the operating license renewal of BFN. TVA submitted a License Renewal Application (LRA) to the NRC in December 2003 for a 20-year renewal of the operating licenses for each BFN unit. The environmental conclusions of the NRC Final SEIS did not differ from the TVA Final SEIS conclusions, and the NRC issued Supplement 21 regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3, to the Generic EIS (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) in June 2005. The NRC issued operating license renewals for Units 1, 2, and 3 in May 2006, allowing continued operation of the three BFN units until 2033, 2034, and 2036, respectively.
In September 2015, TVA submitted a license amendment request (LAR) for extended power uprate (EPU) of all three units. The NRC issued a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in the
BFN's 3,900 MWe of electric generating capability provides power to the Tennessee Valley Power Service Area. The TVA service area obtains approximately 40 percent of its power from nuclear generation and BFN provides approximately half of that total. BFN's current baseload generation supports future forecasted baseload power needs, as outlined in the TVA's 2019 IRP, by helping to maintain grid stability and generating capacity for TVA's generation portfolio mix. TVA prepared the Final SEIS pursuant to NEPA to assess the environmental impacts associated with SLR for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3.
TVA considered a wide range of options to identify feasible alternatives available to supply approximately 3,900 MWe between 2033 to 2056, and ultimately carried forward two alternatives for evaluation. The two alternatives considered by TVA in the Final SEIS are:
Unlike the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative does not provide a practicable means of meeting future electric system needs. Therefore, unless replacement generating capacity is provided as part of the No-Action Alternative, approximately 3,900 MWe of baseload generation would no longer be available to meet TVA's electricity customers' needs, and the alternative would not satisfy the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. For this reason, the No-Action Alternative is defined as having two components: (1) replacing the generating capacity of BFN with alternative generating supply available during or by the end of the term of the existing BFN operating licenses, and (2) decommissioning the BFN facility. The replacement generation options considered as part of the No Action Alternative include construction of a combination of new generating capacity using energy from natural gas, solar, storage, and nuclear small modular reactors.
Routine maintenance and upkeep of BFN would continue through the proposed SLR period of extended operation to ensure the safe and reliable operation of the three units and would be managed in accordance with appropriate TVA programs and procedures.
Current work force requirements, approximately 2,147 personnel, would continue during the additional years of operation.
The proposed SLR period of extended operation would require approximately 10 additional refuel cycles per unit, resulting in approximately 3,900 acres of additional land being affected by the uranium mining necessary to fuel BFN. Refueling of one third of the fuel in each unit would continue to be performed approximately every 24 months. The spent fuel would be stored in the spent fuel storage pools until they could be moved to dry cask storage on the onsite Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
The SEIS includes baseline information for understanding the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the alternatives considered by TVA. TVA considered 23 resource areas related to the human and natural environments and the impacts on these resources associated with each alternative. The anticipated environmental impacts of the No Action and Action Alternative are described in detail in the Final SEIS.
Impacts under Alternative A would occur in association with shutdown and decommissioning of BFN, and offsite in association with construction and operation of new generation facilities. In association with shutdown and decommissioning of BFN, there would be no impacts to groundwater, floodplains and flood risk, wetlands, managed and natural areas, recreation, and visual resources. There would be minor impacts associated with BFN shutdown and decommissioning for land use; soils; surface water; air quality; greenhouse gases; socioeconomics; environmental justice; archaeological and historic resources; hazardous, solid, and low-level radioactive waste; radiological effects; uranium fuel cycle; nuclear and plant safety; and non-radiological public health and safety. Additionally, there would be minor and potentially beneficial impacts from shutdown and decommissioning of BFN for surface water, aquatic ecology, terrestrial ecology, endangered and threatened species, air quality, noise, and non-radiological public health and safety.
Implementation of Alternative A, the No Action Alternative would include the impacts of constructing up to 3,900 MWe of new generation at sites yet to be determined across the Tennessee Valley. The construction and operation of these new generation facilities would have potential impacts to most resource areas. Small to moderate impacts could occur at the selected generation sites in association with land use changes. Ground-disturbing activities during construction would result in small to moderate impacts to geology and soils. With implementation of permit requirements and best management practices, impacts to surface water would be small to large depending on plant water needs and thermal impacts. Impacts to groundwater could range from small to large depending on the nature of groundwater use and site-conditions. Small impacts to floodplains and flood risk would be anticipated as all construction would be consistent with Executive Order 11988. Impacts to wetlands could be small to large depending on site conditions and the physical location of various structures. Aquatic ecology impacts would range from small to large depending on site-specific conditions, species present, location of structures, and water use needs. Terrestrial ecology impacts would be small to moderate for the same reasons. Impacts to aquatic and terrestrial ecology would be mitigated through permit requirements and best management practices. Endangered and threatened species impacts would be small to large depending on the presence of such species, alterations in land use, habitat loss/fragmentation, and loss of biodiversity. Small to large impacts would be anticipated for managed and natural areas due to site development. Recreational impacts would be small to moderate depending on site location, and the associated noise, dust, viewshed, and watershed impacts. There would be temporary small impacts to air quality and greenhouse gases during construction which would be mitigated through adherence to permit requirements and application of best management practices. Small to moderate impacts to air quality and greenhouse gases would occur with operations depending on the nature of the generation source. Transportation impacts would range from small to moderate depending on the local infrastructure, existing traffic levels, and project traffic. Impacts to visual resources would range from small
Implementation of Alternative B, TVA's preferred alternative, would result in no impact or small impacts to the environment for all resource areas. The renewal of the BFN licenses would allow for the proposed SLR period of extended operation of the units under the same requirements, technical specifications, and limits currently in place. Any changes to the provisions of the operating licenses (
Alternative B—BFN Units 1, 2, and 3 SLR, would provide the Tennessee Valley Authority service area with an additional 20 years of reliable base load power while promoting TVA's aspiration for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, make beneficial use of existing assets, and deliver power at the lowest feasible cost. Therefore, the environmentally preferred action alternative that meets the project purpose and need is Alternative B, TVA's preferred alternative. Alternative B would meet the purpose and need of the project and would have less impact than Alternative A.
Informed by the summary of the submitted alternatives, information, and analyses in the Final SEIS, TVA certifies it has considered all the alternatives, information, analyses, and objections submitted by State, Tribal, and local governments, and public commenters for consideration in developing the SEIS. TVA has selected the preferred alternative identified in the Final PEIS, Alternative B—BFN Units 1, 2, and 3 SLR.
On June 1, 2021, TVA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the
TVA also created a virtual meeting room that remained available for the duration of the NEPA analysis. The virtual meeting room can be accessed through TVA's website (
On February 10, 2023, the Draft SEIS was released for public review and comment in a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
TVA received two comment letters from members of the public via TVA's website and one comment letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TVA carefully reviewed all the comments. Comments raised during the comment period are summarized by topic along with TVA's responses to each comment in Appendix B of the Final SEIS. A copy of each of the comments are included at the end of the appendix.
The NOA for the Final SEIS was published in the
Because BFN would continue operating within all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and because no new construction or modifications to the facility is anticipated or planned during the proposed subsequent period of extended operations, no new mitigation measures would be required beyond those already implemented as a result of initial construction and operations. Should any construction or modification be anticipated or planned, TVA would follow all appropriate permitting requirements and environmental reviews would be pursued prior to deciding to pursue those projects. Best Management Practices would be implemented including those described in A Guide for Environmental Protection and Best Management Practices for Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA 2017b), stormwater pollution and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan, and other permit conditions
• BFN also has an Integrated Pollution Prevention Plan that addresses storage, secondary containment, and inspections of fuel, hazardous materials, and chemicals like biocides. Attachment 5 of the plan provides an inventory of all tanks, pumps, transformers, and other containers where these materials are used or stored, including the type of secondary containment for each. The secondary containment limits the potential for minor chemical spills to occur outside of containment areas.
• The discharge of chemicals to surface water would be regulated by the conditions set forth in the NPDES permit.
• Dredged material would be disposed of on land lying and being outside the 500-year floodplain in an onsite spoils area and above the 500-year flood elevation.
• Water-use and water-dependent structures and facilities would be located within 100-year floodplains, and flood-damageable equipment and facilities would be located at a minimum outside 100-year floodplains, and Critical Actions would be located at a minimum outside 500-year floodplains.
• All handling and disposal of non-radioactive and radioactive wastes would be in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and requirements of local, state, and federal laws.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves regulations that prescribe the requirements governing air carrier operations. The information collected is necessary to determine air operators' compliance with the minimum safety standards and the applicants' eligibility for air operations certification.
Written comments should be submitted by March 18, 2024.
Please send written comments:
Sandra L. Ray by email at:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meetings.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announces multiple meetings of the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection (ACUP). This notice announces the date, time, and location of these meetings, which will be open the public. The purpose of ACUP is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on safety regulations to reduce underride crashes and fatalities relating to underride crashes.
The four ACUP meetings will be held on February 8, March 13, April 24, and May 22, 2024, from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. Pre-registration is required to attend each online meeting. A link
Each meeting will be held virtually via Zoom. Information and registration for the meetings will be available on the NHTSA website (
James Myers, U.S. Department of Transportation, Special Vehicles and Systems Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
ACUP was established as a statutory committee pursuant to section 23011(d) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Public Law 117-58 (commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL), and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. app. 2. The purpose of ACUP is to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on safety regulations to reduce underride crashes and fatalities relating to underride crashes.
The Committee duties include the following:
a. Gathering information as necessary to discuss issues presented by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
b. Deliberating on issues relevant to safety regulations related to underride crashes and fatalities from underride crashes.
c. Providing written consensus advice to the Secretary on underride protection to reduce underride crashes and fatalities relating to underride crashes.
The agenda for the 3rd ACUP meeting on February 8, 2024, will include the following:
The agenda for the 4th ACUP meeting on March 13, 2024, will include the following:
The agenda for the 5th ACUP meeting on April 24, 2024, will include the following:
The agenda for the 6th ACUP meeting on May 22, 2024, will include the following:
The meetings will be open to the public. We are committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. Persons with disabilities in need of an accommodation should send a request to the individual in the
Members of the public wanting to reserve time to speak directly to the Committee during the meeting must submit a request. The request must include the name, contact information (address, phone number, and email address), and organizational affiliation of the individual wishing to address ACUP; it must also include a written copy of prepared remarks and must be forwarded to the individual listed in the
Members of the public may also submit written materials, questions, and comments to the Committee in advance to the individual listed in the
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public hearing.
Notice is hereby given of the following hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public hearing in Washington, DC on February 1, 2024 on “Current and Emerging Technologies in U.S.-China Economic and National Security Competition.”
The hearing is scheduled for Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.
Members of the public will be able to attend in person at a location TBD or view a live webcast via the Commission's website at
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the hearing should contact Jameson Cunningham, 444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202-624-1496, or via email at
The hearing will be co-chaired by Commissioner Michael Wessel and Commissioner Jacob Helberg. Any interested party may file a written statement by February 1, 2024 by transmitting to the contact above. A portion of the hearing will include a question and answer period between the Commissioners and the witnesses.
January 18, 2024, 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-6099 (U.S. Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (U.S. Toll), Meeting ID: 997 6914 3647, to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to participate via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is
This meeting will be open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the “Board”) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting will include:
The UCR Board Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to order, call roll for the Board, confirm the presence of a quorum, and facilitate self-introductions.
The UCR Executive Director will verify publication of the meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact list via email, followed by subsequent publication of the notice in the
The proposed Agenda will be reviewed. The Board will consider action to adopt.
➢ Board actions taken only in designated areas on the agenda.
Draft Minutes from the December 7, 2023, UCR Board meeting will be reviewed. The Board will consider action to approve.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will provide a report on any relevant agency activity, including the status of the FMCSA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the 2025 UCR Fee Rulemaking and its publication in the
The UCR Board Chair and UCR Executive Director will lead a discussion on current and possible future UCR outreach to Canadian and Mexican carriers operating in the United States. Discussion will include the form and cost of current outreach efforts to these motor carriers and the form and cost of additional possible outreach.
The UCR Chief Legal Officer will report on his activities as Chief Legal Officer of the UCR Plan since the last Board of Directors meeting including, among other things, his efforts to protect the intellectual property assets of the UCR Plan including the issuance of cease-and-desist letters regarding alleged trademark infringement, possible Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations, the initiation of domain name dispute resolution proceedings and the issuance of trademark licenses to participating states.
An engagement letter between the UCR Plan and the Bradley Arant law firm will be presented to the Board for consideration and approval. The engagement letter covers the legal services performed by Alex Leath, in his capacity as the Chief Legal Officer of the UCR Plan, and the Bradley Arant law firm in support of the Chief Legal Officer's activities. These legal services will be performed on behalf of the UCR Plan during calendar year 2024. The presentation will include the scope of the engagement as well as the amount budgeted to defray the estimated fees and expenses.
No report.
The UCR Depository Manager will provide an update on the timing of a distribution of the fees from the UCR Depository to states that have not yet reached their revenue entitlements for the 2024 registration year. In addition, the UCR Depository Manager will give an update on the selection of an audit firm to conduct the 2022 external audit.
The UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair will provide an update on current and planned future training initiatives, to include website content review, website optimization strategy, NRS modules, and UCR purpose and subcommittee videos.
The UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair will provide an update on current and planned initiatives, to include the development of a video series intended to increase participation in the UCR focused on brokers, motor carriers, and bus operators.
The UCR Enforcement Subcommittee Chair will provide an update on current and planned initiatives to include a review of enforcement rates, creation of standards for annual UCR enforcement awards, conducting biannual enforcement blitzes, roadside enforcement of carriers who are under-registered, and creation of an enforcement presentation.
No report.
The UCR Executive Director will provide a report covering his recent activity for the UCR Plan including any changes in the dates of UCR meetings in 2024.
The UCR Chief of Staff will provide a management update covering recent activity for the Depository, Operations, and Communications.
DSL Transportation Services, Inc. will report on the latest data from the FARs program, Tier 5 and 6 unregistered motor carriers, and other matters.
Seikosoft will provide an update on its recent/new activity related to the UCR's National Registration System.
The UCR Board Chair will call for any other business, old or new, from the floor.
The UCR Board Chair will adjourn the meeting.
The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, January 11, 2024, at:
Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors, (617) 305-3783,
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before March 18, 2024.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10., that the Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans will conduct in-person meeting sessions in Tampa, Florida on February 7, 2024-February 9, 2024.
The sessions will begin, and end as follows in the noted locations:
The meeting sessions are open to the public, except when the Committee is conducting tours of VA facilities. Tours of VA facilities are closed to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information, in accordance with 5 U.S.C 552b(c)(6).
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the VA regarding the provision by VA of benefits and services to assist Veterans in the readjustment to civilian life. In carrying out this duty, the Committee shall take into account the needs of Veterans who served in combat theaters of operation. The Committee assembles, reviews, and assesses information relating to the needs of Veterans readjusting to civilian life and the effectiveness of VA services in assisting Veterans in that readjustment.
The Committee, comprised of 14 subject matter experts, advises the Secretary, through the VA Readjustment Counseling Service, on the provision by VA of benefits and services to assist Veterans in the readjustment to civilian life. In carrying out this duty, the Committee assembles, reviews, and assesses information relating to the needs of Veterans readjusting to civilian life and the effectiveness of VA services in assisting Veterans in that readjustment, specifically taking into account the needs of Veterans who served in combat theaters of operation.
On February 7, 2024, the agenda will include a site visit of the Tampa Vet Center, 9206 King Palm Drive, Tampa, FL 33619, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m. EST. The meeting session is closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(6). Exemption 6 permits the Committee to close a meeting that is likely to disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, which will most likely be the case throughout this field visit.
On February 8, 2024, the Committee will convene in a closed session at the Tampa VA Medical Center (James A. Haley) 13000 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612-4745, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST as it tours the VA facility. This portion of the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b (c) (6). Exemption 6 permits the Committee to close a meeting that is likely to disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, which will most likely be the case throughout this field visit. From 1 p.m. to to 5 p.m. EST, the meeting will reconvene in an open session at the Tampa VA Medical Center (James A. Haley) 13000 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612-4745. During this session, the agenda will include a briefings and updates.
On February 9, 2024, the session is open to the public and will be held at the Tampa VA Medical Center (James A. Haley) 13000 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612-4745. The agenda will include presentations and updates. Additionally, the Committee will be solely focused on writing the 24th Annual Report, which will be accomplished through breakout groups and open full committee discussion.
No time will be allotted for receiving oral comments from the public; however, the committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues outlined in the meeting agenda or other issues regarding the readjustment of Veterans. Parties wishing to submit written questions or comments many send them to Mr. Richard Barbato, via email at VHA RCS Strategy & Analysis
Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Mr. Barbato at the email addressed noted above.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Direct final rule.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. In this direct final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is adopting amended energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. DOE has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.
The effective date of this rule is May 16, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in the rule was approved by the Director as of May 21, 2014, and November 12, 2021. If adverse comments are received by May 6, 2024, and DOE determines that such comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal of this rule will be published in the
The docket for this rulemaking, which includes
The docket web page can be found at
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5904. Email:
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 597-6265. Email:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
The adopted standard levels in this direct final rule were proposed in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility. This letter, titled “Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023” (hereafter, the “Joint Agreement”),
In accordance with the direct final rule provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also simultaneously publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that contains identical standards to those adopted in this direct final rule. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or any other applicable law, DOE will publish the reasons for withdrawal and continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C))
The amended standards that DOE is adopting in this direct final rule are the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement (shown in Tables I.1 and I.2) expressed in terms of kilowatt hours per year (“kWh/yr”) as measured according to DOE's current refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test procedures codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 430, subpart B, appendices A (“appendix A”) and B (“appendix B”).
The amended standards recommended in the Joint Agreement are represented as trial standard level (“TSL”) 4 in this document (hereinafter the “Recommended TSL”) and are described in section V.A of this document. These standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into the United States starting on January 31, 2029, and all products listed in Table I.2 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on January 31, 2030.
Table I.3 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.
The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year (2023) through the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed compliance date.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.
DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2), amount to 5.6 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.
The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers ranges from $9.0 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $27.0 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers purchased in 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2.
In addition, the adopted standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 100.8 million metric tons (“Mt”)
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (“GHG”) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO
DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO
Table I.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the amended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.
The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers shipped in 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers shipped in 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.
Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $567.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual monetized benefits are $2.2 billion in reduced operating costs, $303.8 million in climate benefits, and $592.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $2.5 billion per year.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.
DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the recommended standards and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary has determined that the adoption of the recommended standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and is the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the burdens. The Secretary has further concluded that the recommended standards, when considering the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings, would yield benefits that outweigh the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 5.6 quads (full-fuel cycle (“FFC”)), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 37 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO
Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Consistent with this authority, DOE is also simultaneously publishing elsewhere in this
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this direct final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(Ir)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A,
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain products, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, final rules for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible,
Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a final rule (
The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) While DOE typically provides a comment period of 60 days on proposed standards, for a NOPR accompanying a direct final rule, DOE provides a comment period of the same length as the comment period on the direct final rule—
DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's “Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may issue standards recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the direct final rule provision in EPCA does not impose additional requirements applicable to other standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique circumstances of rules issued as consensus agreements under DOE's direct final rule authority.
In a final rule published on September 15, 2011 (“September 2011 Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers manufactured on and after September 15, 2014. 76 FR 57516. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(a).
On December 23, 2019, DOE published a test procedure NOPR (“December 2019 TP NOPR”) proposing to amend residential refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test procedure. 84 FR 70842. On October 12, 2021, DOE published a test procedure final rule (“October 2021 TP Final Rule”) establishing test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A (“appendix A”) and B (“appendix B”). 86 FR 56790. The test procedure adopted the latest version of the relevant industry standard published by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”), updated in 2019, AHAM Standard HRF-1, “Energy and Internal Volume of Refrigerating Appliances” (“HRF-1-2019”). 10 CFR 430.3(i)(4). The standard levels proposed in the NOPR are based on the annual energy use (“AEU”) metrics as measured according to appendices A and B.
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (“NAECA”), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for refrigeration products, with requirements that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards (42 U.S.C. 6295 (b)(1), (2), (3)(A)(i), and (3)(B)-(C)). DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in 1989 and 1990 by adopting amended performance standards for all refrigeration products manufactured on or after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916 (November 17, 1989); 55 FR 42845 (October 24, 1990). DOE completed a second rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for refrigeration products by issuing a final rule in 1997, which adopted the current standards for these products. 62 FR 23102 (April 28, 1997).
In 2005, DOE granted a petition, submitted by a coalition of state governments, utility companies, consumer and low-income advocacy groups, and environmental and energy efficiency organizations, requesting a rulemaking to amend the standards for residential refrigerator-freezers. DOE then conducted limited analyses to examine the technological and economic feasibility of amended standards at the ENERGY STAR levels that were in effect for 2005 for the two most popular product classes of refrigerator-freezers. These analyses not only identified potential energy savings, benefits, and burdens from such standards, but also assessed other issues related to them.
DOE initiated a rulemaking and also published a notice announcing the availability of the framework document and a public meeting to discuss the document in September 2008. It also requested public comment on the published document. 73 FR 54089 (September 18, 2008). The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for refrigeration products and identified various issues to resolve during the rulemaking. DOE published a final rule on September 15, 2011, to satisfy the statutory requirement that DOE publish a final rule to determine whether to amend the standards for refrigeration products manufactured in 2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)) The limited 2005 analyses served as background for the more extensive analysis conducted for final
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (
DOE notes that it was conducting a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers when the Joint Agreement was submitted. As part of that process, on February 27, 2023, DOE published a NOPR and announced a public webinar (“February 2023 NOPR”) seeking comment on its proposed amended standard to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 88 FR 12452. DOE held a public webinar on April 11, 2023, to discuss and receive comments on the NOPR and NOPR TSD. The NOPR TSD is available at:
Although DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement as a direct final rule and no longer proceeding with its own rulemaking, DOE did consider relevant comments, data, and information obtained during that rulemaking process in determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint Agreement are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of comments, data, or information in this direct final rule that were obtained during DOE's own prior rulemaking will include a parenthetical reference that provides the location of the item in the public record.
DOE is issuing this direct final rule after determining that the recommended standards submitted in the Joint Agreement meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, DOE has determined that the recommended standards were submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
This direct final rule covers those consumer products that meet the definition of “refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity, or based upon performance-related features that justify a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a
The Joint Agreement proposed special door and multi-door energy allowances for product classes if manufacturers offer models with those features. Energy allowances applied to energy use equations correspond to performance-related features that would then justify new product classes for those configurations with special door and multi-door designs. The proposed approach also embeds within the energy use equations the difference between classes that are otherwise identical except for presence of an icemaker, using a logical variable I (equal to 1 for a product with an icemaker and equal to 0 for a product without an icemaker) multiplied by the constant icemaker energy use adder.
The structure simplification and amendments in the Joint Agreement are consistent with those proposed by DOE in the February 2023 NOPR. Based on the comments received in response to the February 2023 NOPR and DOE's evaluation of the Joint Agreement, the direct final rule adopts these changes.
Under the direct final rule provision in EPCA, recommended energy conservation standards must be submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) With respect to this requirement, DOE notes that the Joint Agreement included a trade association, AHAM, which represents 20 manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The Joint Agreement also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric utility company. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the States of New York, California, and Massachusetts (
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (“Process Rule”).
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking,
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this document and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.
For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs other than TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2).
DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet models to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) from potential amended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
As stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 5.6 quads (FFC), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 37 million homes. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions, and need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
In determining the impacts of potential amended standards on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and payback period (“PBP”) associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating cost (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
In evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable-presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F of this document.
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses, including relevant comments DOE received during its separate rulemaking to amend the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers prior to receiving the Joint Agreement.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections.
The Joint Agreement specifies 32 product classes for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. (Joint Agreement, No. 103 at p. 15-16) In particular, the Joint Agreement recommends a consolidated product class representation which incorporates icemaker energy adders and door allowances into the energy use equations for product classes in which they are applicable. In addition, the Join Agreement proposes a new product class—upright built-in freezers with automatic defrost and through-the-door ice service (“9A-BI”). (
DOE further notes that product classes established through EPCA's direct final rule authority are not subject to the criteria specified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) for establishing product classes. Nevertheless, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)—which is applicable to direct final rules—DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not result in the unavailability in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States currently.
The Joint Agreement includes a proposed simplification of maximum allowable energy and would express the maximum allowable energy use for both icemaking and non-icemaking classes in the same equation, thus consolidating the presentation of classes and their energy conservation standards. The energy use equations will, for those classes that may or may not have an icemaker, include a term equal to the icemaking energy use adder multiplied by a factor that is defined to equal 1 for products with icemakers and to equal zero for products without icemakers. This approach does not combine classes that are the same other than the presence of an icemaker, but does simplify the list of classes and representation of their maximum allowable energy use, providing for each set of classes with and without ice makers a single equation for maximum energy use. (88 FR 12452)
DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement proposal to express the maximum allowable energy use for any set of classes differing only in whether the class includes an icemaker or not within a single equation. The single equation does this by including the icemaker energy use adder multiplied by logical variable I that is set equal to 1 for a product with an icemaker present and 0 for a product without an icemaker.
The Joint Agreement made recommendations to establish new product classes for models that implement special and multi-door designs. The standards for these product classes include energy allowances (
In this direct final rule, DOE is implementing the recommended special door and multi-door energy allowances. DOE's direct rulemaking authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) is constrained only by the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which does not include the product class requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE is relying on the product classes provided in the Joint Agreement for consideration in this rule, but DOE notes that special doors (
Furthermore, DOE's analysis of these features suggests that special door and multi-door designs impact energy usage with some combinations accounting for additional energy consumption of up to 25 percent (based on CERA simulations).
For the reasons previously discussed, DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement recommendations to establish new product classes for models that implement special and multi-door designs.
AHAM, Sub Zero Group, Inc. (“Sub Zero”), and Samsung also recommended that DOE apply the door coefficient to PC 4, PC 4-BI, PC 9, and PC 9-BI, as these classes have products offering multi-door setups or special doors that provide similar customer utility. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 8; Sub Zero, No. 77 at p. 4; Samsung, No. 78 at p. 3) True Manufacturing (“TRUE”) similarly stated that PC 4I and PC 4, and any other product classes with transparent doors, should have the same transparent door allowance as PC 5A and PC 5. (TRUE, No. 57 at pp. 1-2)
DOE's assessment regarding the energy impact of designs featuring multi-door and special door setups warranted the proposal of energy allowances for classes where such features are offered. DOE reviewed the market and requested input from commenters related to existing models on the market in an effort to assess the prevalence of multi-door designs or special doors in products on the market today and concluded that there likely exist such models in PC 4I, PC 4I-BI, PC 9, and PC 9-BI that implement multi-door setups, special doors, or both. Therefore, DOE is adopting the multi-door and transparent door energy allowances for PC 4, PC 4I, PC 4-BI, PC 4I-BI, PC 9, and PC 9-BI consistent with feature availability. PC 4, PC 4I, PC 4-BI, and PC 4I-BI will be eligible for transparent door and multi-door allowances, while PC 9, and PC 9-BI will be eligible for the multi-door allowance. The magnitude and application of the allowances adopted for the aforementioned product classes are consistent with those recommended in the Joint Agreement. DOE notes that PC 4 and PC 4-BI will be eligible for a 2 percent allowance for each additional door for products without a transparent door or door-in-door with added external doors, a 6 percent allowance for products without a transparent door with a door-in-door, or a 10 percent transparent door allowance for the use of a qualifying transparent door. PC 9 and PC 9-BI will be eligible for a 2 percent allowance for each additional door up to two additional doors.
The Joint Agreement includes the following recommended definition for a transparent door:
•
•
Upon further consideration of the February 2023 NOPR proposed transparent door definition, the feedback received from stakeholders, and the Joint Agreement submitted by interested parties, including AHAM, DOE conducted further market research into available models with transparent panels, generating a list of models from various manufacturers and product classes representative of the units currently on the market that implement transparent doors. From this list, DOE determined transparent panel and door area based on product literature, in-person measurements, or use of scaled photographs. DOE then determined the percentage of the door covered by the transparent area for each model considered. DOE found that the transparent door on a French door configuration typically had roughly 40 percent or more of the total outer door area transparent, consistent with the percentage recommended in the Joint Agreement. Other configurations, such as two door bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers and compact refrigerators had 54 percent or more of their outer door area transparent. Based on this assessment and consideration of the Joint Agreement recommendations, DOE is adopting a modified definition from the February 2023 NOPR for transparent doors to better align with the products on the market, as follows:
Transparent door means an external fresh food compartment door which meets the following criteria:
• The area of the transparent portion of the door is at least 40 percent of the area of the door.
• The area of the door is at least 50 percent of the sum of the areas of all the external doors providing access to the fresh food compartments and cooler compartments.
• For the purposes of this evaluation, the area of a door is determined as the product of the maximum height and maximum width dimensions of the door, not considering potential extension of flaps used to provide a seal to adjacent doors.
DOE notes that this amended transparent door definition not only aligns with the typical implementation on the market, as previously described, but also is a more straightforward approach compared to those recommended and referenced by commenters. Specifically, DOE expects that the suggested approach based on the internal cabinet dimensions has some potential for questions about interpretation, given the fact that the interior dimensions could vary from the front of the cabinet to the rear. This could lead to varying internal cabinet area determinations. Therefore, in order to eliminate this potential variation, DOE is adopting the above definition and approach that simplifies the determination of the transparent door area by measuring and determining the area of the transparent portion divided by the product of the maximum height and width dimensions of the door.
In summary, in this direct final rule DOE is adopting the multi-door and special door energy use allowances as proposed in the Joint Agreement, with the specified amendments as previously discussed.
The Joint Agreement recommends the addition of a new product class 9A-BI (
Considering that the recommendation carries support from a broad cross-section of interests, including trade associations representing these manufacturers, environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, consumer advocates, and electric utility providers as well as the support of several States, DOE believes it appropriate to adopt this new product class, 9A-BI. DOE notes that the addition of a PC 9A-BI, as suggested by the Joint Agreement, is warranted as the application of a through-the-door icemaker constitutes a performance related feature with consumer utility and is likely to be introduced on the market in the near future.
DOE notes the standard as recommended by the Joint Agreement for PC 9A-BI is 5 percent higher than that of PC 9I-BI (built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker). When considering class 9A-BI and 9I-BI, the key difference is the addition of through-the-door ice service, and the potential additional thermal load associated with its addition. Therefore, the 5 percent adjustment between 9I-BI and 9A-BI can be attributed mainly to the addition of through-the-door ice service. When comparing recommended standards to other product classes in which the key difference is the addition of through-the-door ice (
Given the indication from the aforementioned stakeholders that such a product class standard would be beneficial in its implementation, the classification of through-the-door ice as a performance related feature, and the recommendation's consistency with the other adopted standards, DOE is adopting a PC 9A-BI standard in this direct final rule.
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified 37 technology options initially determined to improve the efficiency of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as measured by the DOE test procedure:
DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.
In conducting the screening analysis for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the screening analysis conducted for the February 2023 NOPR.
In the February 2023 NOPR, DOE screened out the technologies presented in Table II.2 on the basis of technological feasibility, practicability to manufacture, install, and service, adverse impacts on utility or availability, adverse impacts on health and safety, and/or unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
GEA recommended that DOE screen out “improved resistivity of foam,” which is primarily hydrofluoro-olefin (“HFO”) foams, as a technology option. GEA stated that HFO foams represent a unique and proprietary technology pathway and that the two listed by DOE in the February 2023 NOPR TSD—Solstice LBA and Ecomate—should be excluded through the technology screening analysis. GEA stated that Solstice LBA, an HFO foam blowing agent is only produced by a single manufacturer, Honeywell, and should therefore be screened out from consideration in DOE's technology assessment in this rulemaking. GEA noted that Ecomate has no proven commercialization in modern consumer refrigerators or freezers. (GEA, No. 75 at pp. 4-5)
As discussed in the February 2023 NOPR, HFO foams are retained as a design option and passed the screening analysis because the technology option meets the five criteria previously mentioned. While GEA notes Ecomate has no proven commercialization in modern consumer refrigerators or freezer, as discussed in more detail in section 3.4.2.1 of the February 2023 NOPR TSD, improved resistivity foams such as Solstice have been implemented in refrigerator-freezer models in the United States, as of at least 2014
An individual commented that microchannel condensers should not be retained as a design option, citing issues with implementation in the HVAC industry. The individual also stated that increased insulation thickness should not be retained as a design option, citing lessening of consumer utility. (Individual Commenter, No. 59 at p. 1)
DOE has observed implementation of microchannel heat exchangers in PC 5I, PC 5A, and several built-in product classes. DOE has also received no information regarding negative impacts in consumer utility or safety, and therefore, DOE retained microchannel condensers as a design option in this analysis As with the HFO foam design option, while microchannel condensers passed the screening analysis, this design option was not included as a design pathway to achieve higher efficiency levels in the direct final rule analysis due to potential system operation drawbacks including irregular refrigerant distribution, greater refrigerant-side pressure drop, and greater air-side pressure drop.
DOE expects that increased insulation thickness would impact either the interior or exterior dimensions of a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, and as a result did not consider increased insulation thickness as a design option to achieve the higher efficiency levels for standard-size refrigerator-freezers. However, DOE expects that there is potential to increase insulation thickness for some types of freezers and compact refrigerators, given their typical use in in spaces that allow increased exterior dimensions, and therefore continues to consider increased thickness as a design option to achieve higher efficiency levels for PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18.
Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.B.1 met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis: the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (
In defining the efficiency levels for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the efficiency levels proposed in the February 2023 NOPR.
For its analysis in this rulemaking, DOE used a combined efficiency level and design option approach. First, an efficiency-level approach was used to establish an analysis tied to existing products on the market. A design option approach was used to extend the analysis through “built-down” efficiency levels and “built-up” efficiency levels where there were gaps in the range of efficiencies of products that were reverse engineered. Products from PC 3, PC 5, PC 5A, PC 5-BI, PC 7, PC 9, PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18 were tested and torn down to provide information to lay the groundwork for the analysis. Other product classes such as 9-BI (and the new PC 9A-BI recommended by the Joint Agreement) were not directly analyzed as a part of DOE's analysis, as they were not deemed sufficiently representative of the market. A number of other product classes were indirectly analyzed, based on relevant directly analyzed product classes. DOE's analysis for PC-9BI, for example, is based on the directly analyzed PC 9.
DOE used design option analysis techniques to extend the analysis to higher efficiency levels and to fill any efficiency level gaps. DOE generally focuses its analysis on product classes with higher market share as their energy impact and associated energy savings are the most significant. Therefore, for this direct final rule analysis DOE chose to test and teardown units from the product classes listed above that represent a significant market share, and extrapolated the analysis to all other product classes that were not directly analyzed, as appropriate.
For the analysis supporting this direct final rule, DOE used an assessment of PC 5-BI (built-in refrigerator-freezer with bottom-mounted freezer) to address built-in products. DOE conducted analysis for a representative 5-BI product and compared it to analysis conducted for freestanding models of class 5. DOE concluded that a built-in model that is comparable to a freestanding model except the built-in configuration would have 5 percent higher energy use. Therefore, for example, the potential reduction in energy use for built-in PC 5 units would be 5 percent lower than their freestanding counterparts, based on the implementation of the same design options to satisfy a higher efficiency level. DOE has applied this 5-percent differential in selecting standard levels for other built-in classes for which DOE did not conduct direct analysis (
For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class (
In determining the baseline efficiency level for this direct final rule analysis, DOE maintained the same approach as the February 2023 NOPR, and considered the current Federal energy conservation standards as the baseline level, expressed as maximum annual energy consumption as a function of the product's adjusted volume, adjusting for the change in the automatic icemaker energy contribution for product classes that include this feature. The current standards incorporate an allowance of a constant 84 kWh/yr icemaker adder for product classes with automatic icemakers, consistent with the current test procedure, which requires adding this amount of annual energy use to the product's tested performance if the product has an automatic icemaker. DOE adjusted the baseline energy usage levels for each class to account for the planned revision in the test procedure to reduce the icemaker energy use adder to 28 kWh/yr.
DOE directly analyzed a sample of market representative models from within nine product classes from multiple manufactures. For most product classes a single representative adjusted volume was analyzed, though for PC 3, PC 5, and PC 11, DOE directly analyzed two representative adjusted volumes within the product class. DOE tested and tore down 13 baseline units to provide a basis for development of the cost-efficiency curves. DOE's analysis assumed that all baseline models implement R-600a refrigerant, based on feedback during manufacturer interviews suggesting the industry has or is in the process of shifting to low-GWP refrigerants, in particular away from R-134a, in accordance with regulatory efforts to phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons.
BSH disagreed with DOE's use of HFO foam as representative of a baseline refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and/or freezer's insulation in the February 2023 NOPR, citing high environmental impact of the insulation, and encouraged DOE to remove HFO foam from baseline analysis. (BSH, No. 64 at pp. 1-2) AHAM also suggested that considering HFO foam at baseline efficiency levels is inappropriate and result in an artificially high baseline efficiency, excessively stringent standards for high-volume product classes, and negative environmental impacts. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 4-5)
DOE was unable to determine the type of insulation used in teardown models and subsequently considered PU insulation at the baseline level for all product classes in the February 2023 NOPR and in this direct final rule. Furthermore, as described in section IV.B.2 of this document, DOE retained the improved insulation resistivity design option (
For this direct final rule, DOE maintained the same approach as the February 2023 NOPR, and analyzed up to five incremental efficiency levels beyond the baseline for each of the analyzed product classes. For PC 3 and PC 7, DOE considered an efficiency level at roughly 5 percent more efficient than the current energy conservation standard. For all product classes, DOE considered a level near 10 percent more efficient than the current energy conservation standard, equivalent to the current ENERGY STAR® level for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
As discussed in the previous section, DOE's NOPR analysis considered the use of VIPs placed throughout the side walls and doors at max-tech levels for many product classes.
AHAM disagreed with the extent of VIP use at higher efficiency levels in the engineering analysis, asserting that DOE overestimates the use and impact of VIPs in its analysis, despite acknowledging the technology's limitations. AHAM cited panel cost, in the form of labor and production costs, which are significant due to complex installation requirements, processing controls, and quality checks. AHAM also cited lower effectiveness in smaller units due to “edge effects” (
DOE's implementation of VIPs in the analyses at each stage of this rulemaking is based on a combination of the best information gathered from multiple sources related to cost, use, and energy efficiency impacts. DOE did not specifically account for edge effect impacts on thermal load for compact refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer models in its analysis. Regarding VIP pricing, DOE estimated VIP panel, installation, processing, and quality check costs based on a number of discussions with refrigerator manufacturers, VIP producers, and market research. DOE conducted additional interviews and research in support of this direct final rule, which further supported and solidified the VIP cost estimates.
In manufacturer interviews, DOE also gathered information regarding the implementation of VIPs (
Sub Zero commented that as a small, low-volume manufacturer of niche built-in style refrigeration products, it is concerned that the standards proposed in the February 2023 NOPR will create a significant supply chain burden for them, as components like vacuum insulation panels are supplied by a limited number of manufacturers, which will impede their ability to deliver products to their consumers in a timely manner. Sub Zero requested that DOE reduce the stringency level of adopted standards for built-in products, to reduce these concerns. (Sub Zero, No. 77 at p. 2)
To better characterize and understand the VIP market, DOE conducted research and interviewed relevant VIP manufacturers to gather more data regarding the current global VIP market, and to identify any potential supply chain constraints related to the adoption of more stringent energy conservation standards. DOE estimates that the current demand for VIPs in the U.S. refrigerator market is roughly 1 to 3 million VIP panels, whereas the global supply for VIPs is estimated to exceed 10 million panels. Despite relatively low demand for VIPs in the U.S. market, there is notable VIP use in the European and Asian markets, with supply available from at least three major VIP manufacturers. Based on the information gathered, DOE expects that VIP production lines can be quickly scaled up to meet demand of future amended standards (within 1 to 2 years depending on the specific VIP design), well within 3-year lead time between publication of amended standards and the compliance date for those standards.
In response to stakeholder feedback on the February 2023 NOPR, DOE carefully considered the use of VIPs in its analysis, generally implementing VIPs at the highest efficiency levels as one of the last design options considered. Therefore, based on the engineering analysis and its consideration of VIPs, DOE expects that to meet the adopted standards, manufacturers are likely to implement VIPs only in PC 5 (for three-door, 30 AV configuration) and PC 5A, with partial VIP usage for both classes.
Numerous commenters on the February 2023 NOPR suggested that supply chains for VIPs and variable-speed compressor (“VSC”) may not support the quantities of those components that may be required at the efficiency levels proposed in the NOPR. AHAM recommended that DOE conduct a review of component availability and supply chain capacity for VSCs given the general global market trends for increasingly stringent standards for cooling appliances, including both air conditioning and refrigeration. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 5) Whirlpool further noted that the proposed standards may result in increased component costs to manufacturers due to those same supply chain constraints, especially given that VSCs would be necessary for nearly all evaluated product classes. (Whirlpool, No. 70 at p. 5) Sub Zero also expressed concern that the proposed standards will create a significant supply chain burden for small, low-volume manufacturer of niche market built-in style refrigeration products because VSCs are provided by a limited number of suppliers. Sub Zero commented that the proposed standards will impede the ability of these small manufacturers to deliver to their niche consumers in a timely manner. (Sub Zero, No. 77 at p. 2)
Samsung supported DOE's proposed energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers and the use of VSC technology as a significant energy-saving option. Samsung stated that there is already significant market availability of VSCs, and a regulatory certainty and 3-year compliance period would provide ample time for manufacturers and suppliers to establish sufficient supply availability of VSCs. (Samsung, No. 78 at p. 2)
In response to these comments, DOE interviewed relevant compressor manufacturers to gather information
Based on manufacturer interviews, DOE estimates the current total global demand for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer compressors (all compressors, not just VSCs) is 230 million. Total compressor production capacity is much higher than demand, with global capacity for compressors estimated at over 400 million. Globally, there has been a shift towards VSC utilization in response to increasing energy efficiency regulations in the European Union (“EU”) and Japan. Estimates project upwards of a quarter of the global market and a third of the U.S. market currently utilize VSCs in refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Considering the U.S. market accounts for an estimated 12 million consumer refrigeration products, a conservative estimate puts U.S. current demand for VSC compressors at roughly 4 million.
Given DOE's understanding of the compressor marketplace, the expected time to build capacity to meet the new demand is expected to be significantly shorter than the 5 and 6-year lead time between direct final rule publication and the compliance date, with estimates ranging from 8 months to 1 year. Compressor manufacturers indicated that VSC production capacity has been increasing by 7 million per year between 2018 and 2022. Additionally, high-efficiency VSC compressor designs are already developed and do not require additional qualification testing before production. Research and development (“R&D”) time to develop compressor designs is not required and thus would not be a factor affecting availability.
DOE is aware that there have been supply constraints for VSCs recently due to issues with electronic component supply caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, Chinese manufacturing and shipping of compressors decreased significantly during COVID-related lockdowns throughout the country between 2020 and 2022. Due to China's outsized impact on global supply, the effects of lockdowns were felt globally. Now that lockdowns have ended, however, the affected factories are open again and in production. Compressor manufacturers also indicated that they have been modifying sourcing strategies, in many cases establishing their own electronic component assembly lines in order to protect against potential future issues that could affect supply and production of VSCs.
In considering all of the information provided by relevant manufacturers of VSCs, DOE believes that significant increases in VSCs in the U.S. market aligned with the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are well within the production capacity of the compressor industry. DOE further notes, that AHAM, Whirlpool, Sub Zero, and Samsung are parties to the Joint Agreement and are supportive of the recommended standard adopted in this direct final rule.
The Joint Agreement recommended that DOE adopt a level of 10 percent energy savings relative to the current PC 12 standard. In light of the recommendation outlined in the Joint Agreement, and in consideration of comments received in response to the February 2023 NOPR, DOE is adopting a percentage increase in efficiency for PC 12 at 10 percent lower relative to the current standard. Additionally, as recommended in the Joint Agreement and proposed in the February 2023 NOPR, DOE is including a multi-door energy use allowance for PC 12 for products with two doors.
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
In the direct final rule analysis, DOE conducted the analysis using a combination of physical teardowns, catalog teardowns, and price surveys. Where possible, physical teardowns were used to provide a baseline of technology options and pricing for a specific product class at a specific EL. Then with technology option information, DOE estimated the cost of various design options including compressors, VIPs, and insulation, by extrapolating the costs from price surveys. With specific costs for technology options, DOE was then able to “build-up” or “build-down” from the various teardown models to finish the cost-efficiency curves. DOE used this approach to calibrate the analysis to certified or measured energy use of specific available models where possible, while allowing a broader range of potential efficiency levels to be considered.
The resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) estimates.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range includes refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
The results of the engineering analysis are presented as cost-efficiency data for each of the efficiency levels for each of the analyzed product classes that were
The efficiency levels and design option progression for the analyzed standard-size refrigerator-freezers are presented in Table IV.5. The cells in the table list the design options that DOE considered at each higher efficiency level as compared with the next-lower efficiency level. Similarly, the efficiency levels and design options for standard-size freezers and Compact refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers are presented in Table IV.6. The MPCs for the analyzed product classes across the considered efficiency levels are presented in Tables IV.7 and IV.8.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and revenue attributable to the product, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K reports
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (
For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the main parties in the distribution chain are retailers, wholesalers, and general contractors.
DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.
DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups. Specifically, DOE used the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the “electronics and appliance stores” sector to develop retailer markups,
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, AHAM commented on DOE's reliance on the concept of incremental markups, stating that it is based on discredited theory, and it is in contradiction to empirical evidence provided by AHAM during the 2014
DOE disagrees that the theory behind the concept of incremental markups is discredited. DOE's incremental markup approach assumes that an increase in profitability, which is implied by keeping a fixed markup when the product price goes up, is unlikely to be viable over time in a reasonably competitive market like household appliance retailers. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) reported by the 2017 Economic Census indicates that household appliance stores sector (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 443141) is a competitive marketplace.
DOE acknowledges that markup practices in response to amended standards are complex and varying with business conditions. However, DOE's analysis necessarily considers a very simplified and hypothetical version of the world of appliance retailing: namely, a situation in which nothing changes except for those changes in appliance offerings that occur in response to amended standards. Obtaining data on markup practices in the situation described above is very challenging. Hence, DOE continues to believe that its assumption that standards do not facilitate a sustainable increase in profitability is reasonable.
Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers at different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and commercial buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased product efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in the field (
The DOE test procedure produces standardized results that can be used to assess or compare the performance of products operating under specified conditions. Actual energy usage in the field often differs from that estimated by the test procedure because of variation in operating conditions, the behavior of users, and other factors. In the case of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE used usage adjustment factors (UAFs) in the February 2023 NOPR to address the difference in field-metered energy consumption and the DOE test results due to household-specific characteristics. 88 FR 12478-12479.
Specifically, DOE combined field-metered energy use data for full-size refrigeration products from the September 2011 Final Rule, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (“NEEA”), and the Florida Solar Energy Center (“FSEC”) with estimates of the test energy use of each field-metered unit. Then, DOE calculated a unit's UAF by dividing the annual field-metered energy use by the annual energy consumption from the DOE test procedure. DOE then used maximum likelihood estimation to fit log-normal distributions to the empirical distributions of UAFs for primary refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, secondary refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. DOE sampled UAFs from these fitted log-normal distributions to estimate the actual energy use of refrigeration products for the consumer sample. DOE did not have adequate field-metering data to derive UAFs for compact refrigeration products; therefore, DOE assumed the UAF of compact refrigeration products was 1.0.
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, AHAM commented that DOE relies heavily on the EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Survey (“RECS”) data for estimating energy use and how consumption varies at the household level. Specifically, AHAM expressed concern that the use of RECS data to estimate energy consumption at the household level may introduce “outlier values,” resulting in uncertainty and inaccuracies (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 17-18) In this direct final rule, as well as in the February 2023 NOPR, DOE did not tie the energy consumption of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to RECS survey data. 88 FR 12452. No household or demographic information from RECS affects the energy consumption of a particular household. Instead, as mentioned above, DOE sampled from distributions of UAFs that were derived from field-metering studies and assigned a randomly selected UAF to each household. Randomly sampling from distributions of UAFs acknowledges the inherent uncertainty in estimating the energy use for any particular household, while capturing the aggregate impact of UAFs measured in the field, and thus better approximates the most likely distribution of field energy use values across the installed base of products than relying strictly on survey data. DOE further notes, that AHAM is a party to the Joint Agreement and is supportive of the recommended standard adopted in this direct final rule.
Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's energy use analysis for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units (all product classes) and commercial buildings (PC 11A only). DOE included commercial applications in the analysis of compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers (PC 11A) because they are used in both the residential and commercial sectors (
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, distribution chain markups, and sales taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer user samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in Python. The model calculated the LCC for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units or commercial buildings per simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency. DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers as if each were to purchase a new product in the first year of required compliance with new or amended standards. For all TSLs other than TSL 4 (the Recommended TSL detailed in the Joint Agreement), any amended standards were assumed to apply to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers manufactured 3 years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) Therefore, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance with any amended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers for all TSLs other than TSL 4. For TSL 4, DOE used 2029 as the first year of compliance for representative PCs 5BI, 5A, 10, 11A, 17, and 18 and 2030 as the first year of compliance for the representative PCs 3, 5, 7, and 9, consistent with the Joint Agreement.
Table IV.9 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD and its appendices.
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, an individual objected to the LCC analysis for two reasons: (1) future dollars savings are not the same as present-day dollars for purchase, which is especially problematic for low-income individuals; and (2) some in the elderly population would not live long enough to recover the incremental installed cost due to an amended standard, resulting in “age discrimination.” (Individual
AHAM commented that due to the skewed nature of the LCC savings results, DOE should report median values rather than mean values. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 18) DOE notes that there are a variety of ways to characterize distributions of impacts, and DOE considers the impacts of a potential amended standard on refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers holistically. DOE also notes that the median LCC savings for affected consumers are shown in the box-and-whisker plots in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD.
AHAM also commented that DOE should be conducting a purchase decision analysis in its LCC model to reflect the actual conditions and expectations of the purchaser. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 15) In the current setup of LCC analysis, DOE is not explicitly modeling the purchase decision made by purchasers when the standard becomes effective. DOE's analysis is intended to model the range of individual outcomes likely to result from a hypothetical amended energy conservation standard at various levels of efficiency. DOE does not discount the consumer decision theory established in the broad behavioral economics field, but rather, notes that its methodological decision was made after considering the existence of various systematic market failures and their implication in rational versus actual purchase behavior. Furthermore, the outcome of the LCC is not considered in isolation, but in the context of the broader set of analyses, including the NIA. Moreover, the type of data required to facilitate a robust consumer choice modeling of a specific household appliance at the individual household level is currently lacking and AHAM did not provide much data. DOE further notes, that AHAM is a party to the Joint Agreement and is supportive of the recommended standard adopted in this direct final rule.
DOE developed adjusted volume distributions within each PC containing more than one representative unit to determine the likelihood that a given purchaser would select each of the representative units for a given PC from the engineering analysis. DOE estimated the distribution of adjusted volumes for PC 3 and PC 5 based on the capacity distribution reported in the TraQline® refrigerator data spanning from Q1 2018 to Q1 2019.
To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products.
Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of many products may trend downward over time according to “learning” or “experience” curves. Experience curve analysis implicitly includes factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation, materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-wide level.
DOE included variable-speed compressors as a technology option for higher efficiency levels. To develop future prices specific for that technology, DOE applied a separate price trend to the controls portion of the variable-speed compressor, which represents part of the price increment when moving from an efficiency level achieved with the highest efficiency single-speed compressor to an efficiency
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, AHAM commented that there is no theoretical underpinning for the implementation of an experience or learning curve and the functional form it should take. In addition, AHAM stated that the data that DOE used merely represents an empirical relationship, and a clear connection between the actual products in question and the data used needs to be made. AHAM noted that there is little reason to support the concept that price learning through manufacturing efficiencies should extend beyond the labor and materials in the product itself, and that such a relationship should not hold for other cost components. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 16-17)
DOE notes that there is considerable empirical evidence of consistent price declines for appliances in the past few decades. Several studies examined refrigerator retail prices during different periods of time and showed that prices had been steadily falling while efficiency had been increasing, for example Dale,
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE found no evidence that installation costs for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would be impacted with increased efficiency levels. As a result, DOE did not include installation costs in the LCC and PBP analysis.
For each sampled household or commercial building, DOE determined the energy consumption for a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer at different efficiency levels using the approach described previously in section IV.E of this document.
Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 using data from EEI Typical Bills and Average Rates reports. Based upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual report presents typical monthly electric bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as charged by investor-owned utilities. For the residential sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2018).
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2022 energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, small incremental increases in product efficiency entail no, or only minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline efficiency products. DOE is not aware of any data that suggest the cost of maintenance changes as a function of efficiency for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. DOE therefore assumed that maintenance costs are the same regardless of EL and do not impact the LCC or PBP.
For the February 2023 NOPR as well as this direct final rule, DOE developed a repair cost estimation method based on the average total installed cost and average annual repair costs by PC and EL from the September 2011 Final Rule. For each of three categories—standard-size refrigerator-freezers, standard-size freezers, and compact refrigeration products—DOE averaged the annual repair cost as a fraction of the total installed cost at each EL. Based on this method, DOE estimated consumers with standard-size refrigerator-freezers have annual repair costs equal to 1.8 percent of their total installed cost, consumers
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, an individual commented that product reliability is inversely related to the number of product parts, and Strauch suggested that DOE use the MIL-HDBK-217 or the Bellcore/Telcordia reliability guides to inform its maintenance and repair cost analysis. (Individual Commenter, No. 59 at pp. 1-2) DOE appreciates the recommendation, but notes that the data required to properly use the MIL-HDBK-217 or Bellcore/Telcordia standards
AHAM also commented that failed VIPs are unrepairable in the field meaning manufacturers work to ensure VIPs will not fail prior to the end of the product's useful life. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 6) DOE appreciates this information but notes that, due to a lack of available data, the repair cost estimates used in the LCC analysis are not component-specific.
DOE performed separate modeling of lifetime for standard-size refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, standard-size freezers, and compact refrigeration products. For standard-size refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE estimated product lifetimes by fitting a survival probability function to data on historical shipments and the age distributions of installed stock from RECS 2005, RECS 2009, RECS 2015, and RECS 2020. The survival function, which DOE assumed has the form of a cumulative Weibull distribution, provides an average and median lifetime. Moreover, the conversion from primary-to-secondary refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer was also modeled as part of the lifetime determination for standard-size refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.
For compact refrigerators, DOE estimated an average lifetime of 8.8 years using data on shipments and the number of units in use (stock). For compact freezers, DOE did not have reliable stock data available to compare against historical shipments. Therefore, DOE estimated an average lifetime of 11.3 years by multiplying the average lifetime of compact refrigerators by the ratio of the average lifetime of standard-size freezers (18.4 years) to the average lifetime of standard-size refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers (14.3 years).
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, an individual commented that more stringent efficiency standards reduce the service lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. (Individual Commenter, No. 59 at p. 1) DOE used the latest available data to inform the lifetime distributions used in this direct final rule analysis, and DOE does not have data to corroborate a causal connection between the stringency of efficiency standards and the expected service lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Therefore, DOE continues to assume that amending the efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers will not directly impact the estimated service lifetime of these products.
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to residential and commercial consumers to estimate the present value of future operating cost savings. DOE estimated distributions of residential and commercial discount rates for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers based on consumer financing costs and the opportunity cost of consumer funds (for the residential sector) and cost of capital of publicly traded firms (for the commercial sector).
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount rates.
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the various types of debt and equity by household income group using data from the Federal Reserve Board's triennial Survey of Consumer Finances
For commercial consumers, DOE used the cost of capital to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. This corporate finance approach is referred to as the weighted-average cost of capital. DOE used currently available economic data in developing discount rates. The average discount rate for the PC 11A commercial consumer sample is 6.8 percent.
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, AHAM commented that operating costs and the depreciation of capital investments are deductible costs for commercial end-users from Federal and State corporate income taxes. AHAM suggested that DOE should incorporate the effects of tax deductibility in the LCC analysis. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 19) DOE responds that as noted in the comment, the estimation of commercial discount rates accounts for the tax deductibility of the energy costs and capital investment depreciation and therefore the net present value of the future operating cost savings in the LCC analysis should already reflect that effect.
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, AHAM further commented that DOE used an inappropriate discount rate in its analysis of the effects of standards on low-income households, claiming that it does not take into account issues of capital availability or the non-financial costs from a purchase. AHAM also presented data from their survey work with Bellomy Research showing that the lowest 30 percent income groups have no discretionary income to save, making it impossible for them to rebalance their balance sheets after making a purchase. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 11)
With respect to the issue of DOE's methodology for estimating consumer discount rates, DOE maintains that the LCC is not predicting a purchase decision, which DOE assumes to be AHAM's interpretation given their focus on the availability of cash for appliance purchases. Rather, the LCC estimates the net present value of the financial impact of a given standard level over the lifetime of the product (
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-standards case (
To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE used current shipments data provided by AHAM in response to the NOPR for PCs 3, 5, 5A, 7, 9, 11A, and 18, and model counts from DOE's CCMS database for PCs 5BI, 10, and 17. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 2-3) Models in the database were categorized by capacity and assigned an efficiency level based on reported energy use. In the absence of data on trends in efficiency, DOE assumed the current efficiency distribution would be representative of the efficiency distribution in the compliance year in the no-new-standards case. The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are shown in Table IV.11.
The LCC Monte Carlo simulations draw from the efficiency distributions and randomly assign an efficiency to the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer purchased by each sample household in the no-new-standards case. The resulting percent shares within the sample match the market shares in the efficiency distributions.
In the February 2023 NOPR, DOE performed a random assignment of efficiency levels to consumers in its Monte Carlo sample. 88 FR 12452, 12484-12485. While DOE acknowledges that economic factors may play a role when consumers decide on what type of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer to install, assignment of refrigeration product efficiency for a given installation, based solely on economic measures such as life-cycle cost or simple payback period, most likely would not fully and accurately reflect actual real-world installations. There are a number of market failures discussed in the economics literature that illustrate how purchasing decisions with respect to energy efficiency are unlikely to be perfectly correlated with energy use, as described below. DOE maintains that the method of assignment, which is in part random, is a reasonable approach, because it simulates behavior in the refrigeration product market, where market failures result in purchasing decisions not being perfectly aligned with economic interests, and is more realistic than relying only on apparent cost-effectiveness criteria derived from the limited information in RECS. DOE further emphasizes that its approach does not assume that all purchasers of refrigeration products make economically irrational decisions (
The following discussion provides more detail about the various market failures that affect refrigeration product purchases. First, consumers are motivated by more than simple financial trade-offs. There are consumers who are willing to pay a premium for more energy-efficient products because they are environmentally conscious.
In addition to the split-incentive problem, there are other market failures that are likely to affect the choice of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer product efficiency made by consumers. For example, unplanned replacements due to unexpected failure of equipment such as refrigeration products are strongly biased toward like-for-like replacement (
Additionally, Davis and Metcalf
In part because of the way information is presented, and in part because of the way consumers process information, there is also a market failure consisting of a systematic bias in the perception of equipment energy usage, which can affect consumer choices. Attari
These market failures affect a sizeable share of the consumer population. A study by Houde
The existence of market failures in the residential sector is well supported by the economics literature and by a number of case studies. If DOE developed an efficiency distribution that assigned refrigeration product efficiency in the no-new-standards case solely according to energy use or economic considerations such as life-cycle cost or payback period, the resulting distribution of efficiencies within the consumer sample would not reflect any of the market failures or behavioral factors above. Thus, DOE concludes such a distribution would not be representative of the refrigeration product market. Further, even if a specific household is not subject to the market failures above, the purchasing decision of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer product efficiency can be highly complex and influenced by a number of factors (
There is a complex set of behavioral factors, with sometimes opposing effects, affecting the refrigeration product market. It is impractical to model every consumer decision incorporating all of these effects at this extreme level of granularity given the limited available data. Given these myriad factors, DOE estimates the resulting distribution of such a model, if it were possible, would be very scattered with high variability. It is for this reason DOE utilizes a random distribution (after accounting for efficiency market share constraints) to approximate these effects. The methodology is not an assertion of economic irrationality, but instead, it is a methodological approximation of complex consumer behavior. The analysis is neither biased toward high or low energy savings. The methodology does not preferentially assign lower-efficiency refrigeration products to households in the no-new-standards case where savings from the rule would be greatest, nor does it preferentially assign lower-efficiency refrigeration products to households in the no-new-standards case where savings from the rule would be smallest. Some consumers were assigned the refrigeration products that they would have chosen if they had engaged in perfect economic considerations when purchasing the products. Others were assigned less-efficient refrigeration products even where a more-efficient product would eventually result in life-cycle savings, simulating scenarios where, for example, various market failures prevent consumers from realizing those savings. Still others were assigned refrigeration products that were
The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE refers to this as a “simple PBP” because it does not consider changes over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards would be required.
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.
Total shipments for each product category (
For the direct final rule analysis, DOE incorporated data from stakeholders into the shipments. Confidential aggregate historical shipments data from 2015-2022 provided by AHAM were used to calibrate the total shipments for standard-size refrigerator-freezers, compact refrigerators, upright freezers, chest freezers, and built-in refrigerator-freezers. For the direct final rule, DOE used the AHAM-provided estimates for the efficiency distributions based on shipments for standard-size refrigerator-freezers and compact freezers. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 2-3)
Whirlpool requested that DOE provide data to indicate that there would be no impact to appliance replacement at the proposed standard level at TSL 5. (Whirlpool, No. 85 at pp. 8-9) DOE uses a price elasticity of demand to address the impact of increased prices on shipments based on an analysis using market-level appliance data including refrigerators.
Chapter 9 in the direct final rule TSD provides further information on the shipments analysis.
The NIA assesses the national energy savings (“NES”) and the NPV from a national perspective of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (
DOE uses a spreadsheet model, which is available in the docket, to calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.12 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA analysis for the direct final rule. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows the table.
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards cases. Section IV.F.9 of this document describes how DOE developed an energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with an amended or new standard.
For the standards cases, DOE used a “roll up” scenario to establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards are assumed to become effective. In this scenario, the market shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the standard under consideration would “roll up” to meet the new standard level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain unchanged. In the absence of data on trends in efficiency, DOE assumed no efficiency trend over the analysis period for both the no-new-standards and standards cases. For a given case, market shares by efficiency level were held fixed to their distribution in the compliance year. The approach is further described in chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD.
The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of national energy consumption of the considered products between each potential standards case (“TSL”) and the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy (
In this direct final rule analysis, DOE analyzed the energy and economic impacts of a potential standard on all product classes in the scope of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Results for non-representative product classes (
In this direct final rule, for the Recommended TSL (TSL 4), the scaling of certain non-representative product classes (specifically PC 12, PC 4-BI, PC 7-BI, and PC 9-BI) has been modified from the February 2023 NOPR, consistent with the Joint Agreement. In the February 2023 NOPR, PC 12 was scaled to PC 11A with the same standard level for PC 12 as PC 11A under a given TSL. However, under the Joint Agreement, at the Recommended TSL, PC 12 is scaled differently. At TSL 4, for PC 11A, the standard is met at EL 2 and for PC 12, the standard level corresponds to EL 1 for PC 11A. Thus, for TSL 4, DOE updated its scaling for PC 12 to reflect EL 1 rather than EL 2 from PC 11A. In the February 2023 NOPR, PC 4-BI and PC 7-BI were scaled to PC 7, and the standard level under TSL 4 corresponded to EL 3 for PC 4-BI, PC 7-BI, and PC 7. Under the Joint Agreement, at TSL 4, PC 7 continues to correspond to EL 3, but PC 4-BI and PC 7-BI correspond to EL 4. Finally, in the February 2023 NOPR, PC 9—BI was scaled to PC 9, and both met the standard under TSL 4 at EL1. At TSL4, the standard for PC 9 is met at EL 2 while PC-9 BI continues to be scaled to EL 1.
Use of higher-efficiency products is sometimes associated with a direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of the product due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not find any data on the rebound effect specific to refrigerators that would indicate that consumers would alter their utilization of their product as a result of an increase in efficiency. DOE assumed a rebound rate of 0. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this assumption in response to the February 2023 NOPR.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 statement of policy, DOE published a statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (“NEMS”) is the most appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.F.2 of this document, DOE developed refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers price trends based on an experience curve calculated using historical PPI data. For efficiency levels with a single-speed compressor, DOE applied a price trend
To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. In addition to the default price trend, DOE considered two product price sensitivity cases: For the single-speed compressor refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers and the non-variable-speed controls portion of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE estimated the high-price-decline and the low-price-decline scenarios based on household refrigerator and home freezer PPI data limited to the period between the period 1981-2008 and 2009-2021, respectively. For the variable-speed controls portion of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE estimated the high-price-decline and the low-price-decline scenarios based on an exponential trend line fit of the semiconductor PPI between the period 1994-2021 and 1967-1993, respectively. The derivation of these price trends and the results of these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10C of the direct final rule TSD.
The energy cost savings are calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by the projection of annual national-average residential energy price changes in the Reference case from
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this direct final rule, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.
In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels.
For this direct final rule, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on low-income households and, for PC 11A, on small businesses. For low-income households, the analysis used a subset of the RECS 2020 sample composed of low-income households. DOE separately analyzed different groups in the low-income household sample using data from RECS on home ownership status and on who pays the electricity bill. Low-income homeowners are analyzed equivalently to how they are analyzed in the standard LCC analysis. Low-income renters who do not pay their electricity bill are assumed to not be impacted by any new or amended standards. In this case, the landlord purchases the appliance and pays its operating costs, so is effectively the consumer and the renter is not impacted. Low-income renters who do pay their electricity bill are assumed to incur no first cost. DOE made this assumption to acknowledge that the vast majority of low-income renters may not pay to have their refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer replaced (that would be up to the landlord).
DOE notes that RECS 2020 indicates that a small fraction of low-income households only have a single compact refrigerator and/or freezer. Because this is the only refrigeration product in the household, DOE assumed that the landlord typically supplies the product. Additionally, RECS 2020 indicates that a small fraction of low-income households have a refrigeration product that would be categorized into PC 5, PC 5BI, or PC 5A. As a result, DOE did not do a low-income subgroup analysis on PCs 5, 5BI, 5A, 11A, 17, and 18.
For small businesses, DOE used the same sample from CBECS 2018 that was used in the standard LCC analysis but used discount rates specific to small businesses. DOE used the LCC and PBP model to estimate the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these subgroups.
Chapter 11 in the direct final rule TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis.
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, AHAM commented that amended standards requiring more variable-speed compressors could lead to higher upfront costs, disproportionately impacting low-income consumers. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 5) Whirlpool added that the proposed standards would raise the cost of entry-level models, which are the preferred models for low-income consumers. (Whirlpool, No. 70 at pp. 5-6) As noted previously, many low-income consumers are renters who are not expected to pay the incremental cost due to an amended standard. For low-income homeowners who are expected to bear that incremental cost, the analysis incorporates the higher incremental costs at each considered TSL. DOE notes that at the Recommended TSL (TSL 4), the estimated increase in installed cost relative to the baseline (EL 0) product across PCs 3, 7, and 9 is less than $20. Moreover, in the aggregate, DOE finds that low-income consumers have higher average LCC savings and lower payback periods relative to the general population (
AHAM also commented that DOE has not supported its split-incentive assumption for low-income renters (
The existence of a split-incentive across a substantial number of U.S. households, in which a tenant pays for the cost of electricity while the building owner furnishes appliances, has been identified through a number of studies of residential appliance and equipment use broadly. Building from early work including Jaffe and Stavins,
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers and to estimate the potential impacts of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the INPV, investments in research and development (“R&D”) and manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how amended energy conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small business manufacturers.
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the GRIM, an industry cash flow model with inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital required to produce compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis period, discounted using the industry weighted average cost of capital, and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases. To capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies following amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible impacts under different scenarios.
The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and non-DOE regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment and publicly available information. This included a top-down analysis of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (
In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash flow analysis to quantify the potential impacts of amended energy conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A
In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to distribute to manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in order to develop other key GRIM inputs, including product and capital conversion costs, and to gather additional information on the anticipated effects of energy conservation standards on revenues, direct employment, capital assets, industry competitiveness, and subgroup impacts.
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews, DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by amended standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such manufacturer subgroups may include small business manufacturers, low-volume manufacturers (“LVMs”), niche players, and/or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from the industry average. DOE identified two subgroups for a separate impact analysis: small business manufacturers and domestic LVMs. The small business subgroup is discussed in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. The domestic LVM subgroup is discussed in section V.B.2.d of this document and in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash flow analysis that incorporates manufacturer costs, manufacturer markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs. The GRIM models change in costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that could result from an amended energy conservation standard. The GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning in 2023 (the base year of the analysis) and continuing 30 years from the analyzed compliance year.
The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering analysis, results of the shipments analysis, and information gathered from industry stakeholders during the course of manufacturer interviews. The GRIM results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. The changes in the MPCs of covered products can affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry. For a complete description of the MPCs,
The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the shipments analysis from the base year (2023) to 30 years from the analyzed compliance date.
Amended energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with each considered efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with amended energy conservation standards. Capital conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such that new compliant product designs can be fabricated and assembled.
DOE based its estimates of the product conversion costs necessary to meet the varying efficiency levels on information from manufacturer interviews, the design paths analyzed in the engineering analysis, and market share and model count information. Generally, manufacturers preferred to meet amended standards with design options that were direct and relatively straight-forward component swaps, such as incrementally more efficiency compressors. However, at higher efficiency levels, manufacturers anticipated the need for platform redesigns. Efficiency levels that potentially necessitate significantly altered cabinet construction would require very large investments to update designs. Manufacturers noted that increasing foam thickness would require complete redesign of the cabinet, and potentially, the liner and shelving, should there be changes in interior volume. Additionally, extensive use of VIPs would require redesign of the cabinet to maximize the benefits of VIPs.
Based on manufacturer feedback, DOE also estimated “re-flooring” costs associated with replacing obsolete display models in big-box stores (
DOE interviewed manufacturers accounting for approximately 81 percent of domestic refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer shipments. DOE scaled product conversion costs by model counts to account for the portion of companies that were not interviewed. In manufacturer interviews, DOE received feedback on the analyzed product classes. For non-represented product classes, for which there was less available data, DOE used model counts to scale the product conversion cost estimates for analyzed product classes.
DOE relied on information derived from manufacturer interviews and the engineering analysis to evaluate the level of capital conversion costs manufacturers would likely incur at the considered standard levels. During the interviews, manufacturers provided estimates and descriptions of the required tooling and plant changes that would be necessary to upgrade product lines to meet potential efficiency levels. Based on these inputs, DOE modeled incremental capital conversion costs for efficiency levels that could be reached with individual components swaps. However, based on feedback, DOE modeled major capital conversion costs when manufacturers would have to redesign their existing product platforms. DOE used information from manufacturer interviews to determine the cost of the manufacturing equipment and tooling necessary to implement complete redesigns.
Increases in foam thickness require either reductions to interior volume or increases to exterior volume. Since most refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers must fit within standard widths, increases in foam thickness could result in the loss of interior volume. The reduction of interior volume has significant consequences for manufacturing. In addition to redesigning the cabinet to increase the effectiveness of insulation, manufacturers must update all designs and tooling associated with the interior of the product. This could include the liner, shelving, drawers, and doors. Manufacturers would need to invest in significant new tooling to accommodate the changes in dimensions.
To minimize reductions to interior volume, manufacturers may choose to adopt VIP technology. Extensive incorporation of VIPs into designs require significant upfront capital due to differences in the handling, storing, and manufacturing of VIPs as compared to typical polyurethane foams. These investments are incorporated into the conversion costs estimated in the MIA for efficiency levels that would likely necessitate VIP technology. VIPs are relatively fragile and must be protected from punctures and rough handling. If VIPs have leaks of any size, the panel will eventually lose much of its thermal insulative properties and structural strength. If already installed within a cabinet wall, a punctured VIP may significantly reduce the structural strength of the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer cabinet. As a result, VIPs require cautious handling during the manufacturing process. DOE did not receive detailed information about the percent of VIPs that are punctured during the manufacturing process. Manufacturers noted the need to allocate special warehouse space to ensure the VIPs are not jostled or roughly handled in the manufacturing environment. Furthermore, manufacturers anticipated the need for expansion of warehouse space to accommodate the storage of VIPs. VIPs require significantly more warehouse space than the polyurethane foams currently used in most refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The application of VIPs can be challenging and requires significant investment in hard-tooling or robotic systems to ensure the panels are positioned properly within the cabinet or door. Manufacturers noted that producing cabinets with VIPs is much more labor- and time-intensive than producing cabinets with typical polyurethane foams. Particularly in high-volume factories, which can produce over a million refrigerator-freezers per year, the increase in production time associated in increased VIP usage would necessitate additional investment in manufacturing capacity to meet demand. The cost of extending production lines varies greatly by manufacturer, as it depends heavily on floor space availability in and around existing manufacturing plants.
Higher volume manufacturers would generally have higher investments as they have more production lines and greater production capacity. For manufacturers of both PC 5 (“refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic ice maker”) and PC 5A (“refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service”), cabinet changes in one product class would likely necessitate improvements in the other product class as they often share the same architecture, tooling, and production lines.
DOE estimated industry capital conversion costs by extrapolating the interviewed manufacturers' capital conversion costs for each product class to account for the market share of companies that were not interviewed. DOE used the shipments analysis to scale the capital conversion cost estimates of the analyzed product class to account for the non-represented product class.
Manufacturers may follow different design paths to reach the various efficiency levels analyzed. An individual manufacturer's investments depend on a range of factors, including the company's current product offerings and product platforms, existing production facilities and infrastructure, and make vs. buy decisions for components. DOE's conversion cost methodology incorporated feedback from all manufacturers that took part in interviews and extrapolated industry values. While industry average values may not represent any single manufacturer, DOE's model provides reasonable estimates of industry-level investments.
DOE adjusted the conversion cost estimates developed in support of the February 2023 NOPR to 2022$ for this analysis.
In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur between the year of publication of the direct final rule and the year by which manufacturers must comply with the new or amended standard. The conversion cost figures used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 of this document. For additional information on the estimated capital and product conversion costs,
MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (
Under the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage scenario, DOE applied a single uniform “gross margin percentage” across all efficiency levels, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all efficiency levels within a product class. As manufacturer production costs increase with efficiency, this scenario implies that the per-unit dollar profit will increase. DOE assumed a gross margin percentage of 21 percent for all freestanding product classes and 29 percent for all built-in product classes.
In the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, as the cost of production goes up under a standards case, manufacturers are generally required to reduce their manufacturer markups to a level that maintains base-case operating profit. DOE implemented this scenario in the GRIM by lowering the manufacturer markups at each TSL to yield approximately the same earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case as in the no-new-standards case in the year after the expected compliance date of the amended standards. The implicit assumption behind this scenario is that the industry can only maintain its operating profit in absolute dollars after the standard takes effect.
A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received regarding its MIA presented in the February 2023 NOPR. The approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same approach DOE had used for the February 2023 NOPR analysis.
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, AHAM stated that manufacturers may need to significantly redesign products in several classes to comply with the proposed DOE standards. In some high-volume product classes, AHAM asserted that there are no or very few shipments of products that meet the proposed standards. AHAM stated that this indicates that even when compliant models exist, they may not represent real-world shipments. AHAM commented that for other product classes, there is considerable variation in the availability of compliant models and shipments. AHAM added that in many instances, there are few compliant models and no reported shipments of compliant products, suggesting that substantial redesign efforts may be required across the market. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 2-3)
DOE relied on multiple sources, including feedback from confidential manufacturer interviews and the design paths analyzed in the engineering analysis, to estimate the likely levels of redesign and investment required to meet each analyzed efficiency level. As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this document, meeting higher efficiency levels may require product redesigns, particularly for efficiency levels that necessitate changes to the cabinet structure (
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, Whirlpool commented that a large decrease in INPV would stifle innovation as manufacturers would be forced to invest product development resources to meet the amended standards and potentially lay off U.S. production employees. (Whirlpool, No. 70 at p. 5)
As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this document, DOE's analysis shows that as efficiency levels increase, more manufacturers would need to dedicate more financial, engineering, laboratory, and marketing resources to updating products to meet more stringent standards. DOE accounts for those investments in the MIA (
Whirlpool commented that adoption of the proposed standard levels could make it difficult for multi-brand companies like Whirlpool to differentiate their products and product lines from other manufacturers as models become more technologically complex and costly. Whirlpool added that this could lead to the elimination of certain product segments and result in lost energy savings as consumers switch to more energy-intensive product types. (Whirlpool, No. 70 at pp. 7-8)
DOE uses the GRIM, as described in section IV.J.2 of this document, to determine the quantitative impacts on the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer industry as a whole. DOE recognizes that the industry impacts do not apply evenly across manufacturers. Many manufacturers would need to update certain product designs to meet amended standard levels. However, DOE expects that manufacturers would still be able to differentiate their products and product lines by various factors (
The California Investor-Owned Utilities (“CA IOUs”) noted the differences between PC 7 and PC 5A in DOE's proposed energy efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The CA IOUs commented that the main difference between the two classes is the cost of moving to the VIP side walls and doors at max-tech EL, with PC 7 having a substantially higher order of magnitude for capital conversion costs compared to PC 5A. The CA IOUs recommended revising the proposal to consider EL 5 for PC 7 instead of EL 4. The CA IOUs requested that DOE elaborate on the reason for the differences in cost. (CA IOUs, No. 72 at p. 5)
DOE relied on manufacturer feedback, among other sources, to derive the estimated product and capital conversion costs at each efficiency level for each directly analyzed product class. There are many reasons why the incremental industry conversion costs at each efficiency level could vary between product classes. These reasons include but are not limited to differences in analyzed design options, production volume, the number of models that would require redesign, the number of OEMs engaged in manufacturing each product class, the age of the product families and/or production equipment, and location of the production facilities. For PC 7, manufacturers could include less VIPs to meet the required efficiency level at EL 4 compared to EL 5. At EL 4, 75 percent of the maximum area could incorporate VIPs whereas EL 5 could incorporate VIPs for the maximum area on sidewalls and doors. As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this document, incorporation of VIPs into designs requires significant upfront capital due to differences in the handling, storing, and manufacturing of VIPs as compared to typical polyurethane foams. DOE estimates the difference in capital conversion costs to be $117.9 million between EL 4 and EL 5. For product conversion costs, extensive use of VIPs would require redesign of the cabinet to maximize the benefits of VIPs. DOE estimated the difference to be $18.8 million between EL 4 and EL 5, which is attributed to design efforts required to meet 75 percent of maximum area of VIPs at EL 4 and the maximum area of VIPs at EL 5. Although manufacturers may incorporate some VIPs (on side walls and doors) for EL 2 for PC 5A, EL 2 may be achieved by component swaps rather than product redesign based on information gathered during manufacturer interviews. AHAM commented the cumulative regulatory burden is significant for home appliance manufacturers when redesigning products and product lines for consumer clothes dryers, residential clothes washers, conventional cooking products, refrigeration products, miscellaneous refrigeration products, and room air conditioners. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 20) AHAM asserted that engineers will therefore need to spend all their time redesigning products to meet more stringent energy efficiency standards, pulling resources from other development efforts and business priorities. AHAM suggested that DOE could reduce cumulative regulatory burden by spacing out the timing of final rules, allowing more lead time by delaying the publication of final rules in the
DOE analyzes cumulative regulatory burden in accordance with section 13(g) of the Process Rule. DOE details the rulemakings and expected conversion expenses of Federal energy conservation standards that could impact refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer OEMs that take effect approximately 3 years before the 2029 compliance date and 3 years after the 2030 compliance date in section V.B.2.e of this document. As shown in Table V.29 in section V.B.2.e of this document, DOE considers the potential cumulative regulatory burden from other DOE energy conservation standards rulemakings for consumer clothes dryers, residential clothes washers, conventional cooking products, refrigeration products, miscellaneous refrigeration products, and room air conditioners in this direct final rule analysis. Regarding AHAM's suggestion about spacing out the timing of final rules for home appliance rulemakings, DOE has statutory requirements under EPCA on the timing of rulemakings. For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, consumer conventional cooking products, residential clothes washers, consumer clothes dryers, room air conditioners, and dishwashers, amended standards apply to covered products manufactured 3 years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) For miscellaneous refrigeration products, amended standards apply 5 years after the date on which any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) However, the multi-product Joint Agreement recommends alternative compliance dates. As discussed in section of this document, the Joint
Regarding examining the cumulative impacts of energy conservation standards rulemakings on manufacturers and consumers, DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. An amended standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is determined to be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In its assessment of whether standards are economically justified, DOE considers the impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers. DOE analyzes the impacts to manufacturers in accordance with section 13 of the Process Rule and the impacts to consumers in accordance with section 14 of the Process Rule. Although DOE does not analyze the cumulative burden on consumers, section V.B.1.a of this document discusses the economic impact of amended standards on individual consumers, which is the main impact consumers will face with a final amended energy conservation standard.
AHAM stated that it cannot comment on the accuracy of DOE's approach for including how manufacturers might or might not recover potential investments (
As discussed in section IV.J.2.d of this document, DOE modeled two standards-case manufacturer markup scenarios to represent the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards. For the February 2023 NOPR, DOE applied the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage scenario to reflect an upper bound of industry profitability and a preservation-of-operating-profit scenario to reflect a lower bound of industry profitability under amended standards. DOE used these scenarios to reflect the range of realistic profitability impacts under more stringent standards. Manufacturing more efficient refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is generally more expensive than manufacturing baseline refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as reflected by the MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis. Under the preservation-of-gross-margin scenario for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, incremental increases in MPCs at higher efficiency levels result in an increase in per-unit dollar profit per unit sold. In interviews, multiple manufacturers asserted that they would likely need to reduce manufacturer markups under more stringent standards to remain competitive in the marketplace. Therefore, the preservation of gross-margin-scenario represents the upper bound of industry profitability under amended standards. Applying the approach used in the microwave ovens rulemaking (
The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion emissions of CO
The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO
FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, and “fugitive” emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of CH
The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical units per megawatt-hour (“MWh”) or million British thermal units (“MMBtu”) of site energy savings. For power sector emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects the
SO
However, beginning in 2016, SO
CSAPR also established limits on NO
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on
As part of the development of this direct final rule, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO
To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the
DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions of CO
For this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received regarding its approach for monetizing greenhouse gas emissions in the February 2023 NOPR. The approach used for this direct final rule is largely the same approach DOE had used for the February 2023 NOPR analysis.
The attorneys general (AGs) of TN, AL,
The IWG's SC-GHG estimates were developed over many years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science available at the time of that process, and with input from the public. A number of criticisms raised in the comment letter attached by the AGs of TN, AL,
AHAM objected to DOE using the social cost of carbon and other monetization of emissions reductions benefits in its analysis of the factors EPCA requires DOE to balance in determining the appropriate standard. AHAM stated that while it may be acceptable for DOE to continue its current practice of examining the SCC and monetization of other emissions reductions benefits as informational so long as the underlying interagency analysis is transparent and vigorous, the monetization analysis should not impact the TSLs DOE selects as a new or amended standard. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 22-23) The AGs of TN, AL,
As stated in section III.F.1.f of this document, DOE accounts for the environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy, including those connected to global climate change, as they are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. (
DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the social costs of greenhouse gases, whether measured using the February 2021 interim estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by another means, did not affect the rule ultimately proposed by DOE.
DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO
The SC-GHG estimates presented here were developed over many years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science available at the time of that process, and with input from the public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that included the DOE and other executive branch agencies and offices was established to ensure that agencies were using the best available science and to promote consistency in the social cost of carbon (SC-CO
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O.13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways.
First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions reduction on a global basis—and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens—is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional interactions and spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments in the literature, including more robust methodologies for estimating a U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the public of the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context,
Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the consumption discount rate to calculate
To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD recommends “to ensure internal consistency—
As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the above assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue. While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer-reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four values drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and were subject to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios (applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3-percent discount rate. The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or lower.
DOE's derivations of the SC-CO
The SC-CO
For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO
DOE multiplied the CO
The SC-CH
DOE multiplied the CH
For the direct final rule, DOE estimated the monetized value of NO
DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.
The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and generation projected to result for each considered TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS associated with
The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or amended energy conservation standards.
DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in selecting a standard. Employment impacts from new or amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by the purchase and operation of more efficient appliances. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of the economy.
DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard levels considered in this direct final rule using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 (“ImSET”).
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results for near-term timeframes (2029/30-2033/4), where these uncertainties are reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis,
As discussed previously, DOE considered relevant comments, data, and information obtained during its own rulemaking process in determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint Agreement are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). And while some of those comments were directed at specific aspects of DOE's analysis of the Joint Agreement under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), others were more generally applicable to DOE's energy conservation standards rulemaking program as a whole. The ensuing discussion focuses on these general comments concerning energy conservation standards issued under EPCA.
The AGs of TN, AL,
DOE responds that it believes the scope of both the standard proposed in the NOPR and the amended standard adopted in this direct final rule properly includes all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption because intrastate state activity regulated by 42 U.S.C. 6291(17) and 6302 is inseparable from and substantially affects interstate commerce. DOE has clear authority under EPCA to regulate the energy use of a variety of consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including the subject refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (“NAS”) periodically appoint a committee to peer review the assumptions, models, and methodologies that DOE uses in setting energy conservation standards for covered products and equipment. The most recent such peer review was conducted in a series of meetings in 2020, and NAS issued the report
AHAM stated that despite previous requests from AHAM and others, DOE has failed to review and incorporate the recommendations of the NAS report, instead indicating that it will conduct a separate rulemaking process without such a process having been initiated. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 9-10) AHAM further stated that DOE seems to be ignoring the recommendations in the NAS Report and even conducting analysis that is opposite to the recommendations. AHAM commented that DOE cannot continue to perpetuate the errors in its analytical approach that have been pointed out by stakeholders and the NAS report as to do so will lead to arbitrary and capricious rules. (
As discussed, the rulemaking process for establishing new or amended standards for covered products and equipment are specified at appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. DOE periodically examines and revises these provisions in separate rulemaking proceedings. The recommendations provided in the 2011 NAS report, which pertain to the processes by which DOE analyzes energy conservation standards, will be considered by DOE in a separate rulemaking process.
The AGs of TN, AL,
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect family well-being. Although this direct final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution as defined, this rule could impact a family's well-being. When developing a Family Policymaking Assessment, agencies must assess whether: (1) the action strengthens or erodes the stability or safety of the family and, particularly, the marital commitment; (2) the action strengthens or erodes the authority and rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) the action helps the family perform its functions, or substitutes governmental activity for the function; (4) the action increases or decreases disposable income or poverty of families and children; (5) the proposed benefits of the action justify the financial impact on the family; (6) the action may be carried out by State or local government or by the family; and whether (7) the action establishes an implicit or explicit policy concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, and the norms of society.
DOE has considered how the proposed benefits of this rule compare to the possible financial impact on a family (the only factor listed that is relevant to this rule). As part of its rulemaking process, DOE must determine whether the energy conservation standards contained in this direct final rule are economically justified. As discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE has determined that the standards are economically justified because the benefits to consumers far outweigh the costs to manufacturers. Families will also see LCC savings as a result of this rule. Moreover, as discussed further in section V.B.1 of this document, DOE has determined that for the for low-income households, average LCC savings and PBP at the considered efficiency levels are improved (
As discussed in section II.A of this document, DOE conducted numerous analyses in support of this direct final rule consistent with EPCA, which requires that DOE consider many factors, including those concerns raised
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and the standards levels that DOE is adopting in this direct final rule. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the direct final rule TSD supporting this document.
In general, DOE typically evaluates potential amended standards for products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency levels for each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to the extent that there are such interactions, and market cross elasticity from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different standard levels are set.
In the analysis conducted for this direct final rule, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six TSLs for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. DOE developed TSLs that combine efficiency levels for each analyzed product class. TSL 1 represents a modest increase in efficiency, corresponding to the lowest analyzed efficiency level above the baseline for each analyzed product class. TSL 2 represents an increase in efficiency of 10 percent across the product classes analyzed, consistent with ENERGY STAR requirements, except for PC 10, for which a majority of consumers would experience a net cost at all considered ELs. Efficiency improvements for product class 10 were considered only for TSL 1 and max-tech TSL 6. TSL 3 increases the stringency for PCs 5, 5A, 7, 11A, and 18 and increases NES while keeping economic impacts on consumers relatively modest. TSL 4 is the Recommended TSL detailed in the Joint Agreement. TSL 4 increases the proposed standard level for PCs 3 and 9, as well as the expected NES, while average LCC savings are positive for every product class. TSL 4 also corresponds to different compliance years than the other TSLs. Rather than a compliance year of 2027, for TSL 4, 2029 is the compliance year for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030 is the compliance year for the product classes listed in Table I.2. TSL 5 increases the proposed standard level for PC 5A and PC 7, decreases the proposed standard level for PC 9, and increases the expected overall NES, while average LCC savings remain positive for every product class. TSL 6 represents max-tech. DOE presents the results for the TSLs in this document, while the results for all efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the direct final rule TSD.
Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential amended energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
Section IV.C.3 shows the design options determined to be required for representative products of each analyzed class as a function of the TSLs.
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer consumers by looking at the effects that potential amended standards at each TSL would have on the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the following sections.
In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs (
Tables V.2 through V.21 show the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs considered for each product class. In the first of each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline product. In the second table, the impacts are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the in the no-new-standards case in the compliance year (
In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the considered TSLs on low-income households and small businesses. Table V.22 compares the average LCC savings and PBP at each efficiency level for the low-income consumer subgroup with similar metrics for the entire consumer sample for PCs 3, 7, 9, and 10 (
As discussed in section IV.F.10 of this document, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable-presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation on the DOE test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. In contrast, the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a of this document were calculated using distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
Table V.24 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for the considered TSLs for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels considered for this rule are economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification.
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The next section describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD explains the analysis in further detail.
In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. The following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as well as the conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would incur at each TSL.
The impact of potential amended energy conservation standards was analyzed under two scenarios: (1) the preservation-of-gross-margin percentage; and (2) the preservation-of-operating-profit, as discussed in section IV.J.2.d of this document. The preservation-of-gross-margin percentages applies a “gross margin percentage” of 21 percent for all freestanding product classes and 29 percent for all built-in product classes, across all efficiency levels.
The preservation-of-operating-profit scenario reflects manufacturers' concerns about their inability to maintain margins as MPCs increase to reach more stringent efficiency levels. In this scenario, while manufacturers make the necessary investments required to convert their facilities to produce compliant products, operating profit does not change in absolute dollars and decreases as a percentage of revenue. The preservation-of-operating-profit scenario results in the lower (or more severe) bound to impacts of potential amended standards on industry.
Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (30 years from the analyzed compliance
Conversion costs are one-time investments for manufacturers to bring their manufacturing facilities and product designs into compliance with potential amended standards. As described in section IV.J.2.c of this document, conversion cost investments occur between the year of publication of the direct final rule and the year by which manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion costs can have a significant impact on the short-term cash flow of the industry and generally result in lower free cash flow in the period between the publication of the direct final rule and the compliance date of potential amended standards. Conversion costs are independent of the manufacturer markup scenarios and are not presented as a range in this analysis.
The following cash flow discussion refers to product classes as defined in Table I.1 in section I of this document and the efficiency levels and design options as detailed in Tables IV.5 through IV.7 in section IV.C.3 of this document.
At TSL 1, the standard represents a modest increase in efficiency, corresponding to the lowest analyzed efficiency level above the baseline for each analyzed product class. The change in INPV is expected to range from −1.3 to −0.3 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 7.0 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $414.5 million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027 standards year. Currently, approximately 24 percent of domestic refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer shipments meet the efficiencies required at TSL 1.
The design options DOE analyzed primarily included implementing more efficient single-speed compressors. For PC 5,
At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is expected to increase by 1.6 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 2027. In the preservation-of-gross-margin percentage scenario, the minor increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is slightly outweighed by the $82.5 million in conversion costs, causing a negligible change in INPV at TSL 1 under this scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, manufacturers earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit from their investments. In this scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed 2027 compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $82.5 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario.
At TSL 2, the standard represents an increase in efficiency of approximately 10 percent across all analyzed product classes, consistent with ENERGY STAR requirements, except for PC 10. The change in INPV is expected to range from −2.2 to −0.7 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 12.4 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $414.5 million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027 standards year. Currently, approximately 26 percent of domestic refrigerator, refrigerator-
The design options DOE analyzed include implementing similar design options as TSL 1, such as more efficient compressors, BLDC fans, and variable defrost. For PC 3, the design options included implementing incrementally more efficient single-speed compressors and variable defrost. For PC 7, the design options analyzed included implementing variable-speed compressors. For PC 3 and PC 7, TSL 2 corresponds to EL 2. For PC 10, TSL 2 corresponds to baseline efficiency. For the remaining product classes, the efficiencies required at TSL 2 are the same as TSL 1. The increase in conversion costs from the prior TSL is entirely due to the increased efficiencies required for PC 3 and PC 7. Capital conversion costs may be necessary for updated tooling and additional stations to test more variable-speed compressors. Product conversion costs may be necessary for developing, qualifying, sourcing, and testing variable-speed compressors and associated electronics. DOE expects industry to incur slightly more re-flooring costs compared to TSL 1. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $22.3 million and product conversion costs of $121.7 million. Conversion costs total $144.0 million.
At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is expected to increase by 2.3 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 2027. In the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage scenario, the slight increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is outweighed by the $144.0 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under this scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2028. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $144.0 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario.
At TSL 3, the standard represents an increased stringency for PC 5, PC 5A, PC 7, PC 11A, and PC 18 and increased NES while keeping economic impacts on consumers modest. The change in INPV is expected to range from −10.6 to −8.0 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 66.7 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $414.5 million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027 standards year. Currently, approximately 18 percent of domestic refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer shipments meet the efficiencies required at TSL 3.
In addition to the design options DOE analyzed at TSL 2, the design options analyzed for PC 5 include implementing higher-efficiency variable-speed compressors and incorporating partial VIP for larger capacity (
At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is expected to increase by 4.0 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 2027. In the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage scenario, the increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is outweighed by the $692.8 million in conversion costs, causing a negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under this scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2028. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $692.8 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario.
At TSL 4 (
In addition to the design options DOE analyzed at TSL 3, the design options analyzed for PC 3 products include implementing the highest-EER single-speed compressors or variable-speed compressors. For PC 9, the design options analyzed included the highest-EER variable-speed compressors. For PC 3, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 3. For PC 9, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 2. For the remaining directly analyzed product classes, the efficiencies required at TSL 4 are the same as TSL 3. At this level, the increase in conversion costs is entirely driven by the higher efficiency levels required for PC 3 and PC 9, which together account for approximately 33 percent of current industry shipments. Many manufacturers of these product classes would need to update their platforms to integrate variable-speed compressors. For PC 5 and PC 5A, DOE understands the two product classes often share the same production lines, with shared cabinet architecture and tooling. DOE expects industry to incur
At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerator, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is expected to increase by 4.8 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 2030. In the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage scenario, the increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is outweighed by the $830.3 million in conversion costs, causing a negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under this scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2031, the year after the analyzed 2030 compliance year.
At TSL 5, the standard represents the maximum NPV. The change in INPV is expected to range from −21.7 to −17.2 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 140.1 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $414.5 million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027 standards year. Currently, approximately 14 percent of domestic refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer shipments meet the efficiencies required at TSL 5.
In addition to the design options DOE analyzed at TSL 4, the design options analyzed for PC 5A includes implementing VIPs on all of the cabinet surface (side walls and doors) and for PC 7 includes implementing VIPs on roughly 75 percent of the cabinet surface. For PC 5A, TSL 5 corresponds to EL 3. For PC 7, TSL 5 corresponds to EL 4. For PC 9, TSL 5 corresponds to EL 1, the same efficiency level required for TSL 3. For the remaining product classes, the efficiencies required at TSL 5 are the same as TSL 4. The increase in conversion costs compared to the prior TSL is entirely driven by the higher efficiency level required for PC 5A and PC 7, which likely necessitates incorporating some VIPs. In interviews, some manufacturers stated that their existing PC 5A and PC 7 platforms cannot reach this efficiency level and would require a platform redesign, which would likely mean new cases, liners, and fixtures. DOE expects slightly more re-flooring costs compared to the prior TSL as manufacturers redesign products to meet the required efficiencies. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $945.3 million and product conversion costs of $458.7 million. Conversion costs total $1.40 billion.
At TSL 5, the large conversion costs result in a free cash flow dropping below zero in the years before the standards year. The negative free cash flow calculation indicates manufacturers may need to access cash reserves or outside capital to finance conversion efforts.
At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is expected to increase by 7.0 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 2027. In the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage scenario, the increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is outweighed by the $1.40 billion in conversion costs, causing a moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 5 under this scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2028. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $1.40 billion in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a large decrease in INPV at TSL 5 under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario.
At TSL 6, the standard reflects max-tech for all product classes. The change in INPV is expected to range from −37.2 to −26.5 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 240.2 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of $414.5 million in the year 2026, the year before the 2027 standards year. Currently, approximately 0.9 percent of domestic refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer shipments meet the efficiencies required at TSL 6.
At max-tech levels, manufacturers would likely need to implement the best-available-efficiency VSC, forced-convection heat exchangers with multi-speed BLDC fans, variable defrost, and increase in cabinet wall thickness for some classes (
The efficiencies required by TSL 6 could require a major renovation of existing facilities and completely new refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer platforms for many OEMs. In interviews, some manufacturers stated that they are physically constrained at their current production location and would therefore need to expand their existing production facility or move to an entirely new facility. These manufacturers stated that their current manufacturing locations are at capacity and cannot accommodate the additional labor required to implement VIPs. DOE expects industry to incur more re-flooring costs compared to TSL 5 as all display models below max-tech efficiency would need to be replaced due to the more stringent standard. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $1.68 billion and product conversion costs of $711.4 million. Conversion costs total $2.39 billion.
At TSL 6, the large conversion costs result in a free cash flow dropping below zero in the years before the 2027 standards year. The negative free cash flow calculation indicates manufacturers may need to access cash reserves or outside capital to finance conversion efforts.
At TSL 6, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is expected to increase by 16.8 percent relative to the no-new-standards case shipment-weighted average MPC for all refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 2027. In the preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage scenario, the increase in cashflow from the higher MSP is outweighed by the $2.39 billion in conversion costs, causing a large negative change in INPV at TSL 6 under this scenario. Under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario, the manufacturer markup decreases in 2028. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $2.39 billion in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers causes a significant decrease in INPV at TSL 6 under the preservation-of-operating-profit scenario.
To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of amended energy conservation standards on direct employment in the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers industry, DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of direct employees in the no-new-standards case and in each of the standards cases during the analysis period. For the direct final rule, DOE used the most up-to-date information available. DOE calculated these values using statistical data from the 2021
Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing depend on the labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an assumption that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total labor expenditures in each year are calculated by multiplying the total MPCs by the labor percentage of MPCs. The total labor expenditures in the GRIM were then converted to total production employment levels by dividing production labor expenditures by the average fully burdened wage multiplied by the average number of hours worked per year per production worker. To do this, DOE relied on the
The number of production employees is then multiplied by the U.S. labor Percentage to convert total production employment to total domestic production employment. The U.S. labor percentage represents the industry fraction of domestic manufacturing production capacity for the covered product. This value is derived from manufacturer interviews, product database analysis, and publicly available information. Consistent with the February 2023 NOPR, DOE estimates that 28 percent of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are produced domestically.
The domestic production employees estimate covers production line workers, including line supervisors, who are directly involved in fabricating and assembling products within the OEM facility. Workers performing services that are closely associated with production operations, such as materials-handling tasks using forklifts, are also included as production labor. DOE's estimates only account for production workers who manufacture the specific products covered by this rulemaking.
Non-production workers account for the remainder of the direct employment figure. The non-production employees estimate covers domestic workers who are not directly involved in the production process, such as sales, engineering, human resources, and management.
Using the GRIM, DOE estimates in the absence of new energy conservation standards there would be 6,366 domestic production and non-production workers for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 2027. Table V.27 shows the range of the impacts of energy conservation standards on U.S. manufacturing employment in the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer industry. The following discussion provides a qualitative evaluation of the range of potential impacts presented in Table V.27.
The direct employment impacts shown in Table V.27 represent the potential domestic employment changes that could result following the compliance date for the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product classes in this direct final rule. The upper bound estimate corresponds to an increase in the number of domestic workers that would result from amended energy conservation standards if manufacturers continue to produce the same scope of covered products within the United States after compliance takes effect. The lower bound estimate represents the maximum decrease in production workers if manufacturing moved to lower labor-cost countries. Most manufacturers currently produce at least a portion of their refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in countries with lower labor costs. Adopting an amended standard that necessitates large increases in labor content or large expenditures to re-tool facilities could cause manufacturers to reevaluate domestic production siting options. At the Recommended TSL (TSL 4), DOE expects some manufacturers would need to implement insulation changes (
Additional detail on the analysis of direct employment can be found in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. Additionally, the employment impacts discussed in this section are independent of the employment impacts from the broader U.S. economy, which are documented in chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD.
In interviews, some manufacturers noted potential capacity concerns related to implementing VIPs, particularly for high-volume product lines (
In response to the February 2023 NOPR, AHAM, Whirlpool, GEA, and Sub Zero expressed concerns that the supply of high-efficiency components such as VIPs and VSCs would not be able to ramp up in the 3-year compliance period to meet the expected consumer demand for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 5; Whirlpool, No. 70 at p. 5; GEA, No. 75 at p. 2; and Sub Zero, No. 77 at p. 2) Conversely, Samsung commented that the industry has a significant amount of VSCs available for purchase, and that the 3-year compliance period is acceptable for manufacturers and suppliers to establish sufficient availability of VSCs. (Samsung, No. 78 at p. 3)
In support of this analysis, DOE conducted research and interviewed
Using average cost assumptions to develop industry cash flow estimates may not capture the differential impacts among subgroups of manufacturers. Small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure that differs substantially from the industry average could be affected disproportionately. DOE investigated small businesses as a manufacturer subgroup that could be disproportionally impacted by energy conservation standards and could merit additional analysis. DOE also identified the domestic LVM subgroup as a potential manufacturer subgroup that could be adversely impacted by energy conservation standards based on the results of the industry characterization.
DOE analyzes the impacts on small businesses in a separate analysis for the standards proposed in the NOPR published elsewhere in this issue of the
In addition to the small business subgroup, DOE identified domestic LVMs as a manufacturer subgroup that may experience differential impacts due to amended standards. DOE identified three domestic LVMs of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that would potentially face more challenges with meeting amended standards than other larger OEMs of the covered products.
Although these LVMs do not qualify as small businesses according to the SBA criteria previously discussed (
Table V.28 lists the range of product offerings and estimated total company annual revenue for the three domestic LVMs identified. These three manufacturers account for approximately 1 percent of the overall domestic refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer shipments. This table also contains the range of total company annual revenue for the five largest appliance manufacturers selling refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in the U.S. market. These five appliance manufacturers account for approximately 95 percent of the overall domestic refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer shipments.
LVMs may be disproportionately affected by conversion costs. Product redesign, testing, and certification costs tend to be fixed per basic model and do not scale with sales volume. Both large manufacturers and LVMs must make investments in R&D to redesign their products, but LVMs lack the sales volumes to sufficiently recoup these upfront investments without substantially marking up their products' selling prices. LVMs may also face challenges related to purchasing power and a less robust supply chain for key technologies or components, as compared to larger manufacturers. DOE notes that domestic LVMs have access to the same technology options as larger appliance manufacturers, the challenge with redesigning products to meet amended standards relates to scale and their ability to recover investments necessitated by more stringent standards.
Although domestic, low-volume manufacturers would likely face additional challenges meeting amended standards for the built-in and compact (“undercounter”) refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product classes compared to other refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer manufacturers, some of the adopted amendments may be beneficial for domestic LVMs. As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is proposing to incorporate certain energy use allowances for products with special doors and multi-door designs. A review of the three domestic LVM's product offerings and information gathered in confidential interviews
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the regulatory actions of other Federal agencies and States that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
For the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE examines Federal, product-specific regulations that could affect refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer manufacturers that take effect approximately 3 years before the 2029 compliance date and 3 years after the after the 2030 compliance date (2026 to 2033). This information is presented in Table V.29.
As shown in Table V.29, the ongoing rulemakings with the largest overlap of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer OEMs include miscellaneous refrigeration products, consumer conventional cooking products, residential clothes washers, consumer clothes dryers, and dishwashers, which are all part of the multi-product Joint Agreement submitted by interested parties. As detailed in the multi-product Joint Agreement, the signatories indicated that their recommendations should be considered a “complete package.” The signatories further stated that “each part of this agreement is contingent upon the other parts being implemented.” (Joint Agreement, No. 103 at p. 3)
The multi-product Joint Agreement states the “jointly recommended
This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs other than TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2). Tables V.30 and V.31 present DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL considered for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.H.2 of this document.
OMB Circular A-4
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are presented in Tables V.36 and V.37. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2027-2035 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029-2037 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2038 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. As mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision criteria.
The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate the change in price for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers over the analysis period (
DOE estimates that amended energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers will reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those products, with the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes (2029/30-2033/34), where these uncertainties are reduced.
The results suggest that the adopted standards are likely to have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the direct final rule TSD presents detailed results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
As discussed in section III.F.1.d of this document, DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not lessen the utility or performance of the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that meet or exceed the adopted standards.
DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section III.F.1.e, EPCA directs the Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination in writing to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. To assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE is providing DOJ with copies of this direct final rule and the TSD for review.
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the direct final rule TSD presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.
Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is expected to yield environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table V.38 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers discussed in section IV.K. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the direct final rule TSD.
As part of the analysis for this rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO
As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE estimated the climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane and N
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution of CO
DOE also estimated the monetary value of the economic benefits associated with NO
Not all the public health and environmental benefits from the reduction of greenhouse gases, NO
The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors were considered in this analysis.
Table V.44 presents the NPV values that result from adding the estimates of the economic benefits resulting from reduced GHG and NO
The climate benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the adopted standards are global benefits, and are also calculated based on the lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers shipped during the period 2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2.
When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must also result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this direct final rule, DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher-than-expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings.
In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.
While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.
Tables V.46 and V.47 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The national impacts are measured over the lifetime of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029-2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030-2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. DOE is presenting monetized benefits of GHG emissions reductions in accordance with the applicable Executive orders and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in this direct final rule in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases, including the Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of this document.
DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. At this level, DOE expects that all product classes would require VIPs and most would require VSCs. For most product classes, this represents the use of VIPs for roughly half the cabinet surface (typically side walls and doors for an upright cabinet), the best-available-efficiency variable-speed compressor, forced-convection heat exchangers with multi-speed BLDC fans, variable defrost, and increase in cabinet wall thickness for some classes (
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 176 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 6, for the largest product classes, which are 3, 5, 5A, and 7 and together account for approximately 76 percent of annual shipments, there is a life-cycle cost savings of $0.03, $20.22, $122.18, and $69.71 and a payback period of 9.3 years, 8.6 years, 6.0 years and 6.8 years, respectively. However, for these product classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 67.1 percent, 60.3 percent, 39.4 percent and 48.3 percent with increases in first cost of $169.37, $151.75, $161.65, and $153.01, respectively. Overall, a majority of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers consumers (60 percent) would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would be negative for PC 5BI, PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18. Additionally, 35 percent of low-income households with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 and used by 19 percent of low-income households) would experience a net cost.
At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $1.83 billion to a decrease of $1.30 billion, which corresponds to decreases of 37.2 percent and 26.5 percent, respectively. Industry conversion costs could reach $2.39 billion as manufacturers work to redesign their portfolio of model offerings and re-tool entire factories to comply with amended standards at TSL 6.
DOE estimates that less than 1 percent of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer current annual shipments meet the max-tech levels. At TSL 6, only a few manufacturers offer any standard-size products that meet the efficiencies required. For PC 3, which accounts for approximately 25 percent of annual shipments, no OEMs currently offer products that meet the efficiency level required. For PC 5, which accounts for approximately 21 percent of annual shipments, DOE estimates that seven out of 22 OEMs currently offer products that meet the efficiency level required. For PC 7, which accounts for approximately 11 percent of annual shipments, only one out of 11 OEMs currently offers products that meet the efficiency level required.
At max-tech, manufacturers would likely need to implement all the most efficient design options in the engineering analysis. In interviews, manufacturer indicated they would redesign all product platforms and dramatically update manufacturing facilities to meet max-tech for all approximately 17.0 million annual shipments of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
In particular, increased incorporation of VIPs could increase the expense of adapting manufacturing plants. As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this document, DOE expects manufacturers would likely adopt VIP technology to improve thermal insulation while minimizing loss to the interior volume for their products. Extensive incorporation of VIPs requires significant capital expenditures due to the need for more careful product handling and conveyor, increased warehousing requirements, investments in tooling necessary for the VIP installation process, and adding production line capacity to compensate for more time-intensive manufacturing associated with VIPs. Manufacturers with facilities that have limited space and few options to expand may consider greenfield projects. In interviews, several manufacturers expressed concerns about their ability to produce sufficient quantities of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers at max-tech given the required scale of investment, redesign effort, and 3-year compliance timeline.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 6 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large potential reduction in INPV and the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting the efficiency levels required at this TSL. At TSL 6, a majority of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezers consumers (60 percent) would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would be negative for PC 5BI, PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18. Additionally, manufacturers would need to make significant upfront investments to update product lines and manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers expressed concern that they would not be able to complete product and production line updates within the 3-year conversion period. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 5 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. For classes other than refrigerator-freezers with bottom-mounted freezers and through-the-door ice service (PC 5A), this TSL represents efficiency levels less than max-tech. TSL 5 represents similar design options as max-tech, but generally incorporates the use of high-efficiency compressors (single speed compressors or VSCs) rather than maximum efficiency VSCs, incorporates VIPs in fewer product classes, and incorporates less VIP surface area for the product classes requiring the use of VIPs as compared to TSL 6. TSL 5 would save an estimated 6.01 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $8.64 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $25.80 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 111 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At TSL 5, for the largest product classes, which are 3, 5, 5A, and 7, there is a life-cycle cost savings of $43.46, $45.47, $122.18, and $73.96 and a payback period of 5.3 years, 6.1 years, 6.0 years and 6.2 years, respectively. For these product classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 34.2 percent, 39.4 percent, 39.4 percent and 42.6 percent with increases in first cost of $52.69, $69.25, $161.65, and $121.58, respectively. Overall, 33 percent of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers consumers would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes.
At TSL 5, an estimated 16 percent of all low-income households experience a net cost, including 11 percent of low-income households with a top-mount or single-door refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3 and used by 72 percent of low-income households) and 32 percent of low-income households with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 and used by 19 percent of low-income households). More than half of low-income PC 7 consumers with a net cost experience a net cost of at least $40 and while low-income PC 7 consumers experience an average LCC savings of $132.77 at TSL 5, there are larger average LCC savings at TSL 4 ($161.87) and substantially fewer low-income PC 7 consumers would experience a net cost (0.6 percent) at that TSL. Further, the incremental increase in purchase price at TSL 5 for PC 7 is $121.58, which may be difficult for low-income homeowners to afford.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $1.07 billion to a decrease of $844.2 million, which corresponds to decreases of 21.7 percent and 17.2 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $1.40 billion to comply with standards set at TSL 5.
DOE estimates that approximately 14 percent of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer annual shipments meet the TSL 5 efficiencies. For standard-size refrigerator-freezers, which account for approximately 70 percent of total annual shipments, approximately 1 percent of shipments meet the efficiencies required at TSL 5. Compared to max-tech, more manufacturers offer standard-size refrigerator-freezer products that meet the required efficiencies, however, many manufacturers do not offer products that meet this level. Of the 22 OEMs offering PC 3 products, three OEMs offer models that meet the efficiency level required. Of the 22 OEMs offering PC 5 products, 14 OEMs offer models that meet the efficiency level required. Of the 11 OEMs offering PC 7 products, only one OEM offers models that meet the efficiency level required.
The manufacturers that do not currently offer models that meet TSL 5 efficiencies would need to develop new product platforms. Updates could include incorporating variable defrost, BLDC evaporator fan motors, and high-efficiency VSCs. Additionally, some product classes could require the use of VIPs. DOE expects manufacturers would likely need to incorporate some VIPs into PC 5 and PC 7 designs, but not to the extent required at max-tech. However, DOE expects manufacturers would need to incorporate the max-tech design options for PC 5A, which includes the use of VIPs for roughly half the cabinet surface (side walls and doors) to meet TSL 5 efficiencies. As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this document, the inclusion of VIPs in product design necessitates large investments in tooling and significant changes to production plants. Furthermore, given that only 1 percent of current standard-size refrigerator-freezer shipments meet TSL 5 efficiency levels, the manufacturers that are currently able to meet TSL 5 would need to scale up manufacturing capacity of compliant models. DOE anticipates conversion costs as high as $1.40 billion because the majority of product platforms in the industry would require redesign and investment.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on consumers, particularly low-income consumers of side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the large potential reduction in INPV and the lack of manufacturers currently offering
DOE then considered the Recommended TSL (
The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are 101 Mt of CO
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
At the Recommended TSL, for the largest product classes, which are 3, 5, 5A, and 7, there is a life-cycle cost savings of $50.91, $55.23, $133.27, and $142.56 and a payback period of 4.8 years, 5.6 years, 4.1 years, and 1.6 years, respectively. For these product classes, the fraction of customers experiencing a net LCC cost is 28.3 percent, 33.6 percent, 19.8 percent, and 0.5 percent with increases in first cost of $47.67, $62.72, $81.32, and $24.39, respectively. Overall, 24.4 percent of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers consumers would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes.
At the Recommended TSL, 9 percent of low-income households with a top-mount or single-door refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3 and used by 72 percent of low-income households) and 0.6 percent of low-income households with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 and used by 19 percent of low-income households) experience a net cost. Additionally, the incremental increase in purchase price is $24.39 for low-income PC 7 homeowners at the Recommended TSL, substantially lower than the incremental increase in purchase price of $121.58 at TSL 5.
At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $504.4 million to a decrease of $383.5 million, which correspond to decreases of 10.3 percent and 7.8 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $830.3 million comply with standards set at the Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that approximately 14 percent of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer annual shipments meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies.
Compared to TSL 5, more manufacturers offer standard-size refrigerator freezer products that meet the required efficiencies since PC 7 has a lower required efficiency level at the Recommended TSL. For PC 7, which accounts for 11 percent of shipments, three OEMs offer products that meet the efficiency level required. Furthermore, DOE does not expect manufacturers would need to incorporate VIPs into PC 7 designs to meet the efficiencies required at the Recommended TSL. For PC 5 and PC 5A, DOE understands the two product classes often share the same production lines, with shared cabinet architecture and tooling. DOE expects manufacturers would likely need to incorporate some VIPs into PC 5A designs, but not to the extent required at TSL 5 and TSL 6. Thus, for the 10 OEMs that manufacture both PC 5 and PC 5A, DOE expects manufacturers could implement similar cabinet upgrades (
For all TSLs considered in this direct final rule—except for the Recommended TSL—DOE is bound by the 3-year lead time requirements in EPCA when determining compliance dates (
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary has concluded that a standard set at the Recommended TSL for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is economically justified. At this TSL, the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes for
As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified as required under EPCA. DOE notes 72 percent of low-income households have a top-mount refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3) and that an estimated 9 percent of low-income PC 3 households experience a net cost at the Recommended TSL, whereas an estimated 6 percent of low-income households with a top-mount refrigerator-freezer experience a net cost at TSL 3. However, the average LCC savings for low-income PC 3 consumers are $22.05 higher at the Recommended TSL than at TSL 3. Further, compared to TSL 3, it is estimated that the Recommended TSL would result in additional FFC national energy savings of 0.9 quads. These additional savings and benefits at the Recommended TSL are significant. DOE considers the impacts to be, as a whole, economically justified at the Recommended TSL.
Although DOE considered amended standard levels for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers by grouping the efficiency levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. In general, the standard level represents the maximum energy savings that does not result in a large percentage of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost. For example, for PC 5, more than half of consumers experience a net cost at EL 3. In the case of PC 7, for which DOE found that a relatively higher percentage of low-income consumers may experience net costs at higher efficiency levels, at the standard level chosen, 0.6 percent of low-income households with side-by-side refrigerator-freezers will experience a potential burden. The ELs at the standard level result in positive LCC savings for all product classes, significantly reduce the number of consumers experiencing a net cost, and reduce the decrease in INPV and conversion costs to the point where DOE has concluded they are economically justified, as discussed for the Recommended TSL in the preceding paragraphs.
Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE adopts the energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers at the Recommended TSL.
While DOE considered each potential TSL under the criteria laid out in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) as discussed above, DOE notes that the Recommended TSL for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers adopted in this direct final rule is part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six rulemakings (refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; miscellaneous refrigeration products; conventional cooking products; residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; and dishwashers). The signatories indicate that the Joint Agreement for the six rulemakings should be considered as a joint statement of recommended standards, to be adopted in its entirety. As discussed in section V.B.2.e of this document, many refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer OEMs also manufacture miscellaneous refrigeration products, conventional cooking products, residential clothes washers, consumer clothes dryers, and dishwashers. Rather than requiring compliance with five amended standards in a single year (2027),
The amended energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, which are
The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is (1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the benefits from operating products that meet the adopted standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits.
Table V.49 shows the annualized values for consumer refrigerator, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers under the Recommended TSL expressed in 2022$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $567.5 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual monetized benefits are $2.2 billion in reduced operating costs, $303.8 million in climate benefits, and $592.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $2.5 billion per year.
Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), and amended by E.O. 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this final regulatory action constitutes a “significant regulatory action” within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the final regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support document for this rulemaking.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE is not obligated to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking because there is not a requirement to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a). As discussed previously, DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement meets the necessary requirements under EPCA to issue this direct final rule for energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers under the procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). DOE notes that the NOPR for energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers published elsewhere in the
Manufacturers of consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. (
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), DOE has analyzed this rule in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B, B5.1, because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances exist that require further environmental analysis, and it meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion.
E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735.
In the February 2023 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect 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. 88 FR 13616. Furthermore, DOE stated that EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule and that States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA.
The AGs of TN, AL,
DOE reiterates that this direct final rule does not have significant federalism implications. DOE has examined this rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect 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. EPCA governs and expressly prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this direct final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Even if DOE were to find otherwise, with regards to the AGs of TN, AL
With regards to the AGs of TN, AL
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this direct final rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
DOE has concluded that this direct final rule may require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may include (1) investment in research and development and in capital expenditures by consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers manufacturers in the years between the direct final rule and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the direct final rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
Under section 205 of UMRA, DOE is obligated to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), this direct final rule establishes amended energy conservation standards for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and economically justified, as required by sections 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for this direct final rule.
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at
E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy
DOE has concluded that this regulatory action, which sets forth amended energy conservation standards for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, is not a significant energy action because the standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this direct final rule.
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“the Bulletin”). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer-reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer review.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The following standards appear in the amendatory text of this document and were previously approved for the locations in which they appear: AS/NZS 4474.1:2007; HRF-1-2019.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this direct final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 28, 2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
The additions read as follows:
3. * * *
(a) Both doors (or both the door and the drawer) must be opened to provide access to the interior through a single opening;
(b) Gaskets for both doors (or both the door and the drawer) are exposed to external ambient conditions on the outside around the full perimeter of the respective openings; and
(c) The space between the two doors (or between the door and the drawer) achieves temperature levels consistent with the temperature requirements of the interior
(a) The area of the transparent portion of the door is at least 40 percent of the area of the door.
(b) The area of the door is at least 50 percent of the sum of the areas of all the external doors providing access to the fresh food compartments and cooler compartments.
(c) For the purposes of this evaluation, the area of a door is determined as the product of the maximum height and maximum width dimensions of the door, not considering potential extension of flaps used to provide a seal to adjacent doors.
5. * * *
5.4.
(a) For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers: To demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards at § 430.32(a) applicable to products manufactured on or after September 15, 2014, but before the compliance date of any amended standards published after January 1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero). To demonstrate compliance with any amended standards published after January 1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, is as defined in section 5.9.2.1 of HRF-1-2019.
(b) For miscellaneous refrigeration products: To demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards at § 430.32(aa) applicable to products manufactured on or after October 28, 2019, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero).
5.5.
If the three-point interpolation method of section 5.2(b) of this appendix is used for setting temperature controls, the average per-cycle energy consumption shall be defined as follows:
The addition reads as follows:
5. * * *
5.4.
For freezers: To demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standards at § 430.32(a) applicable to products manufactured on or after September 15, 2014, but before the compliance date of any amended standards published after January 1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or more automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 (zero). To demonstrate compliance with any amended standards published after January 1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, is as defined in section 5.9.2.1 of HRF-1-2019.
The revision reads as follows:
(a)
(1) The following standards apply to products manufactured on or before September 15, 2014, and before the 2029/2030 compliance dates depending on product class (see paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section).
(2) The following standards apply to products manufactured on or after January 31, 2029.
(3) The following standards apply to products manufactured on or after January 31, 2030.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Proposed rule.
The Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) is proposing issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM or proposed rule) to revise the regulations for registered apprenticeship by enhancing worker protections and equity, improving the quality of registered apprenticeship programs, revising the State governance provisions, and more clearly establishing critical pipelines to registered apprenticeship programs, such as registered career and technical education (CTE) apprenticeships. The proposed rule would improve the capacity of the National Apprenticeship System to respond to evolving employer needs, provide workers equitable pathways to good jobs, and increase the system's long-term resilience.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed rule on or before March 18, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by Docket No. ETA-2023-0004 and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1205-AC13, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Please be advised that the Department will post all comments received that relate to this NPRM without changes to
Michelle Paczynski, Administrator, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: 202-693-3700 (voice) (this is not a toll-free number). For persons with a hearing or speech disability who need assistance to use the telephone system, please dial 711 to access telecommunications relay services.
The Department's current regulations at 29 CFR part 29 addressing labor standards of apprenticeship and the governance of the National Apprenticeship System were last updated in a final rule published on October 29, 2008 (73 FR 64402). In this proposed rule, the Department seeks to strengthen, expand, modernize, and diversify the National Apprenticeship System by enhancing worker protections and equity, improving the quality of registered apprenticeship programs, and revising the State Apprenticeship Agency (SAA) governance provisions so that the National Apprenticeship System is more navigable and responsive to current worker and employer needs.
The proposed rule would enhance the ability of the Employment and Training Administration's (ETA) Office of Apprenticeship (OA) to implement and administer the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (NAA), Act of Aug. 16, 1937, 75th Cong., ch. 663, 50 Stat. 664 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. 50), including approving apprenticeship programs and standards as a Registration Agency and recognizing SAAs, to protect the safety and welfare of apprentices, and to meet the 21st century skill needs of industry. Central to the expanded role is the ability to promote the value of apprenticeship, advance the benefits of apprenticeship as a diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) strategy for program sponsors, maintain National Apprenticeship System data for Registration Agencies, facilitate registered apprenticeship across the United States, and develop partnerships with stakeholders throughout the National Apprenticeship System.
Essential to strengthening, modernizing, expanding, and diversifying the National Apprenticeship System is the advancement of worker protections and equity. The Department's proposal would create more safeguards for apprentices to ensure that they have healthy and safe working and learning environments as well as just and equitable opportunities throughout their participation in a registered apprenticeship program. This emphasis on worker protections and equity for apprentices is founded on the recognition that some populations, such as women and people of color, have historically faced systemic barriers to successfully access, participate in, and complete a registered apprenticeship program. This proposed rule seeks to mitigate barriers and facilitate equal access and greater success for underserved communities, as defined in proposed § 29.2. Additionally, the proposed rule seeks to enhance opportunities for younger workers to safely and equitably participate in registered apprenticeship programs.
Through this proposed rule, the Department is proposing to modernize and standardize the criteria and process for developing quality labor standards for apprenticeship. To maintain the integrity of registered apprenticeship as an industry-driven workforce development model, the Department recognizes that all apprenticeship programs must maintain labor standards that are objective, accountable, flexible and efficient. The Department seeks to fulfill this modernization effort by creating a framework for developing minimum labor standards of apprenticeship that combines the key attributes of the competency- and time-based approaches to on-the-job training into a unitary, coherent training model across all programs. The Department anticipates that modernizing and standardizing the labor standards for all registered apprenticeship programs would support the expansion of registered apprenticeships into new industries and occupations that do not have an established history with registered apprenticeship: programs in these industries new to apprenticeship would benefit from increased avenues to contribute to the development of industry- and occupation-specific training regimens, and from the increased clarity established by the universal baseline standards the Department seeks to apply across all registered programs. In addition, the Department is institutionalizing National Program Standards for Apprenticeship and National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards and aligning them with National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship, a product that would further standardize industry-validated occupational standards for apprenticeship.
The Department's proposal would also create a more objective, proactive, and transparent process for the determination of occupations suitable for registered apprenticeship that balances the flexibility needed to accommodate programs in new and emerging industries while establishing safeguards against adverse impacts to existing, established registered apprenticeship programs. The Department's proposed updates to the suitability process are designed to include flexibilities that would support expansion of the registered apprenticeship model to emergent occupations in non-traditional apprenticeship industries while providing protections against the splintering of existing programs covering occupations previously established as suitable for apprenticeship training (which could have a negative impact on workers' wages and job quality). The Department seeks to reinforce that new occupations suitable for registered apprenticeship meet industry-recognized criteria that support apprentices' ability to access a lifelong career pathway and attain economic mobility. Ensuring that registered apprenticeship programs lead to quality careers and enhance apprentices' economic mobility is one of the Department's guiding principles in overseeing the National Apprenticeship System, grounded in its statutory responsibility to protect the welfare of apprentices and the Administration's priority to promote economic opportunity for underrepresented or underserved populations. To help ensure that apprentices obtain the
The Department is also proposing to revise the framework for collecting program sponsor and apprentice data to ensure greater accountability, transparency, and equity, and would utilize the information collected to oversee program reviews, improve apprentice demographic data, and establish new program- and system-level metrics and indicators.
The Department has consulted, where appropriate, with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in the development of the proposed registered CTE apprenticeship model, which seeks to align with secondary and postsecondary State-approved CTE programs, namely those funded by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006,
Finally, the Department is proposing to revise State governance requirements for States seeking to be recognized by OA as an SAA State, and for renewing such status. The Department proposes revising the governance process to promote greater uniformity and accountability, including the establishment of a State planning requirement involving the development of a strategic vision and goals to expand and diversify registered apprenticeship, as well as robust data collection and reporting to track the achievement of systemwide goals. Through this proposed revision, the Department also sees an opportunity for States to lead on innovation and partner with intermediaries to create an interconnected ecosystem that can support existing and new industries and career seekers in the National Apprenticeship System.
The Department also proposes to make technical and conforming adjustments to the current text of 29 CFR part 30 (governing equal employment opportunity (EEO) in apprenticeships) as appropriate.
For nearly a century, registered apprenticeship has been an effective and successful workforce development model that has helped employers recruit, train, and retain highly proficient, diverse workers in the skilled occupations employers need, and that has provided job seekers with access to high-quality training and stable, well-paying careers. Registered apprenticeship is a structured, industry-driven, flexible workforce training model, and employers and industry stakeholders have updated and customized the model over decades to meet evolving workforce needs and address occupational skill needs that arise as incoming workers seek to establish or enhance successful careers. From the perspective of the apprentice, registered apprenticeship represents an affordable pathway to a high-quality, high-paying career. Apprentices obtain paid work experience and training so that they can sustain themselves and their families while training and preparing for success in their career of interest. Apprentices entering into a registered apprenticeship program share several common indicia: they enter into a paid job from the outset; they receive progressive wage increases reflecting their progress through a training regimen developed by industry stakeholders; they participate in related instruction informing them of the theoretical or academic concepts that underpin the work processes and competencies critical to success in their chosen career; and they ultimately develop a set of portable, in-demand job skills culminating with the awarding of a nationally recognized certificate of completion of a registered apprenticeship that benefit them throughout their careers.
As an earn-and-learn workforce development strategy, registered apprenticeship combines on-the-job training with related (classroom) instruction, blending the practical and theoretical aspects of training for highly skilled occupations. On-the-job training and related instruction are critical, definitional elements of registered apprenticeship that provide practical benefits to both employers and apprentices. Apprentices training in an occupation apply occupational techniques and theoretical concepts throughout their training and, later, throughout their careers, which helps them develop into the productive, skilled, and safety-conscious workers whom employers need. Registered apprenticeship is an effective tool for both providing the training necessary for a worker's success in an occupation, and for measuring an apprentice's developing proficiency in the occupation. Because registered apprenticeship is primarily driven by industry needs, and employers are able to specifically tailor their workforce training regimen to such needs, registered apprenticeship provides assurances to employers that their incoming workforce is prepared and set up for success.
Registered apprenticeship programs are sponsored voluntarily by a wide range of organizations, including individual small to large employers, employer associations, joint labor-management organizations, workforce intermediaries, and educational institutions. These and other stakeholders comprise the National Apprenticeship System, a voluntary system of registered apprenticeship programs and their sponsors, SAAs, and the industry stakeholders that drive the formulation of apprenticeship training regimens that best fit their industry.
Apprenticeship is an international workforce development strategy that provides high-quality training for desirable careers in many countries.
Apprentices who complete a registered apprenticeship program receive an industry-recognized credential and a long-lasting economic benefit. Registered apprenticeship provides high-quality on-the-job training and related instruction, while conferring a nationally recognized credential upon successful completion of the program.
The NAA (29 U.S.C. 50) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Labor (the Secretary) to “formulate and promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, to extend the application of such standards by encouraging the inclusion thereof in contracts of apprenticeship, to bring together employers and labor for the formulation of programs of apprenticeship, [and] to cooperate with State agencies engaged in the formulation and promotion of standards of apprenticeship.” Under this authority, the Department has established the registered apprenticeship program. The Department has set forth labor standards designed to facilitate these statutory directives through its implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 29. Those regulations prescribe minimum quality and content requirements with respect to a program's standards of apprenticeship and its apprenticeship agreements; establish procedures concerning the registration, cancellation, and deregistration of apprenticeship programs; and set forth a mechanism for the recognition of SAAs as Registration Agencies authorized to register and oversee registered apprenticeship programs in a State. A companion regulation, at 29 CFR part 30, also implements the NAA by setting forth minimum EEO requirements that registered apprenticeship programs must follow in order to obtain and maintain registration status. The first version of the labor standards of apprenticeship regulation at 29 CFR part 29 was issued by the Department in 1977 and was subsequently revised in 2008. The part 30 regulations were last updated in a final rule published in the
Within the Department, the responsibility for administering the requirements of the NAA and its implementing regulations rests with OA. OA oversees the National Apprenticeship System and currently serves as the Registration Agency for registered apprenticeship programs operating in 22 States and Puerto Rico.
In the 15 years since the current version of 29 CFR part 29 was published, the scope and visibility of registered apprenticeship in the United States has expanded significantly. Since 2008, when the registered apprenticeship regulations were last updated, significant developments in technology, including its capabilities and centrality to business' priorities and Americans' daily lives, have altered the landscape for the primary stakeholders in the apprenticeship system. Historically, registered apprenticeship has been a successful model for the construction industry and for the skilled trades. For example, Federal benefits are tied to the use of apprentices in registered apprenticeship programs on construction projects under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts. The Davis Bacon and Related Acts regulations allow employers on certain construction
Registered apprenticeship is growing and diversifying. It has maintained its status as the “gold standard” for workforce development in the construction and skilled trades sectors where registered apprenticeship has been prevalent and successful for decades. In addition, it is increasingly seen as a viable option for employers to develop the incoming workforce, and for job seekers to identify and pursue quality career paths in a wide range of new and emerging industries. In 2009, the year after the last update to the part 29 regulations was finalized, there were 420,140 active apprentices in the United States, participating in 26,622 active programs (of which, 1,456 were new programs started within the previous year).
Working with stakeholders like the ACA,
In this proposal to revise the part 29 regulations, the Department seeks to advance several interrelated goals that shape the Department's vision for an improved National Apprenticeship System. Foremost among these goals is the preservation of quality throughout all registered apprenticeship programs, both existing programs and new programs that will enter the system in the coming years. Throughout the proposal, the Department seeks to improve the quality of apprenticeship training and the quality of working conditions for apprentices, and to further promote DEIA principles and goals throughout the National Apprenticeship System. In line with the Department's statutory responsibility to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, the Department is proposing quality improvements throughout the system to improve the protection, safety, and welfare of apprentices, such as proposed prohibitions on non-compete and non-disclosure provisions in apprenticeship agreements between sponsors and apprentices and enhanced protections against unreasonable participation costs for apprentices.
Relatedly, the Department has determined that establishing improved accountability measures throughout the system is a necessary component of maintaining the high level of quality that makes registered apprenticeship such a useful tool for job seekers and employers in the United States. Accordingly, the Department proposes several accountability enhancements throughout this proposal, including a clearer assignment of responsibilities for employers that participate in a registered apprenticeship program (but do not serve as a program sponsor). In line with its goals to maintain quality and improve accountability throughout the National Apprenticeship System, the Department is also proposing
In addition to the foregoing proposed enhancements to the registered apprenticeship model, the Department has determined that the core concepts of earn and learn, quality labor standards, and skill development can be expanded to benefit many additional groups, including in-school youth and individuals from underserved communities who have often faced barriers to the job market. The Department proposes to establish regulations for an additional model of apprenticeship that aligns State-approved CTE programs, in particular those funded under the Perkins program, with foundational elements of apprenticeship. This model, which the proposed rule defines as registered CTE apprenticeship, would deliver the industry-specific portions of the paid on-the-job training and related instruction components of registered apprenticeship through a State-approved CTE program. The Department envisions that registered CTE apprenticeship programs would be most accessible and propitious for secondary and postsecondary students, and would generally target individuals at the earliest stages of their career development or who are transitioning into a different career.
Accordingly, the Department's proposed baseline requirements for registered CTE apprenticeship programs would account for this target population and the increased alignment with educational institutions (as compared to registered apprenticeship). The Department's vision for the possible outcomes of registered CTE apprenticeship programs also aligns with the unique considerations of those in the earliest stages of career development—registered CTE apprenticeship programs would place apprentices in employment, a postsecondary educational program, or a registered apprenticeship program under subpart A, potentially with advanced standing or credit to accelerate their progress through the program. This new model would bridge the existing education and workforce development systems to build a skilled talent pipeline.
Lastly, in the Department's view, the National Apprenticeship System and its diverse stakeholders would be better served by a more uniform and nationally applicable approach to system governance. Employers whose operations extend nationwide, or throughout a multistate region, face challenges when engaging with Registration Agencies across the National Apprenticeship System wherein the approach, parameters, and outcomes of such engagement may differ from State to State. Throughout this proposal, the Department seeks to establish a more uniform, national system, including by retaining the ultimate authority and responsibility to make determinations regarding an occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training and through the introduction of a State planning process for SAAs to establish transparency and alignment throughout the system. The Department also views the improved collection and analysis of apprenticeship data as a critically important goal of its proposal to update the part 29 regulations. To maximize the benefits of improved data collection for all stakeholders in the National Apprenticeship System, including apprentices, program sponsors, and employers, the Department seeks to establish a truly national and comprehensive database of information about registered apprenticeship programs and apprentices in order to accurately assess the performance and equity of these important workforce development programs.
The Department has been continuously engaged with apprenticeship stakeholders to pursue improvements and growth throughout the system, and such engagement has been particularly useful in the development of this proposal. The Department has sought advice, recommendations, and guidance from a number of external sources, research, and stakeholder inputs, including:
• The 2022 interim recommendations
• Virtual Listening Sessions in 2021 coordinated by OA in partnership with various partners and stakeholders to hear perspectives on the current state of the National Apprenticeship System and to gather ideas and suggestions on ways to modernize registered apprenticeship programs;
• National Online Dialogue in 2022, led by OA and launched by ePolicyWorks (entitled “Advancing the National Apprenticeship System”), which asked participants, including various partners and stakeholders, to describe what they believed to be the optimal implementation of the registered apprenticeship model;
• Virtual Listening Sessions in 2023, coordinated by OA, wherein partners and stakeholders were given the opportunity to share perspectives on the current state of the National Apprenticeship System and to share policy recommendations for ways to strengthen and modernize the system. Questions for these sessions were developed, in part, by reviewing the ACA's 2022 Interim Report;
• The 2023 Quality Apprenticeships Recommendation (ILO Recommendation No. 208), adopted by the 111th International Labour Conference on June 16, 2023, which describes the fundamental attributes of quality apprenticeships;
• Regular stakeholder engagements related to the expansion of the registered apprenticeship model, including with industry groups, labor unions, worker advocates, State and local workforce partners, education systems, and intermediaries.
Ongoing oversight of the National Apprenticeship System conducted by OA's staff at the national and regional level, including technical assistance and support provided to registered apprenticeship program sponsors, potential sponsors interested in apprenticeship, and other stakeholders, as well as formal reviews of individual programs, internal processes, and apprenticeship's place in national workforce development, has also been an important source of data that underpins this proposal. Analyzing lessons learned from OA's outreach and support provided to potential program sponsors has helped OA better
OA's role providing oversight of the National Apprenticeship System by conducting reviews of programs, working with Federal, State, and local partners to resolve issues or disputes, and otherwise monitoring stakeholder compliance with the existing regulations, has also been informative and instrumental in developing the enhanced quality elements in this proposed rule. Program and system oversight has influenced OA's identification of the hallmarks of quality registered apprenticeship programs, persistent issues that impact programs, and gaps or weaknesses in the existing regulatory framework. Analyzing these data has informed the development of key quality and accountability aspects of this proposal, including the proposed protections for apprentices against undue costs of participation and restrictions on their labor market mobility and clarifications regarding the appropriate roles and responsibilities of stakeholders within the system (such as clearly articulating the roles and responsibilities of participating employers and clarifications on the appropriate role of State Apprenticeship Councils in system governance).
Overall, outreach and engagement with the National Apprenticeship System's many diverse stakeholders has been a central element of OA's efforts to identify high-level priorities for this proposed update to the part 29 regulations. These priorities reflect OA's consideration, synthesis, and proposed approach to the implementation of the recommendations and priorities arising from engagement with stakeholders holding diverse perspectives based on their backgrounds from different sectors of the economy and roles within the National Apprenticeship System.
Stakeholders throughout the National Apprenticeship System, as well as potential stakeholders representing new industries or expressing interest in developing new opportunities for the system's growth, have consistently advised the Department that systemwide modernization is essential for advancing the Department's goal of expanding registered apprenticeship. The current regulations were finalized during an era in which the economy as a whole and the landscape for registered apprenticeship in particular were very different. The Department intends to modernize the regulations to reflect the contemporary era and the expanded potential for registered apprenticeship. The proposed rule would position registered apprenticeship as a mainstream, high-quality postsecondary training strategy that offers a career path across industries and sectors.
First, the scope of business sectors, industries, and occupations that have benefitted and would benefit from registered apprenticeship has expanded, including both the emergence of entirely new industries and occupations (within the IT and education sectors, for example), as well as evolutions within existing industries and occupations. Economic and technological evolution have also greatly impacted the outlook for existing and potential apprentices, including how they are made aware of registered apprenticeship and other workforce training programs, how they access such programs, their options for participation and interaction with such programs, and the scope of careers and job skills they can pursue.
Second, the advent of increased funding opportunities to support the development of registered apprenticeship programs has further expanded registered apprenticeship's potential scope. As Federal and State resources are made available to support the expansion of registered apprenticeship, this is a critical opportunity to strengthen and reinforce the labor standards to affirm the core guarantees of registered apprenticeship for workers and employers in an evolving labor market. Beginning in 2015, the Department began announcing the availability of funding for registered apprenticeship through several different vehicles. This included approximately $175 million to expand apprenticeship into sectors with few apprenticeships and to populations traditionally underrepresented in apprenticeship through AAI,
These historic investments in the National Apprenticeship System, along with the new opportunities uncovered by an evolving economy and national workforce model, have introduced a much broader range of registered apprenticeship stakeholders (including existing, newly established, and potential stakeholders) since the regulations were last updated in 2008. Accordingly, the Department has determined that the part 29 regulations must be modified and modernized in order to accommodate the growing set of stakeholders, provide tools and resources to ease their entry into the system, and maximize the impact of the aforementioned investments. In the proposed regulation, the Department introduces and defines the purpose of new products to support the development of new registered apprenticeship programs. These products—National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship, National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards, and National Program Standards for Apprenticeship—would feature ample opportunities for industry to provide input and feedback. They would also leverage the Department's existing and emerging relationships to ensure efforts to expand registered apprenticeship are responsive to the evolving and distinct needs of all industries, including those targeted for expansion.
The Department's vision for a modern system also includes an acceleration of its ongoing efforts to leverage advancements in technology to improve its internal systems and data analysis capabilities; modernize and strengthen the reporting tools available to registered apprenticeship program sponsors, SAAs, and other stakeholders; and move the system's administrative functions fully online. The Department anticipates that such improvements would complement the proposed regulation's introduction of industry-driven tools for onboarding new programs. Keeping pace with evolving industries, technological developments, and emerging opportunities for alignment among national workforce system programs is essential for achieving the Department's goal of expanding registered apprenticeship. It would also help the Department advance opportunities to access the National Apprenticeship System, provide oversight and assistance to new and existing stakeholders, and streamline administrative functions throughout the system.
In line with the Department's prioritization of system modernization in this proposed rule, the Department views the enhanced capacity to collect and analyze data as a key advantage of keeping pace with technological developments. As such, the Department is prioritizing the ongoing development of a modernized and enhanced data collection and analysis framework. Though much of this work occurs outside of the regulatory space, the Department has identified a need to update regulatory requirements around data collection to improve its ability to make data-driven decisions about apprenticeship policy, review and assess registered apprenticeship program performance, and communicate the value of apprenticeship as a viable workforce training model. The Department believes this is an opportunity to orient the National Apprenticeship System around increased performance accountability, transparency, and a focus on outcomes.
In the years since the registered apprenticeship regulations were last updated, the Department has invested resources to improve its processes for the collection of data pertaining to apprenticeship and the secure storage of such data. Such resources were also distributed among States to improve SAAs' data collection and reporting capabilities.
Accordingly, the Department's proposed rule would update requirements regarding the collection and maintenance of data for program stakeholders. The proposed rule also presents new data elements for collection to better understand the apprenticeship landscape and enhance OA's and SAAs' ability to make data-driven decisions and improvements throughout the National Apprenticeship System. Such new data elements would include requiring program sponsors to provide data on the interim credentials or other industry-recognized certifications offered through their programs and requiring that applications for a determination on an occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training include information relating to the career wage profile of the subject occupation. Additionally, the Department would collect information from sponsors on pre-apprenticeship program engagement and placement as part of this proposed rule. Proposed reforms to the registered apprenticeship regulations would also prioritize collecting information on both postsecondary academic credit and industry-recognized credentials that apprentices acquire as part of their participation in registered apprenticeship programs, in addition to their acquisition of Certificates of Completion of registered apprenticeship programs. These reforms would allow students, job seekers, and workers to make better informed choices regarding their career needs.
These data elements, along with proposed updates to the part 29 regulations intended to encourage a more uniform and consistent approach to data collection and analysis,
Accurately assessing the quality of registered apprenticeship programs, and actively pursuing opportunities to improve such quality across all registered apprenticeship programs, remains one of the Department's most important responsibilities related to its oversight of the National Apprenticeship System. Establishing a baseline for registered apprenticeship program quality is one of the most salient and practical functions of the part 29 regulations. While the Department believes that the current regulations have successfully guided the development and expansion of quality registered apprenticeship programs presently in existence, the Department has identified potential improvements to the program quality framework that it is pursuing in this proposed rule. The Department's identification of these quality improvements stems from its ongoing collaborations with industry partners and apprenticeship stakeholders, analysis of the persistent issues that arise as the Department executes program reviews, and feedback from apprentices, program sponsors, and employers participating in registered apprenticeship programs (including both success stories and efforts to review and address complaints related to registered apprenticeship programs).
First, the Department relies on the part 29 regulation's standards of apprenticeship to apply quality standards consistently across all registered apprenticeship programs. Any program seeking registration by the Department for Federal purposes must develop a set of program standards that apply to the specific program and align with the minimum quality standards contained within the part 29 regulations (currently at 29 CFR 29.5). Accordingly, many of the program quality enhancements the Department is pursuing in this proposed regulation would update the proposed section for standards of apprenticeship (at proposed 29 CFR 29.8). Engagement with stakeholders, including the ACA, and review of the Administration's priorities for the Department (such as the Good Jobs Initiative driven by the Administration and led by the Department
Advancing equity in registered apprenticeship programs—applicable to program recruitment, participation, treatment during the course of a program, and program outcomes—remains a critical priority for the Department as a whole. The Nation's implementation of an industrial strategy through historic investments in infrastructure,
In general, the Department is pursuing greater alignment between the regulations at parts 29 and 30, which were finalized 8 years apart and have not been updated since the EEO regulations were promulgated in 2016. The Department notes that it is not considering substantive changes to 29 CFR part 30 in this proposal, and the proposed amendments to 29 CFR part 30 are limited to the sections and changes necessary to align with the proposed changes in 29 CFR part 29. As a result, the Department is not accepting comments on the substantive content of the regulations at 29 CFR part 30 (beyond the proposal to incorporate the part 30 definitions into part 29 and any technical edits to part 30 necessary to align with proposed changes to part 29). However, the Department encourages the public to submit comments on how to best advance equity in registered apprenticeship as proposed in this NPRM.
The Department understands, based on several decades of oversight of the National Apprenticeship System, that the quality standards and other regulatory requirements are only as strong as the accountability measures that establish roles, responsibilities, and expectations of key stakeholders in the National Apprenticeship System. Where such accountability is unclear or undefined in the part 29 regulations, individuals' or entities' responsibility for preventing or addressing issues, shortcomings, or problematic outcomes related to registered apprenticeship programs can be questioned, contested, or avoided. This leaves apprentices with an unclear path forward and, at times, stuck with an unfavorable outcome. In order to fulfill its statutory obligation to protect apprentices' welfare and well-being, the Department has identified several areas where accountability within the system can be strengthened or clarified. For example, this proposed rule contains provisions intended to ensure that both registered apprenticeship program sponsors and, critically, any employers that have adopted the sponsor's standards of apprenticeship (referred to in the proposed regulation as “participating employers”) are responsible for adhering to the minimum labor standards stipulated in 29 CFR part 29, as well as the EEO requirements contained in 29 CFR part 30. The proposed rule would also require the sponsors of group programs to both screen and actively monitor participating employers to ensure their compliance with the foregoing regulatory provisions. Such enhanced accountability mechanisms are intended to ensure that apprentices are afforded all of the rights and protections required under the Federal rules pertaining to apprenticeship.
The Department expects that these proposed updates to the part 29 regulation would advance quality, equity, and accountability throughout the National Apprenticeship System. These proposed quality enhancements would benefit both existing registered apprenticeship programs and any new programs entering the system in the coming years. The Department anticipates that apprentices entering the system, along with their parents, guardians, dependent family members, and community members, would benefit from increased confidence in the consistency of quality throughout the system. The Department invites comments from the public on the best ways to advance quality, equity, and accountability throughout the National Apprenticeship System, including reactions to the proposed updates to the part 29 regulations contained in this proposal and any additional suggestions or recommendations for the Department's consideration.
In addition to the recommendations to pursue systemwide modernization, better leverage apprenticeship-related data, and promote quality, equity, and accountability in the National Apprenticeship System, stakeholders have consistently advised the Department to consider additional pathways to participating in a registered apprenticeship program and pursuing the apprenticeship model for career preparation and development, particularly for younger students or job seekers. The ACA advanced several recommendations related to career pathways for youth (including those developed by the ACA's dedicated subcommittee for this issue, the Pathways subcommittee). These included recommendations to define what is meant by a “pre-apprenticeship” program,
The proposed regulations, in addition to the enhancements to the registered apprenticeship model, would provide a more robust framework for identifying and promoting a system of apprenticeship-related pathways that can lead to sustainable careers. This would include defining pre-apprenticeship models that the Department believes could lead to diverse pathways to registered apprenticeship, with greater assurance that registered apprenticeship would be accessible, particularly for underserved communities. The proposal would also provide career seekers looking to get into registered apprenticeship programs entry points into programs, particularly if they do not currently meet the entry-level requirements for registered
Additionally, a key proposed reform in this rulemaking would be the development of labor standards for a new model of registered apprenticeship focused on registered CTE apprenticeships. This proposed new model of registered apprenticeship would be consistent with stakeholder recommendations
A key role in implementing the promises of the proposed rule is to ensure the development of a system of governance for key partners and leaders in the National Apprenticeship System, particularly SAAs that have been provided OA's authority to serve as Registration Agencies in their States. As mentioned previously, OA is responsible for establishing a system of recognition and governance of SAAs, which operate as key partners in the National Apprenticeship System. To that end, the Department is seeking to build a more cohesive system and structure that promotes greater consistency and minimum standards for the roles and responsibilities of SAAs through a State planning approach, as well as criteria around SAAs' approval of registered apprenticeship programs for Federal purposes, while simultaneously encouraging strategic planning and innovation in registered apprenticeship models in the States.
With more than 30 States currently recognized or seeking recognition as an SAA State, this proposed rulemaking seeks to modernize and build a State planning framework for the recognition of SAAs that both satisfies the need for procedural reform and encourages innovative strategies and ideas for the expansion and modernization of registered apprenticeship. Accordingly, the proposed rule includes provisions that would carefully delineate the respective roles and responsibilities of OA, SAAs, and State Apprenticeship Councils within the National Apprenticeship System. The proposed rule would also establish a planning process for SAAs to ensure coordination within the National Apprenticeship System in pursuit of apprenticeship expansion and quality, equity, and consistency in experience for sponsors. This State planning process would also ensure that SAAs are maintaining minimum standards of registered apprenticeship that safeguard the safety and welfare of apprentices. Submission of State Apprenticeship Plans would take place on a cyclical basis, thereby allowing OA to ensure sufficient staffing capacity to review plans and provide technical assistance as needed.
The Department anticipates that the National Apprenticeship System under this proposed rule would provide both workers and businesses with high-quality, inclusive, and adaptable training models to build a skilled American workforce for the 21st century across numerous industries. This proposed rule seeks to ensure the expansion of apprenticeship models with high-quality standards to address the evolving needs of the labor market. The Department is proposing §§ 29.1 through 29.6 as applicable to the entire part, while also proposing three unique subparts for this proposed rulemaking. Subpart A would address standards for registered apprenticeship programs, which would update the current section of 29 CFR part 29 regarding the approval of occupations suitable for registered apprenticeship, the registration standards of apprenticeship, apprenticeship agreements, and other requirements related to the development of quality labor standards. Subpart B would address the proposed registered CTE apprenticeship model, including the requirements associated with registering a program under that model. Subpart C would address the Administration and Coordination of the National Apprenticeship System, including the reporting requirements, SAA recognition and planning provisions, and a provision about sharing information to support the integration of registered apprenticeship into other Federal and State laws. The Department welcomes comments throughout this proposed rule, particularly those focused on ideas to promote higher quality and to facilitate expansion to new industries and occupations.
The “Purpose and scope” section in the current regulation describes and cites to the Secretary's statutory authority to formulate and promote labor standards for registered apprenticeship programs to safeguard the welfare of apprentices participating in such programs. The Department proposes to remove existing § 29.1(a), which describes and cites to the Department's authority under the NAA, because it is unnecessary to repeat the statutory language in the text of the regulation. The Department has determined that the “Purpose and scope” section for 29 CFR part 29 should instead focus on the Department's intent and objectives for the part 29 regulations and the sub-issue areas that follow in the part 29 regulations, all of which would be
Proposed 29 CFR 29.1 would largely retain the regulatory text from current 29 CFR 29.1(b), with a few additions to reflect updates to the evolving system of registered apprenticeship programs and priorities to address the expanded role education partners and intermediaries bring in facilitating the connections between employers and labor as described in the NAA. Other proposed additions would cover the Department's role in promoting the expansion of quality registered apprenticeship programs across a wide array of industries, the critical role the Department and Registration Agencies have in ensuring equitable and inclusive opportunities for all American workers, the proposed new registered model for CTE apprenticeship, the collection of data, and the oversight of registered apprenticeship programs.
In 2007, when the Department proposed an update to the part 29 registered apprenticeship regulations in an NPRM, the preamble noted that the Department's proposed updates to the “Definitions” section in 29 CFR 29.2 were intended to clarify and redesignate existing definitions and establish new definitions used in the registration of registered apprenticeship programs and in “ongoing operations of the National Apprenticeship System.”
One important development was the revision to the regulations at 29 CFR part 30, which introduced a set of key defined terms that are relevant and applicable to the regulations at 29 CFR part 29. Having misaligned definitions, as well as two sets of definitions governing OA's regulations, could cause unnecessary confusion and burden for the regulated community and other stakeholders. Accordingly, the Department proposes to set forth all applicable definitions governing 29 CFR parts 29 and 30 at 29 CFR 29.2. This would centralize the definitions governing all aspects of the National Apprenticeship System, thereby better aligning the operation of parts 29 and 30 and eliminating unnecessary duplication and any inadvertent inconsistency. To effectuate this change, the Department proposes to revise 29 CFR 30.2 to state that part 30 incorporates the definitions found at 29 CFR 29.2. The Department invites comment on this organizational change, particularly on its efforts to ensure the regulated community has one section for all of the definitions pertaining to the National Apprenticeship System. The Department requests that any comments on the substance of a proposed definition reference 29 CFR 29.2 rather than 29 CFR 30.2.
Proposed modifications to any definitions currently found at 29 CFR 30.2 as a result of this proposed rulemaking are explained below. The terms currently found at 29 CFR 30.2 that are not identified below as undergoing modification would remain unchanged and would simply be recodified at 29 CFR 29.2. These terms are “direct threat,” “disability,” “EEO,” “ethnicity,” “genetic information,” “major life activities,” “physical or mental impairment,” “qualified applicant or apprentice,” “race,” “reasonable accommodation,” “selection procedure,” and “undue hardship.” The Department is proposing that the definition of “qualified applicant or apprentice” include the clarifying clause “for purposes of part 30.” This change is proposed to clarify that the definition of “qualified apprentice” in this proposed rule would apply only to the part 30 regulations and would not conflict with the definition of “qualified apprentice” under the IRA's registered apprenticeship requirements.
The remainder of this discussion of proposed § 29.2 discusses, in alphabetical order, new, revised, or deleted definitions for part 29 and definitions from part 30 that the Department is proposing to change. In addition to the definitions proposed for deletion and replacement by another definition as described below, the Department proposes deleting the definitions of “registration of an apprenticeship agreement,” “registration of an apprenticeship program,” and “State Office” from the part 29 regulations. While these definitions are proposed for deletion, the concept for “registration of an apprenticeship agreement” would be addressed by the proposed “apprenticeship agreement” definition and the apprenticeship agreement section in proposed § 29.9. Similarly, while the definition of “registration of an apprenticeship program” is proposed for deletion, the concept would be addressed by the proposed “registered apprenticeship program” definition and the operative sections at proposed §§ 29.8 and 29.10. Likewise, the Department believes the definition of “State Apprenticeship Agency” includes the meaning that a State government agency assumes the roles of an SAA and, therefore, the Department does not believe the term “State Office” would have utility under the proposed rule. The Department believes these concepts would be addressed in the modified definitions but welcomes comments as to whether there are reasons to keep these definitions for the regulated community.
Proposed § 29.2 would define terms applicable to all sections of the NPRM unless otherwise stated.
Proposed § 29.2 would retain the existing definition of “Administrator” from the existing registered apprenticeship regulations. This term would still refer to the Administrator of OA or any person specifically designated by the Administrator of OA.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a new definition of “annual completion rate,” which would be a new program quality measure a Registration Agency would be able to calculate to assist in assessing program quality. This measure would be calculated by identifying all the apprentices who leave a program during a fiscal year as the denominator and the number of those who complete the program as the numerator. This new measure would assist Registration Agencies in seeing if programs are exiting significant numbers of apprentices without graduating them and enable them to use that information as a basis for technical assistance. This measure, unlike the proposed cohort completion rate, would not exclude exiters during the probationary period of the program. This measure would also align with the Department's ETP reporting under WIOA for program completion rates. This measure would
Proposed § 29.2 would modify the definition of “apprentice.” The proposed modification clarifies that an apprentice, as the term is used in parts 29 and 30, is an individual participating in a program subject to the requirements of 29 CFR parts 29 and 30, rather than an individual participating in any apprenticeship program. The Department would retain language that an apprentice must be a worker at least 16 years of age, except where a higher minimum age standard is otherwise fixed by law, to align with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 212) and its implementing regulations (29 CFR part 570), which generally permit bona fide apprentices to perform otherwise prohibited work in nonagricultural employment once they reach the age of 16.
Proposed § 29.2 would modify the definition of “apprenticeship agreement.” The proposed modification would stipulate that an apprenticeship agreement must satisfy each of the applicable regulatory requirements contained in proposed § 29.9. The proposed definition also stipulates that such agreements must describe the terms and conditions of the employment and training of the apprentice, and it further clarifies that an apprenticeship agreement may also include the execution of any subsequent contractual provisions or agreements between the apprentice and the program sponsor (or a participating employer) during the remainder of the apprenticeship term.
Proposed § 29.2 would retain the definition for “apprenticeship committee (committee)” from the existing regulations.
Proposed § 29.2 would modify the definition of “cancellation.” The Department is proposing to modify this definition to reflect that an apprenticeship agreement may be canceled by either the apprentice or the sponsor as discussed in proposed § 29.9. Additionally, the Department is proposing to modify this definition to remove the concept of cancellation of a program because this concept is synonymous with voluntary deregistration of a program. The Department does not see a difference between these two concepts, and so the Department is proposing that cancellation be a term that applies only to apprenticeship agreements, and that voluntary deregistration, as described in proposed § 29.20, to be the appropriate process for programs seeking to end their registration status.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition for “career and technical education (CTE),” which would be utilized primarily in subpart B, from the existing definition in sec. 3(5) of Perkins.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “career pathway” from WIOA.
Proposed § 29.2 would eliminate the existing definition of “certification or certificate” and establish definitions for the different certificates described in part 29. The purpose of establishing standalone definitions for certificates is to minimize confusion and provide clarity for National Apprenticeship System stakeholders on the functional types of documentary evidence that may be provided or used for the purposes of proposed § 29.18, proposed § 29.30, or any other applicable purpose.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “Certificate of Completion” and incorporate the existing language at 29 CFR 29.2 that a Certificate of Completion is a document that establishes that a Registration Agency has determined that an individual has successfully completed a registered apprenticeship program as set forth at proposed § 29.16(d).
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the new term “certificate of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship.” A certificate of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship would be a document that establishes that a Registration Agency has determined that an individual has successfully completed a registered CTE apprenticeship program as documented under proposed paragraph (f). The purpose of this new term is to differentiate between the certificate of completion for registered apprenticeship under subpart A and a certificate of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship discussed for the new proposed model of registered CTE apprenticeship under subpart B.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “Certificate of Participation” and define it for the first time as documentation that an apprentice has participated or is participating in a registered apprenticeship program. Examples of a Certificate of Participation could include evidence necessary to document a construction contractor's compliance with the Davis-Bacon and related Acts' registered apprenticeship requirements regarding the payment of prevailing wages to apprentices at 29 CFR part 5 or a verification of an individual's status as an apprentice. Such a certificate would be OA's official method of verifying an apprentice's participation in a registered apprenticeship program.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “Certificate of Recognition” to describe the document provided to indicate that OA has approved a sponsor's National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards as described in proposed § 29.15.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “Certificate of Registration” to describe the document provided to indicate that a Registration Agency has registered an apprenticeship program under proposed § 29.10(c).
Proposed § 29.2 would define “cohort completion rate,” and this definition would modify the language from the current definition of “completion rate,” which covers the percentage of an apprenticeship cohort that receives a Certificate of Completion within 1 year of the projected completion date. The proposed definition of “cohort completion rate” describes an apprenticeship cohort as the group of individual apprentices registered to a specific program during a given fiscal year, which is a change from the current language in the current definition of “completion rate” that describes it as the group of individual apprentices registered to a specific program during a 1-year timeframe. The term “cohort completion rate” is designed to distinguish this concept from the proposed addition of “annual completion rate.” This change would provide clarity on the existing practice
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “collective bargaining agreement” and define it for the first time in parts 29 or 30 as the written agreement between an employer (or a group of employers) and the bargaining representative(s) of a labor union to which employees of the employer(s) belong that addresses such topics as wages, hours, workplace health and safety, employee benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. When applicable, collective bargaining agreements inform the development of registered apprenticeship program standards and, typically, govern an employer's participation in a group program. This is a term used often in this proposed rule and the 2008 final rule. The Department believes that it is important for the regulated community to understand what the Department means when it uses this term, particularly for industries not familiar with registered apprenticeship. This proposed term was first used by OA in Bulletin 2010-29.
Proposed § 29.2 would modify the definition of “competency” to describe the attainment of knowledge, skills, and abilities specified in a work process schedule. The Department is removing the terms “manual, mechanical or technical skills and knowledge” from the technical definition to be in greater alignment with the Department's understanding of what the attainment of competency means based on competency frameworks, such as the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) system, DOL competency models,
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “corrective action plan” to describe the product that must be produced when a State Apprenticeship Plan is not granted full approval by the Department as described in proposed § 29.27 of this part. This plan is designed to provide SAAs with clear actions needing to be taken to be eligible for full approval of the State Apprenticeship Plan.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “credential rate” to explain how to calculate the percentage of registered apprenticeship program completers in a cohort that receive an interim credential, as defined below. This new program performance measure is intended to incentivize the leveraging of recognized postsecondary credentials, including industry-recognized credentials, into a registered apprenticeship program's design. While the Certificate of Completion remains the premier credential obtained for participation in a registered apprenticeship program, this measure would not include Certificates of Completion. This measure would incentivize additional credentials to be included and tracked and would drive greater portability and national recognition for programs and credentials obtained in programs. Programs are not required to offer interim credentials as a requirement for registration; however, the Department considers a measure that tracks this attainment as a key opportunity to enhance data collection and understanding of programs for both apprentices in programs and job seekers considering registered apprenticeship programs. The Department acknowledges that not all industries or sectors may issue interim credentials. For that reason, the Department is not intending this proposed measure to be a sole indicator of program quality. The metric would help OA to understand which programs provide credentials while participating in a program, ultimately leading to a Certificate of Completion. Lastly, similar to the cohort completion rate measure, the Department is proposing to exclude those apprentices whose participation in the program ends during the program's probationary period because apprentices may decide early in a program that they do not wish to pursue the chosen occupation, and OA does not seek to disincentivize programs or add barriers to programs seeking to recruit and accept participants. Additionally, for this measure an apprentice would be unlikely to attain a credential during that time. The Department is open to comments on whether this measure should include those apprentices who leave during the probationary period.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition for the new term of “CTE apprentice.” CTE apprentices are participants at least 16 years of age, except where a higher minimum age standard is otherwise fixed by law, in a registered CTE apprenticeship program covered by the requirements of subpart B and part 30. The Department is aligning the definition with the definition of “apprentice” that is utilized for the purpose of subpart A. As described in the “apprentice” definition discussion, the Department is retaining language that an apprentice must be a worker at least 16 years of age, to reflect the general 16-year minimum age requirement for employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the new term “CTE apprenticeship agreement.” A CTE apprenticeship agreement would be a written agreement that complies with the requirements in proposed § 29.24 and that contains the terms and conditions for the employment and
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the new term “CTE apprenticeship-related instruction.” CTE apprenticeship-related instruction would be the organized and systematic form of instruction that provides a CTE apprentice with knowledge of the theoretical and technical subjects related to an approved industry skills framework. CTE apprenticeship-related instruction would be required to be delivered through a State-approved CTE program. A sponsor could prescribe additional coursework, including coursework outside of the program, as part of the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction. Instruction could be given in a classroom, through electronic media, or through other forms of study approved by the State CTE Agency and Registration Agency. The purpose of this new term is to differentiate it from the defined term “related instruction” used in subpart A, which does not directly require a State-approved CTE program.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “day” to provide clarity to the regulated community that the usage of the word “day” throughout this proposed rule and 29 CFR part 30 means calendar day, and not business day or workday. The Department considers this an important term to include to remove ambiguity where this term is used. When the word “day” is used throughout this proposed rule this meaning (
Proposed § 29.2 would retain the existing definition of “Department” from the existing registered apprenticeship regulations. This term would still refer to DOL and is used accordingly throughout this NPRM.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “direct threat” in 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “disability” in 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “EEO” in 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would modify the definition of “electronic media” to remove the examples from the regulatory text because any examples too quickly become outdated due to the rapid pace of technological development. Updated and contemporary examples of electronic media as of the date of this proposal include but are not limited to end-users utilizing a computer or mobile device to: access and interact with an interactive map or database on an accessible web-based platform; download, edit, and transmit digital files of PDFs, images, or project-management tools; participate by using a chat function or providing verbal or non-verbal visual cues in a meeting through a video conferencing platform; and access digital written documents through an enterprise-level document-sharing application.
Proposed § 29.2 would revise the existing definition of “employer” to specify that, in relation to apprentices, the employer is the entity that employs an apprentice during the on-the-job training component of the apprenticeship program and provides the apprentice training under an approved set of standards of apprenticeship and apprenticeship agreement. This proposed definition also includes a clarification that it applies to the employment of apprentices for subparts A, B, and C of this part. This is meant to address the employment of apprentices for both registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A and the employment of CTE apprentices under subpart B. For the purposes of subpart C, it would apply to the requirement of reporting from sponsors on employers in the system described in that subpart. The Department uses the term “employer” as a general term in the proposed rule as well as a term specific to the employer of apprentices; therefore, the Department proposes clarifying these two uses of the word in the definition. The Department has determined that the existing definition of “employer,” when used in reference to employers of apprentices, does not sufficiently describe the employer/apprentice relationship with regard to the provision of the on-the-job training component of the registered apprenticeship program and is required to be in accordance with the program's standards. This proposed definition is meant to ensure that all entities employing an apprentice during the apprentice's time in the registered apprenticeship program understand their role as employers as articulated in the standards of apprenticeship governing the program. The Department thinks that this revision would provide clarity for the regulated community and would assure apprentices that any entities participating as employers in their registered apprenticeship program would understand their role in the apprenticeship program and abide by the on-the-job training requirements and program standards set forth in their apprenticeship agreement.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “ethnicity” in 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “exit” for the purpose of calculating certain performance measures such as “annual completion rate,” “cohort completion rate,” or “credential rate” described in proposed § 29.25. Under the proposed definition, an exit is when an apprentice has ended their participation in a registered apprenticeship program. This would include apprentices who have completed a registered apprenticeship program or who have canceled or been canceled from a registered apprenticeship program. The Department proposes including these groups together to ensure it can accurately measure outcomes of all apprentices in a program after their probationary period.
Proposed § 29.2 would revise the definition of “Federal purposes” by adding “registered” before the term “apprenticeship” to align with the changes throughout this proposed rule. This proposed change would clarify that the use of apprenticeship means “registered apprenticeship” unless otherwise stated in the proposed rule. The Department notes that the use of the term “Federal purposes” throughout this proposed rule is used to characterize apprenticeship registration in the National Apprenticeship System as overseen by OA. Additionally, registration for Federal purposes may convey additional benefits or obligations that arise under Federal laws such as the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, the IRA, and WIOA, among others. This term is meant to capture the authority the Department conveys when registering apprenticeship programs or recognizing SAAs to perform this function.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the term “fiscal year.”
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “genetic information” in 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the term “group program.” This term, which has been widely used on an informal basis over the years, refers to a program that is sponsored and registered by an organization that develops a set of registered apprenticeship program standards that are adopted on a formal, contractual basis by one or more participating employers (typically pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement or a program standards adoption agreement) in accordance with the program standards developed by the sponsor of the group program.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the new term “industry skills framework.” The purpose of this new term is to establish the concept of an industry skills framework for utilization in the development of an on-the-job training outline, which would be a distinct component of the standards of a registered CTE apprenticeship program under subpart B.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “institution of higher education” from an existing definition in the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Proposed § 29.2 would modify the definition of “interim credential” to specify that an interim credential is a recognized postsecondary credential (
This proposed change would bring the definition into alignment with ETA's definition of recognized postsecondary credentials by aligning it with acceptable documentation for measuring credential attainment under WIOA.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a new proposed definition for “intermediary” to recognize these important stakeholders within the National Apprenticeship System and describe their role within the system. Given intermediaries' current prevalence in apprenticeship and role described in these proposed regulations, the Department wanted to codify the definition to ensure a common understanding of the term. The Department proposes to define “intermediary” as an entity that assists in the provision or coordination of a registered apprenticeship program or that otherwise provides support to a registered apprenticeship program. Consistent with current practice within the National Apprenticeship System, such support could include assistance with the important industry-driven aspects of a registered apprenticeship program, including industry vetting of training and related instruction components necessary for proficiency in an occupation; the establishment of networks and partnerships to support registered apprenticeship program development and functionality; and other types of support arising from the intermediary's familiarity with and expertise within an industry. In adding this proposed definition to the registered apprenticeship regulations, the Department also seeks to clarify that intermediaries' appropriate role within the National Apprenticeship System would not include any of the responsibilities reserved for Registration Agencies (
Proposed § 29.2 would revise the definition of “journeyworker” to simplify the definition and clarify that
The concept of “proficiency,” as defined in proposed at § 29.2, is central to registered apprenticeship and apprentices' success in the careers they are pursuing by enrolling in a registered apprenticeship program. For a journeyworker to effectively provide the on-site instruction, the Department considers it important that the journeyworker has proficiency in the industry or occupation to effectively train the apprentice on-the-job. Consider an electrician or other trades worker who has been called to a residence to complete a job. If the worker is proficient in the job skills and competencies required for their profession, they will be able to complete the task to the satisfaction of the customer and their employer and within a period that allows their employer to make a profit, or otherwise gain a meaningful economic benefit, for the services rendered. Often within the trades, time to complete a task is set by the market, and tradespeople must be able to complete the task within that period to remain competitive. Employers may also need workers to complete multiple tasks or orders within a given timeframe, and workers' proficiency in completing each task or order directly correlates with the employer's bottom line in employing the worker and advertising their available services. Someone who does not possess the level of proficiency to accomplish these tasks safely and efficiently is not someone whom the Department thinks could or should be training and supervising the work of an apprentice. Accordingly, the Department proposes to include the term “proficiency” in the definition of “journeyworker.”
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “local educational agency (LEA)” from an existing definition in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “local registration” and define it for the first time. The purpose of adding this definition is to formally define a term and concept that is currently used to describe the registration of an apprenticeship program for Federal purposes by a Registration Agency within a particular State. In accordance with proposed § 29.7(a), occupations determined suitable for registered apprenticeship would be eligible for local registration for Federal purposes by a Registration Agency, consistent with the approved work process schedule and related instruction outline. This is designed to indicate the difference between programs registered locally and programs registered nationally. Both methods of registration convey the benefits of registered apprenticeship to a program for Federal purposes; however, national programs are defined separately with separate criteria as discussed in proposed § 29.14. Additionally, local registration pertains to the registered apprenticeship program registration process of a local affiliate that belongs to a national organization that has established templates and program guidelines through National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards under proposed § 29.15(c).
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “major life activities” in 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition of “National Apprenticeship System” to describe the full scope of stakeholders involved with maintaining and supporting registered apprenticeship in the United States. In this proposed regulation, the Department seeks to describe and regulate a national, comprehensive system to develop, oversee, and promote registered apprenticeship across the country. In addition to the relevant Registration Agencies within the system—the Department's OA and SAAs recognized by OA—employers, labor unions, business organizations, trade and industry groups, educational institutions, intermediaries, and other stakeholders play critical roles in the country's system of registered apprenticeship by establishing robust connections between job seekers, workers, and employers, and equipping the system with capable instructors, trainers, and educators. Throughout this proposal, including the NPRM's preamble and the proposed regulatory text, the Department makes use of the term “National Apprenticeship System” where appropriate to describe and refer to the coordinated efforts of the Department and stakeholders in the system of registered apprenticeship. The Department's proposed definition of this term is intended to provide clarity to the regulated community as to which entities are included as registered apprenticeship stakeholders when the Department makes reference to the national system.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards.” While National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards currently exist as an option, commonly being used as a template of registered apprenticeship program standards, developed by a labor union, trade or industry association, or other organization with national scope, that is recognized by OA and may be adapted for local registration, proposed § 29.15 is new and would establish criteria and a process for the recognition of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship
Proposed § 29.2 would add a new definition for “National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship” as part of the Department's effort to define the different products in the system it has made available, or would make available, to support the development of registered apprenticeship programs both in traditional industries and occupations as well as new and emerging industries and occupations where registered apprenticeship is not widespread. The Department's definition of this term would help stakeholders understand the product described at proposed § 29.13 of this part. OA is committed to updating and refining these tools, and the proposed definition for “National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship” lays the groundwork for OA's future development and refinement of this important program onboarding resource.
The related National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards and National Program Standards for Apprenticeship would also be nationally applicable but represent different use profiles within the system. The proposed definition for National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards describes these as a template of registered apprenticeship program standards that are developed by an entity with national scope (such as a labor union or trade association), recognized by OA, and later adapted for local registration of a registered apprenticeship program. In contrast, the proposed definition for National Program Standards for Apprenticeship states that these are developed by a program sponsor for registration on a nationwide, reciprocal basis by OA. Eventually, the Department envisions that any programs basing their standards on National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards or National Program Standards for Apprenticeship would adopt National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship that are tailored to the specific occupation covered by a registered apprenticeship program. The Department recognizes that the development of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship requires a robust process to ensure that they are relevant to industry stakeholders and would only require program sponsors to adopt National Occupational Standards as they become available.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “National Program Standards for Apprenticeship” and define it for the first time. While National Program Standards for Apprenticeship have been in common practice as a set of registered standards of apprenticeship developed and adopted by a program sponsor that are registered on a nationwide, reciprocal basis by OA,
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “non-compete clause,” which means a term in the apprenticeship agreement or other agreement between an employer or sponsor and an apprentice that prohibits the apprentice from seeking or accepting employment with another employer during the registered apprenticeship program or registered CTE apprenticeship program.
Proposed § 29.2 would largely retain the existing definition of “Office of Apprenticeship” from the registered apprenticeship regulations but would make minor changes to more accurately reflect the designation of responsibility for National Apprenticeship System oversight within DOL. In the proposed update to the definition of “Office of Apprenticeship (OA),” the Department proposes to add a reference to the Secretary's designation of National Apprenticeship System oversight to ETA and OA. The Department also proposes to capitalize “Apprenticeship” in this updated definition to align with OA's official title.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “on-the-job training” and define the term for the first time. This term is referred to as “on-the-job learning” in the current rule. The Department is both proposing a definition for this concept in registered apprenticeship and updating it to “training” to align with other workforce development programs, such as those authorized under WIOA. Registered apprenticeship has two essential yet distinct components: related instruction and on-the-job training. While learning is involved in all aspects of apprenticeship, it is important to define on-the-job training as distinct, to explain what programs are required to provide and to mitigate compliance issues about the component of an apprenticeship that requires an apprentice to be paid wages while they are employed and learn an occupation suitable for registered apprenticeship. On-the-job training is an organized and systematic form of training conducted at a workplace or jobsite that is designed to provide the apprentice with the hands-on knowledge, skills, techniques, and competencies that are necessary to achieve proficiency in an occupation determined suitable for registered apprenticeship training. It is a requirement for apprentices in on-the-job training to be paid a wage based on the wage progression schedule in approved program standards or a collective bargaining agreement when apprentices are on the worksite and contributing to an employer's productivity. In contrast, related instruction is an organized and systematic form of instruction designed to provide the apprentice with knowledge of the theoretical and technical subjects related to the apprentice's occupation. Such instruction, unlike on-the-job training, 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 with a requirement of no less than an average of 144 hours per every 2,000 hours of on-the-job training under proposed § 29.7(b)(4). In contrast, the registered CTE apprenticeship model proposed under subpart B will require a minimum of 540 hours of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, which encompasses not less than 12 postsecondary credit hours as part of the program.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the term “participating employer.” A participating employer would be an employer that does not assume the role of a program sponsor under the proposed rule, but that has agreed—pursuant to either a collective bargaining agreement establishing a joint committee that sponsors a registered apprenticeship program, or a program standards adoption agreement (defined below) with a sponsor that is reached outside of a collective bargaining process—to adopt the sponsor's standards of apprenticeship and to serve as the employer of record for the apprentices who are enrolled in the sponsor's program. Accordingly, a participating employer would pay wages and provide closely supervised, on-the-job training to the apprentices.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “physical or mental impairment” from 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition of “pre-apprenticeship program” to the text of 29 CFR part 29. While the EEO in Apprenticeship regulations at 29 CFR 30.2 currently contains a definition of pre-apprenticeship, there is no corresponding definition of that term in the current version of the labor standards of apprenticeship regulation at 29 CFR 29.2. This proposed definition would apply to the usages of the term in both parts 29 and 30 to ensure consistent use in the regulations governing the National Apprenticeship System. The proposed definition retains many aspects of the 29 CFR part 30 definition regarding pre-apprenticeship, but some changes are proposed to more closely align to the definitions of the same term that appear in the WIOA regulations at 20 CFR 681.480 and in the 2023 Quality Apprenticeships Recommendation (ILO Recommendation No. 208).
Finally, the Department views pre-apprenticeship, registered CTE apprenticeship, and registered apprenticeship collectively as a broader apprenticeship pathways system with additional entry points for career seekers, particularly those from underserved communities, leading to registered apprenticeship. Pre-apprenticeship activities, including other forms of work-based learning such as job shadowing, project-based learning, and internships, may be utilized for CTE students, particularly those younger than 16, to better prepare them for success in registered CTE apprenticeship. Ultimately, in certain situations, an individual could progress from pre-apprenticeship to registered CTE apprenticeship, and then to registered apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “proficiency” and define it for the first time. Proficiency would mean, for purposes of subpart A of this part, the demonstrated, measurable attainment by an apprentice of each of the relevant job skills and competencies that are necessary to perform successfully at the journeyworker level in a given occupation. The purpose for adding the definition, among other things, is to clarify that the attainment of each of the various competencies associated with an occupation culminates in an apprentice's acquisition of overall occupational proficiency in that field.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a new definition for “program review” to replace the definition of “quality assurance assessment,” which the Department proposes removing, and bring the registered apprenticeship regulations in line with current administrative practices related to OA's oversight of the National Apprenticeship System. OA conducts program reviews to assess whether programs are in full compliance with the registered apprenticeship regulations in parts 29 and 30. The Department has determined that it would benefit the regulated community to include a definition for this important administrative process in the proposed update to the registered apprenticeship regulations so that stakeholders, in particular program sponsors, fully understand what is meant by a program review as that term is used below and as used in any communications or interactions with the Department or SAA. As discussed below, a program review could include technical assistance, which could be provided to a program sponsor as needed to assist the program with achieving full compliance with the regulations.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the term “program standards adoption agreement.” This term would apply to written agreements reached outside of a collective bargaining process between a sponsor that has developed a written set of registered standards of apprenticeship and work processes, and a Participating Employer that has agreed to utilize and adhere to the program sponsor's standards of apprenticeship and work processes for the training of apprentices in its employ.
Proposed § 29.2 would largely retain the definition of “provisional registration” from the existing registered apprenticeship regulations with a few minor proposed adjustments. The
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “qualified applicant or apprentice” in 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “race” in 29 CFR part 30. This definition would have the same meaning as under the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, or any successor standards.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “reasonable accommodation” in 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “reciprocity of registration” and define it for the first time. While the concept of reciprocity is referenced in existing regulation at § 29.13(b)(7) as a requirement imposed on SAAs, the purpose of adding the definition is to define the concept of reciprocity more clearly as the provision of local registration status by an SAA in that State for a registered apprenticeship program registered by another Registration Agency.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “recognized postsecondary credential” and define it for the first time. The purpose of adding the definition of a recognized postsecondary credential is to clarify what this type of credential is in the National Apprenticeship System and to align with WIOA's definition of this term so that there is a shared definition across programs to assist program sponsors and workforce professionals operating and administering WIOA programs. Recognized postsecondary credentials awarded in a registered apprenticeship program should confer recognition of an apprentice's attainment of measurable technical or industry and occupational skills necessary to advance within an industry and occupation. These technical or industry and occupational skills generally are based on standards developed or endorsed by employers or industry associations. Apprentices may attain more than one recognized postsecondary credential during a program or upon completion. Relatedly, the Department has proposed modifying its definition for interim credential, discussed above, to be those recognized postsecondary credentials obtained during an apprentice's participation in a registered apprenticeship program. For the purposes of registered apprenticeship, the proposed definition of a recognized postsecondary credential includes: an industry-recognized certificate or certification, a Certificate of Completion, which is a requirement for all registered apprenticeship program sponsors, in coordination with a Registration Agency, to administer and provide to an apprentice upon completion of an approved program; a Federal, State, or local license in an occupation suitable for registered apprenticeship where such occupational licensure is required; or an associate or baccalaureate degree. Defining the term for Federal purposes would bring it into better alignment with usage and application as a programmatic outcome under WIOA and Perkins, and it could be used for assessing apprentices' rate of credential attainment for program and system reporting purposes under proposed § 29.25.
Proposed § 29.2 would delete the definition of “apprenticeship program” that appears in the current version of the labor standards of apprenticeship regulation at 29 CFR 29.2 and replace it with a more comprehensive definition of “registered apprenticeship program.” The new definition would stipulate that such apprenticeship programs must be of minimum duration and consist of both a paid on-the-job training component and a related instruction component and be registered by a Registration Agency.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the new term “registered CTE apprenticeship program.” A registered CTE apprenticeship program would be a program registered under subpart B and refers to a model of registered apprenticeship that is a structured integrated education and career training program embedded within a CTE program and includes a paid, on-the-job training component. This program would be distinct from registered apprenticeship programs in subpart A. Such a program would admit students, as CTE apprentices, who have signed a CTE apprenticeship agreement approved by a Registration Agency. Registered CTE apprenticeship programs would be designed to provide curriculum and on-the-job training for industrywide skills and competencies that may be applicable for any number of occupations. However, it should be noted that registered apprenticeship under subpart A would have a requirement of no less than an average of 144 hours per every 2,000 hours of on-the-job training under proposed § 29.7(b)(4). In contrast, the registered CTE apprenticeship model proposed under subpart B would require a minimum of 540 hours of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, which encompasses not less than 12 postsecondary credit hours. Registered CTE apprenticeship programs would not be a substitute for registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A. Program sponsors of registered CTE apprenticeship would be encouraged to develop standards for use in a registered apprenticeship program under subpart A and meet the requirement of that part, especially where there are programmatic opportunities and a workforce need for alignment.
Proposed § 29.2 would revise the existing definition for “Registration Agency” to align with proposed changes to the part 29 regulations. The proposed definition for “Registration Agency” largely retains the existing definition but capitalizes “Agency” and adds
Proposed § 29.2 would retain the existing definition of “related instruction.” As discussed above, related instruction would be distinct from “on-the-job training” in a registered apprenticeship program.
Proposed § 29.2 would make minor changes to the existing definition for “Secretary” intended to clarify DOL's key role in overseeing the National Apprenticeship System. The proposed definition for “Secretary” would clarify that the referenced individual is the U.S. Secretary of Labor and would further clarify that “Secretary” may also refer to any official of DOL designated by the Secretary to clarify the scope individuals to whom the Secretary's authority may be delegated.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition for “selection procedure” from 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would modify the definition of “sponsor” by expanding the illustrative list of entities that could be a sponsor to include intermediaries, which aligns with current practice. The proposed definition adds “employer” to more accurately describe the parties that can be a sponsor. In addition, the proposed definition retains association, committee, or organization that operates a registered apprenticeship program in whose name that program is registered. The proposed definition specifies that, in addition to operating a program, a sponsor also administers a program. The proposed definition also specifies that a Registration Agency is the registration and approval entity.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a new definition for “Standards of Apprenticeship” to the list of defined terms in the part 29 regulations. “Standards of Apprenticeship” is an important term of art in registered apprenticeship that refers to the organized, written plan containing the terms and conditions of employment, training, and supervision within a given registered apprenticeship program, the requirements of which are discussed in proposed § 29.8 below. The Department's proposed definition for “Standards of Apprenticeship” clarifies that these apply to registered apprenticeship programs.
Proposed § 29.2 would modify the definition of “State” to align with WIOA. The definition of “State” under section (sec.) 3 of WIOA includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico explicitly. The Department's proposed definition also utilizes WIOA's definition of “outlying area” rather than the existing term “Territory or possession of the United States.” Outlying area under WIOA includes American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the United States Virgin Islands. This proposed alignment is another area where the Department is attempting further integration between apprenticeship and the broader workforce system by recognizing that the outlying areas, which receive funding under title I of WIOA, should be able to make greater use of the National Apprenticeship System to develop a more comprehensive workforce strategy.
Proposed § 29.2 would retain the definition for “State Apprenticeship Agency” from the existing regulations with minor adjustments. The proposed definition provides more clarity that only a State government agency or department may seek recognition as an SAA.
Proposed § 29.2 would modify the definition of “State Apprenticeship Council.” The previous definition was updated in the 2008 final rule and limited an earlier definition that granted authority to promulgate apprenticeship laws in the event a State Apprenticeship Council was established as a regulatory body. The purpose of the proposed changes to § 29.2 in this proposed rule is to reflect the proposed changes in § 29.26, which would require that State Apprenticeship Councils act solely in an advisory capacity and prohibit an SAA from delegating regulatory or oversight functions to the State Apprenticeship Council.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for “State Apprenticeship Plan.” This definition is being added due to its inclusion in proposed § 29.27 as a mandatory submission from a State government agency seeking to obtain or maintain recognition as an SAA. Establishing a definition of “State Apprenticeship Plan” is necessary to provide clear differentiation from other required plans in this part and 29 CFR part 30. This definition would also clarify that a plan covers a State government agency's recognition for 4 years as an SAA.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition for the term of “State CTE Agency.” A State CTE Agency would be a State board designated or created consistent with State law as the sole State government agency responsible for the administration of CTE in the State or for the supervision of the administration of CTE in the State, or another State government agency delegated the authority by such State board to administer Perkins. Under subpart B, the State CTE Agency would have the responsibility to coordinate with a Registration Agency for the coordination of registered CTE apprenticeship programs if a State chooses to register such programs.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the definition of “supportive services” and define it for the first time. The purpose of adding the proposed definition is to recognize the types of services provided in current practice by National Apprenticeship System stakeholders and partners that are necessary to enable an individual to participate and succeed in registered apprenticeship programs, as well as registered CTE apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs. The proposed definition is aligned with the existing definition found under sec. 3 of WIOA. Under WIOA, the term “supportive services” means services such as transportation, childcare, dependent care, housing, and needs-related payments that are necessary to enable an individual to participate in activities authorized under the Act. The holistic provision of supportive services through cross-system coordination has been found to be beneficial as a programmatic intervention that enables program participants who may face barriers, such as affordable childcare, housing assistance, and reliable transportation, to participate in and complete a pre-apprenticeship or registered apprenticeship program. Supportive services may include, but are not limited to: assistance with transportation; assistance with childcare and dependent care; linkages to community services; assistance with housing; assistance with educational testing; referrals or coverage for physical or mental health care services; assistance with uniforms or other appropriate work attire and work-related tools, including such items as eyeglasses and protective eye gear; assistance with books, fees, school supplies, and other necessary items for students enrolled in college or career readiness, secondary, and
Proposed § 29.2 would largely retain the existing definition for “technical assistance,” with a minor change to the final clause describing what technical assistance is meant to accomplish. The existing part 29 regulations define “technical assistance” as guidance or assistance to further program compliance with the part 29 regulations or guidance provided to an SAA on how to “remedy nonconformity” with the regulations. The Department has proposed to replace that language to clarify that “technical assistance” refers to any support provided to help an entity—a program sponsor or an SAA—satisfy the requirements of parts 29 and 30. Technical assistance does not only arise out of a problem, or in response to a finding of noncompliance with the registered apprenticeship regulations. Technical assistance is also a proactive activity or resource that can help stakeholders understand and comply with requirements at the outset of setting up a program, during the course of a program when a question arises, or in response to new developments that affect a given program's circumstances. To assist the regulated community with understanding and complying with this proposed regulation, and in accordance with the Department's historical practice, the Department plans to engage in a proactive, comprehensive technical assistance campaign that includes written resources and guides and increased avenues for the provision of customer service, including additional staffing to address individual issues and improved forums or portals for requesting and receiving technical assistance.
Proposed § 29.2 would retain the definition for “transfer” from the existing regulations.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition of “underserved communities.” One of the key goals of this proposed rule is to enhance opportunities to support greater equity in the National Apprenticeship System. The Department is adding this term, as it is used throughout the proposed rule, to ensure SAAs, program sponsors, and other stakeholders have an intentional strategy to recruit from and retain individuals from these communities. The Department's proposed definition is derived from several sources: the Good Jobs Principles; the protected bases in 29 CFR part 30; and populations described in WIOA as potentially needing more services for full access to training and employment. The Department welcomes comments on this proposed definition, as well as recommendations for how to embed strategies for recruiting and retaining apprentices from these communities into the National Apprenticeship System. The Department welcomes comments on this proposed definition, as well as recommendations for how to embed strategies for recruiting and retaining apprentices from these communities into the National Apprenticeship System.
Proposed § 29.2 would add the existing definition of “undue hardship” from 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.2 would add a definition of “work process schedule.” The current version of 29 CFR 29.2 does not include a definition of the term “work process schedule,” although this term is referenced at current § 29.5(b)(3), as well as in other provisions of the current regulations. This omission would be rectified in proposed § 29.2 of the NPRM so that there is clear understanding of what the regulations mean when they use the term work process schedule. The new definition of the term would clarify that a work process schedule is a training plan that establishes a series of measurable competency benchmarks whose acquisition by the apprentice should lead to occupational proficiency by the conclusion of the apprenticeship term.
This proposed section “Office of Apprenticeship” is included to describe the roles and responsibilities of the DOL's OA, which have evolved over time, and is intended to provide clarity to the regulated community on the activities OA performs. OA is the office established in ETA to be the administrative and coordinating entity of the National Apprenticeship System. The Department is adding this section to more accurately describe the role and responsibilities of OA, particularly in light of the changes that have occurred in apprenticeship and in the broader economy that occurred since the publication of the current 29 CFR part 29 in 2008.
In a rapidly changing apprenticeship environment, OA continues to have the responsibility to implement and administer the NAA, including by safeguarding the welfare of apprentices through approving registered apprenticeship programs and standards as a Registration Agency and cooperating with State government agencies by recognizing SAAs. The proposed section also recognizes and describes OA's role and responsibility to lead and coordinate the National Apprenticeship System on national policy efforts, manage any resources provided to support apprenticeship, convene industry to promote the importance of apprenticeship including the advantages of adopting standards of apprenticeship, promote the value of apprenticeship, advocate EEO for apprentices and the benefits of apprenticeship as a DEIA strategy for sponsors, maintain National Apprenticeship System data for OA and SAAs, and provide technical assistance to National Apprenticeship System partners, including sponsors and SAAs. Finally, OA has the role and responsibility to engage with a variety of entities and organizations to develop and facilitate apprenticeship in the United States and develop partnerships with stakeholders throughout the National Apprenticeship System including sponsors, intermediaries, and States.
Proposed § 29.3(a) through (d) describe the administrative duties OA fulfills to formulate and update regulations, issue subregulatory guidance, policies, and procedures in connection with the implementation of the NAA (29 U.S.C. 50), and to register apprenticeship programs and standards that satisfy the requirements of 29 CFR parts 29 and 30. Proposed § 29.3(c) also maintains OA's existing role for granting recognition to SAAs that are established under State laws and regulations, and that also satisfy the requirements that are outlined in proposed § 29.26. These proposed paragraphs also include OA's role in promoting the development of industry-validated standards as part of the suitability determination process
Proposed § 29.3(e) would require OA to maintain National Apprenticeship System data pertaining to apprentices and apprenticeship programs that are registered by either OA or SAAs. The purpose of this provision is to support proposed §§ 29.25 and 29.8 as a modernization effort to facilitate data collection and reporting. OA's operation and management of this data system would make the system more transparent and accountable; promote equitable program outcomes for apprentices; and build capacity to disaggregate demographic, geographic, and industry data to evaluate and assess program quality.
Proposed § 29.3(f) would establish the administrative role of OA to promote DEIA in apprenticeship, including for those from underserved communities. In addition, this provision would include OA's role in enforcing equal opportunity for apprentices and applicants for apprenticeship in registered apprenticeship programs consistent with part 30.
Proposed § 29.3(g) would establish the coordinating role for OA to deliver technical assistance to registered apprenticeship program sponsors, SAAs, companies, Federal agencies, and other key stakeholders in the development of apprenticeship program standards and the operation of apprenticeship programs. The Department also anticipates that under this proposed rule it would provide significant technical assistance to SAAs and sponsors on the data reporting requirements in proposed §§ 29.25 and 29.28, including promoting and training on the practices for the collection and utilization of data. An example of how this coordination role has been operationalized is through the Department's investments in industry intermediaries that work across both OA and SAA States to deliver timely technical assistance. Technical assistance is a critical OA function that provides assistance to employers, education providers, and other stakeholders in program design and in compliance-related matters as well.
Proposed § 29.3(h) would also establish a coordinating role for OA to engage in discussions with relevant stakeholders, including multilateral institutions, businesses, and non-governmental organizations in order to facilitate the development and expansion of apprenticeships in the United States. The purpose of this new provision is to institutionalize longstanding relationships the Department has created with apprenticeship stakeholders across the globe through mechanisms such as the development of memoranda of understanding that promote the exchange of ideas and best practices for expanding registered apprenticeship programs, bolster U.S. efforts to establish new apprenticeship programs, increase awareness of opportunities, and create career pathways for apprentices. This paragraph would also establish a coordinating role for OA to develop partnerships with apprenticeship stakeholders that could facilitate and accelerate the expansion of quality registered apprenticeship programs across the National Apprenticeship System.
Proposed § 29.3(i) would provide OA the flexibility to conduct other activities that support the National Apprenticeship System. This is to account for the wide array of activities that OA may conduct to further the goals of the National Apprenticeship System. Such activities have historically included overseeing registered apprenticeship-related appropriations and investments, an annual National Apprenticeship Week, recognition programs such as Apprenticeship Ambassadors, and many others.
Proposed § 29.4 would describe how the proposed regulation would relate to other laws and agreements that could apply to the entities covered by this proposed rule. To align with a similar existing provision in part 30, proposed § 29.4(a) makes clear that the provisions set forth in the revised part 29 would not invalidate or supersede any other Federal, State, or local law establishing more protective or stringent minimum labor standards of apprenticeship than those contained in part 29. Similarly, proposed § 29.4(b) stipulates that part 29 would not invalidate any provision in any collective bargaining agreements applicable to a registered apprenticeship program that establishes more protective or stringent minimum labor standards of apprenticeship. The provisions of part 29 establish the minimum requirements or a floor for program standards, and not a ceiling. The Department notes that there are many successful programs that exceed these minimum standards and encourages all programs to do so in support of developing high-quality training programs for apprentices and employers. Where such higher standards are established, this provision would make it clear that they, rather than the requirements of this part, are controlling.
The Department proposes to include a severability provision as part of this proposed rule. To the extent that any provision, or any portion of any provision, of 29 CFR part 29 that has been proposed or modified in this proposed rule is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Department intends for all other provisions of this part that are capable of operating in the absence of the specific provision, or portion of such provision, that has been invalidated to remain in effect.
The Department is proposing this section to establish reasonable transition periods to allow for the orderly implementation of the amended regulations. In developing these proposed transition periods, the Department has made a concerted effort to account for the unique needs, circumstances, and potential burdens different stakeholders and regulated entities may face in transitioning their operations, policies, or administrative procedures to come into compliance with the updated regulation. These proposed transition periods balance a reasonable timeline to accommodate current and potential system stakeholders against the need to build a stronger National Apprenticeship System with core quality elements.
The essential quality elements that the Department seeks to realize within the National Apprenticeship System relate to approving occupations with respect to their suitability for registered apprenticeship training, registering apprenticeship programs, approving work process schedules, enhancing worker protections in apprenticeship agreements, and enhancing data and performance reporting and measuring. The Department invites comments on each transition provision, including whether a transition period is necessary, the length of time provided, and whether additional transition provisions should be included. In particular, the Department is interested in comments from the primary parties that would have to come into compliance in the time allotted by these proposed provisions—namely, applicants for suitability determinations, existing and potential program sponsors, labor organizations, Registration Agencies (SAAs), and any other organizations or stakeholder groups that would be impacted (or whose constituencies
Proposed paragraph (a) addresses the implementation of the proposed rule as it pertains to proposed § 29.7 and the updated process for making determinations on occupations' suitability for registered apprenticeship. The provisions at proposed § 29.7 would ultimately pertain to occupations not yet determined suitable prior to the effective date of the proposed regulation (potential occupations), occupations previously recognized as suitable for registered apprenticeship training (formerly, “apprenticeable”) by the Administrator (OA) under the existing regulatory framework at § 29.4 (existing suitable occupations), and occupations recognized as suitable for registered apprenticeship training by an SAA prior to the effective date of the proposed regulation (SAA-approved occupations). The Department has organized the proposed transition provisions related to proposed § 29.7 around these three categories to promote clarity. In short, if an occupation has not been previously determined to be suitable for registered apprenticeship training prior to the effective date of this proposed regulation, the provisions at proposed § 29.7 would apply within 90 days of the effective date of the final rule. If an occupation has been previously determined to be suitable for registered apprenticeship training prior to the effective date of the regulation, the provisions at proposed § 29.7 would apply 4 years following the effective date of the final rule.
The following table summarizes the proposed transition provisions relating to proposed § 29.7, which would apply to applicants for suitability determinations as described above (as well as sponsors of existing programs utilizing occupations recognized as suitable for registered apprenticeship training prior to the final rule's effective date):
As described in the table above, the Department believes these are the three different scenarios relevant to the proposed transition provisions for proposed § 29.7. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) is for occupations that have not been determined suitable (formerly “apprenticeable”) as of the effective date of this proposed rule. The Department is proposing that applications for suitability determinations for potential new occupations must reflect the updated requirements in proposed § 29.7 beginning 90 days after the effective date of the final rule, and that during this transition period, the requirements of the existing rule's § 29.4 would remain in effect. The Department seeks to implement the new proposed process for making determinations on occupations' suitability for registered apprenticeship training shortly after the effective date of the final rule, but recognizes that it could be necessary to provide a transition period to accommodate any applications that may have been in process, update systems, develop and issue technical assistance documents, and otherwise leave time for both the regulated community and the Department to prepare for the changes to the updated process.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would implement the proposed requirement of § 29.7(a) that occupations may only be determined suitable by the Administrator. Under this transition provision, SAAs that make apprenticeability determinations under the current rule's §§ 29.4 and 29.13 would not be able to make suitability determinations under proposed § 29.7 for Federal purposes upon the effective date of this proposed rule.
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) addresses the transitioning of occupations previously determined apprenticeable under the current regulatory framework at § 29.4. These occupations would be considered suitable for registered apprenticeship by the Administrator until OA reviews the occupation for continued suitability under proposed § 29.7(h), which provides for a 5-year review process of suitable occupations, work process schedules, and related instruction outlines. The Department recognizes the significant undertaking required to review previously approved occupations under current § 29.4 with the criteria under proposed § 29.7, and thus it proposes in § 29.7(h) an ongoing 5-year review process for suitable occupations to maintain their suitability status. The Department intends to avoid and minimize any adverse impacts to established programs associated with the implementation of this proposed rule, and the provisions of proposed § 29.7(h) provide programs with sufficient notice about the timing regarding an update to existing occupations. The Department also intends to develop and disseminate comprehensive technical assistance resources around the updated suitability process and continue to provide responsive, effective customer service to existing and potential stakeholders at the regional, State, and local levels. The Department has decided not to permanently exempt existing occupations beyond the provisions described in proposed § 29.7(h) because the Department wants to ensure a process where all occupations remain updated to the needs of industry to ensure the training of apprentices remains at the highest quality possible. The Department is interested in comments about the length of this transition provision, impacts to current sponsors, and alternatives such as permanently exempting those occupations versus the goal of building a more cohesive National Apprenticeship System with occupations that are approved under a consistent approach as envisioned in this proposed regulation.
Proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) address the implementation of proposed §§ 29.8 through 29.23, which concern proposed standards for registered
The following table summarizes the proposed transition provisions relating to the remainder of subpart A:
Proposed paragraph (b) provides an immediate effective date for programs not previously registered by the effective date of the final rule for registering programs under subpart A, when an electronic submission process would be available to sponsors. The Department is proposing this to allow OA to provide the necessary supports and technical assistance to potential sponsors relating to the requirements of this proposed rule through an electronic submission process. Such technical assistance could include the development of boilerplate standards of apprenticeship for use by sponsors, webinars on different aspects and requirements of the proposed rule, electronic tools to assist programs, and any other requirements. The Department is interested in any comments on the sufficiency of this time period, including whether this transition period is necessary, whether it is sufficient to allow for OA to develop the necessary supports for potential sponsors while also adhering to the goal of transitioning this provision more quickly (which may impact OA's ability to provide sufficient technical assistance to stakeholders).
Proposed paragraph (c) addresses the transition timeline for programs previously registered by OA to comply with the requirements of this proposed rule. The Department anticipates significant changes would need to be made to program standards, apprenticeship agreements, and other requirements proposed in subpart A. The Department recognizes that established programs could need a longer transition period than new, potential programs, and thus it proposes a 2-year timeline for registered apprenticeship programs in the system prior to the effective date of the final rule to comply with the updated regulation. For example, an established program could need time to complete the training cycle for a cohort of apprentices under its previous standards before moving to update them or could need time to develop questions pertaining to their program in response to subregulatory guidance issued by the Department. The Department is interested in any comments regarding the appropriate length of time to transition previously approved programs to the enhanced quality requirements of this proposed rule taking into account the burden of sponsors and the goals of ensuring the enhancements made in this rulemaking are implemented throughout the National Apprenticeship System.
The Department recognizes that occupations and registered apprenticeship programs established within the National Apprenticeship System prior to the effective date of the final rule would need to consider two different compliance timelines: a longer, 4-year timeline for ensuring their occupation meets the updated suitability requirements at proposed § 29.7, and a 2-year timeline for ensuring their program standards and other program elements align with proposed subpart A. For example, an existing registered apprenticeship program would have to update its program standards within 2 years of the final rule's effective date, and it could also need to gather and report data to the Administrator regarding the subject occupation's typical wage profile within 4 years of the final rule's effective date. The Department anticipates that established programs could need significant time, technical assistance, or other support to align with either the updated standards or suitability requirements. In particular, a competency-based program or a hybrid program (under the existing training model framework) could need significant support in transforming their program's work process schedule to meet the 2,000-hour on-the-job training requirement. The Department plans to extend opportunities to such programs to submit requests for extensions of the transition timeline for good cause, which would also help the Department identify types or trends of technical assistance issues throughout the implementation process. The
Paragraph (d) proposes transition provisions related to SAAs recognized by the Administrator as of the effective date of the proposed rule, the occupations they have approved as “apprenticeable” under the current rule, and the programs they have registered for Federal purposes under the current rule. Proposed paragraph (d) provides that SAAs recognized under the current rule would be recognized until December 31, 2026. The Department anticipates this would provide sufficient time for a State to make the needed changes to transition. State government agencies seeking continued recognition for Federal purposes would need to seek recognition as described in proposed § 29.27 within that timeframe or they would lose their status as recognized SAAs. The Department is interested in comments about the timing and other relevant factors impacting previously recognized SAAs as they work towards complying with the requirements of the proposed rule. The Department is aware that States may need to change their apprenticeship-related laws to address the requirements in this proposed rule and is interested in comments regarding whether the proposed transition timeline provides sufficient time for those laws to be updated and for the recognition requirements of proposed § 29.27 to be fulfilled. The Department has an interest in building greater alignment in the National Apprenticeship System through these proposed regulations but is interested in comments that may address implementation challenges and timing for those States.
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) concerns programs registered by SAAs prior to the approval of a State's State Apprenticeship Plan (discussed in detail in the section-by-section discussion at proposed § 29.27 of this NPRM). Under proposed paragraph (d)(1), SAAs must ensure that such programs' registration is consistent with the applicable elements of an approved State Apprenticeship Plan within 2 years of the date the State Apprenticeship Plan is approved. The Department recognizes that this would be a longer time period for compliance in programs registered by SAAs, because the Department acknowledges that SAAs would need to make changes to their laws to meet the requirements of this proposed rule and because they would be responsible for the registration of programs it would not be fair to hold programs accountable for registration in the State prior to the State making the needed updates to their State laws. The 2 years from approval of the State Apprenticeship Plan would be in alignment with the 2 years the Department proposes providing for programs registered by OA from the approval of this proposed rule. While the Department proposes providing this longer period for programs in SAAs to be compliant with these requirements, proposed paragraph (d)(1) also provides that any program registered after the effective date of the final rule, but before the State Apprenticeship Plan, would remain in provisional status until the program is determined by the SAA to be in compliance with the requirements of its State Apprenticeship Plan, which includes compliant laws with the requirements of proposed §§ 29.26 and 29.27. Paragraph (d)(2) proposes a transition period for occupations that may have been determined “apprenticeable” by an SAA, but not by the Administrator. As described below in proposed § 29.7, this proposed rule reserves the role of making determinations regarding occupational suitability for registered apprenticeship training (previously called “apprenticeability”) role exclusively for the Administrator. The Department is proposing a 4-year period by which those occupations previously approved by SAAs must be approved by the Administrator under proposed § 29.7 in order to continue to be registered for Federal purposes. These timelines, and the relevant members of the regulated community for scenarios involving occupations or registered apprenticeship programs previously deemed suitable, or registered, by SAAs, are clarified in the tables above (see rows for “SAA-approved occupations” and “SAA-approved registered apprenticeship programs” in the tables above). The Department is interested in comments regarding this transition period, particularly those that weigh the benefits of a more aligned and consistent system against the burden on sponsors or SAAs to submit suitability requests under proposed § 29.7 to continue their registration.
Paragraph (e) proposes that for State government agencies not previously recognized as an SAA by the Administrator, they must seek recognition under proposed § 29.27 upon the effective date of the final rule.
The following table summarizes the proposed transition periods related to SAAs, the occupations they have previously determined suitable for registered apprenticeship training, and the apprenticeship programs they have previously registered.
The National Apprenticeship System is built on registering apprenticeship programs, and the first step to registering any program is determining whether it involves an occupation that is suitable for registered apprenticeship training. For this reason, determining whether an occupation is suitable for registered apprenticeship training—what OA used to describe as an “apprenticeable occupation” determination—is a critical responsibility within the National Apprenticeship System. An occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training is inextricably linked with the requirements and purpose of apprenticeship itself. The primary purpose of a registered apprenticeship program is to support industry's needs for hiring and training a skilled and diverse workforce and preparing apprentices for successful careers by producing individuals who are fully proficient in their chosen occupation. The Department believes the criteria established in this section are critical for achieving these goals.
To have a successful career and achieve full proficiency requires a degree of rigor that distinguishes apprenticeship from other forms of training and work-based learning and goes beyond the acquisition of short-term credentials. These consistent factors across a range of industries and occupations also provides an indicator of quality and results for all stakeholders. This is important for building a National Apprenticeship System wherein apprentices receive training and instruction to prepare them for successful, sustainable careers within a quality career path and skills that are portable across an industry.
Determinations of an occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training is also a central consideration in the Department's efforts to expand registered apprenticeship to new industries and sectors. The expansion of registered apprenticeship is an ongoing, driving focus for the Department. However, expansion efforts must balance flexibility and quality control to ensure that any potential new programs have room within the regulatory framework to adapt the model to their industry and occupation, while also ensuring that potential apprentices seeking to enter into a program can expect to receive quality training that is transferrable throughout an industry and applicable and beneficial throughout their careers.
Under the current regulatory framework, an occupation is considered suitable for registered apprenticeship training if it meets four distinct criteria set forth at current 29 CFR 29.4. Occupations suitable for registered apprenticeship training (“apprenticeable” occupation) must: (1) involve job skills customarily acquired through on-the-job training; (2) be “clearly identifiable and recognizable” in an industry; (3) involve the progressive acquisition of skills and knowledge which would require at least 2,000 hours of on-the-job training; and (4) require related instruction in addition to the on-the-job training component.
The Department has determined, based on the successful functioning of the National Apprenticeship System, consideration of national and international apprenticeship practices,
As discussed throughout, the Department recognizes the importance of ensuring that apprentices who complete a registered apprenticeship program are proficient in the subject occupation. The 2023 Quality Apprenticeships Recommendation of the ILO advises Member States to consider the scope of competencies required for an occupation, as well as the duration of the apprenticeship term that would be required to impart such competencies, in making determinations about an occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training.
In order to become proficient in the subject occupation, apprentices must learn the appropriate safety techniques
Further, the Department views the 2,000-hour minimum duration requirement as an important protection for apprentices, and in line with the Department's statutory obligation to protect the welfare of apprentices. Such a minimum duration requirement is important for the protection of apprentices' welfare in three important respects—acquiring occupational proficiency on-the-job, ensuring the delivery of adequate and proper safety training to new and inexperienced workers (particularly in higher hazard occupations), and demonstrating success in competency acquisition through supervised on-the-job training. Approximately 1 year of full-time training is necessary to establish a track record of occupational proficiency, demonstrated understanding of safe occupational and workplace practices and techniques, and experience in learning and achieving competencies on-the-job under appropriate supervision. With respect to apprenticeships in hazardous occupations, safety training does not solely involve teaching apprentices the appropriate techniques for the safe and secure operation of a piece of machinery or interaction with a known hazard. In order for apprentices to operate in a safe environment, they must also be trained to recognize the signs of a potential hazard, to be proactive in applying safety measures and precautions, and to be diligent and aware on the job.
Registered apprenticeship is ultimately meant to transform apprentices into full-time, proficient, and highly effective employees. In a registered apprenticeship program, apprentices learn job skills and techniques that are portable within an occupation and across employers hiring for that occupation. Completing a quality registered apprenticeship program should firmly place apprentices on a pathway to a stable, quality career. Conversely, if a training program only prepares an apprentice to enter into employment with a single employer, with little opportunity for vertical or horizontal career mobility, the benefits of the training program are limited for both the trainee and any prospective employer. As with safety training, developing the full set of occupational competencies necessary to become proficient in the occupation (
The Department is interested in any public comments on a minimum duration of the training period for quality registered apprenticeship programs, and whether the longstanding quality hallmark of a 2,000-hour, yearlong training program works well for existing stakeholders, and whether this period should be shorter or longer. In particular, for comments on the 2,000-hour minimum duration requirement, the Department is interested in reviewing data, statistics, and practical examples from existing workforce training programs (including existing registered apprenticeship programs) that illustrate or inform the merits of establishing a minimum duration of training in terms of overall training program quality.
Relatedly, apprentices in most registered apprenticeship programs currently operating within the National Apprenticeship System receive at least 144 hours (on average per year, or per 2,000 hours, of on-the-job training) of related instruction to complement the on-the-job training elements of their program. Such related instruction—also referred to as “classroom” learning or by other terms that reflects the academic nature of related instruction in the apprenticeship context—enables apprentices to learn the theoretical concepts that underpin the work performed in the subject occupation and supplements their understanding of the job skills and competencies they acquire through on-the-job training. The Department views related instruction as a critical element of quality registered apprenticeship programs that is essential for the ultimate success of the apprentice in their transformation from an apprentice into a fully proficient worker in the occupation. While 144 hours of related instruction is only a minimum recommendation under the current regulatory framework at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(4), because of its importance to the future success of an apprentice, at proposed § 29.7(b)(4), the Department is proposing to require that an occupation's proposed work process schedule include at least 144 hours of related instruction, on average, per 2,000 hours of on-the-job training, in order for the Department to determine that the occupation is suitable for registered apprenticeship training. For example, under this proposal a submission of an occupation for 4,000 hours of on-the-job training would need to provide a related instruction outline that includes at least 288 hours of related instruction to maintain the 144-hour average requirement. Because this applies at 2,000-hour on-the-job training intervals, a 3,000-hour on-the-job training program would only be required to provide at least 144 related instruction hours.
The Department believes that proposing the establishment of a uniform
In most instances, program sponsors require that an apprentice fulfill the related instruction component of the apprenticeship during after-work hours. This approach is both realistic and sensible, given that the average age of apprentices in the United States is approximately 29 years old
The Department is interested in comments to this approach, including any alternatives such as a minimum ratio of 144 hours of related instruction per 2,000 that would be applied to the total hours. In the example of a 3,000-hour on-the-job training program, the ratio of 144 related instruction hours to 2,000 hours of on-the-job training would equate to a floor of 216 hours of related instruction. The existing requirement for apprenticeability only requires that there must be related instruction to supplement the on-the-job training, without setting a minimum number of hours.
The Department seeks comments on the inclusion of the related instruction hours as part of the determination of suitability, particularly those that may recommend no criteria be used in the occupational eligibility process and how the Department could still ensure more occupational consistency and integrity in its training of apprentices. The Department is also interested in comments about a minimum average as part of the suitability process, particularly whether to apply it at the 2,000-hour level or if an alternative method of scaling an increase in related instruction consistent with an increase in on-the-job training hours should be considered. In line with the Department's guiding principle to ensure registered apprenticeship programs are responsive to employer needs, the Department is proposing these minimum standards for consideration by the regulated community in this NPRM and is interested in feedback from all apprenticeship stakeholders regarding the proposed minimum standards for occupational suitability in this proposal.
In addition to the minimum standards proposed in this section, an applicant submitting a suitability request could submit an occupation, work process schedule, and related instruction outline that exceeds the minimum standards for the purposes of setting an industry standard for the suitable occupation. For example, an electrician apprenticeship program could submit an occupational request for 8,000 on-the-job training hours as the industry standard at proposed paragraph (c). At proposed § 29.7(d), the Administrator would solicit public comment to assist in evaluating whether submissions meet the requirements of proposed paragraph (c). Additionally, the Administrator could consider other information such as industry or occupational data to assist in making any determinations. An example could include the utilization of the O*NET system,
The Department recognizes that, in the United States, many jobs do not require a year of paid, full-time, work-based learning, nor a significant investment of time spent providing related instruction to workers. Ultimately, registered apprenticeship training is not suitable for all occupations, including many occupations that are essential for the healthy functioning of the national economy. Because the Department must meet its statutory obligation to protect apprentices' welfare in overseeing the National Apprenticeship System, it must consider programs' potential effectiveness for preparing apprentices to enter into stable, rewarding careers. As such, determining an occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training is central and definitional to the registered apprenticeship model and quality assurance throughout the National Apprenticeship System. This more uniform approach to suitability minimizes the possibility that individual programs provide vastly different employment and training experiences. As discussed above, these minimum standards are designed to ensure a minimum framework for determining the suitability of occupations for use in registered apprenticeship programs, acquiring skills and competencies acquired, and the type and amount of related instruction, as well as common expectations on how much on-the-job training is necessary for a typical apprentice to achieve proficiency. Accordingly, the Department proposes to carry forward the existing 2,000-hour minimum duration of on-the-job training requirement criterion for an occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training, and to require, rather than recommend, that an occupation provide at least 144 hours of related instruction, on average, per 2,000 hours of on-the-job training.
The Department has further determined that the existing regulatory framework on “apprenticeability” needs to be modernized and strengthened in order to preserve and enhance quality, maintain and build both registered apprenticeship program and
The ACA's 2022 Interim Report included recommendations related to the “apprenticeability” framework to complement efforts to expand registered apprenticeship, including a recommendation from the Industry Engagement in New and Emerging Sectors ACA subcommittee for the Department to have sole responsibility for designating occupations as suitable for registered apprenticeship training.
Another consideration to guide expansion and quality oversight of the National Apprenticeship System, arising from the Department's ongoing consultations with registered apprenticeship stakeholders, including the ACA and representatives from industries where registered apprenticeship is both new and well-established, is striking the appropriate balance between expansion of the registered apprenticeship model and the impact of any change on established programs. The proposed regulation would set the minimum occupational standard by which an occupation may be determined suitable for registered apprenticeship and provide for the input of industry to set higher minimum standards for on-the-job training at proposed § 29.7(d). The minimum standard exists in the current regulation at 29 CFR 29.4(c), which provides for both the 2,000-hour minimum and that it be in accordance with the “industry standard for the occupation.” For example, an established program may have a set of standards of apprenticeship that exceed the minimum 2,000-hour on-the-job training requirements in the existing regulation based on the “industry standard for the occupation.” This industry standard is not imposed by OA, but rather is set through the apprenticeship suitability process. In this example, an industry standard for an occupation may be the equivalent of 3 full-time years of training (
The ACA identified these potential “splintering” issues in its 2022 Interim Report,
Proposed § 29.7 would make several significant changes to update key terminology to more accurately describe this important first step in creating a registered apprenticeship program. The proposal would replace the term “apprenticeability” with the term “suitability,” and describes the process that OA would use to determine if an occupation is suitable for registered apprenticeship training. Proposed § 29.7 would also implement the ACA's recommendation to avoid “splintering”
Proposed paragraph (a) explains that an occupation determined to be suitable for registered apprenticeship would be eligible for local registration by any Registration Agency. The reference to local registration is intended to clarify that while a positive suitability determination would be the first step for registration of National Program Standards for Apprenticeship or National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards, such registration would require sponsors to satisfy the additional criteria in proposed §§ 29.14 and 29.15 in this part, respectively.
The 2008 final rule did not definitively state whether SAAs have the authority to approve occupations for Federal purposes. This lack of clarity has created several problems, including ambiguity around whether occupations approved by SAAs are eligible for Federal purposes as defined in proposed § 29.2. Some States have delegated apprenticeability (suitability) determinations to non-governmental advisory boards. In addition, there are different applications of the regulatory criteria in approving occupations that create inconsistency in both the identification of industry recognition of an occupation and the minimum quality standards associated with such occupation. This has created planning and operational challenges for national employers seeking to establish workforce training programs through registered apprenticeship in multiple States and complicates the Department's planning and execution of targeted efforts to expand registered apprenticeship's footprint nationwide. To address these issues and clarify who is able to fulfill this key duty, proposed paragraph (a) states that the Administrator would have the sole discretion to determine whether an occupation is suitable for registered apprenticeship. This would apply to States where OA serves as the Registration Agency, as well as States where SAAs serve as Registration Agencies.
In pursuing a national approach to making determinations about an occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training, the Department seeks to maximize the impact of Federal benefits (such as the disbursement of investments, the availability of tax credits available under the IRA, prevailing wage considerations for apprentices under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, resources providing support to apprentices such as WIOA, and uniformity in administrative and oversight practices related to registered apprenticeship) throughout the system. The Department considers it critical that suitability determinations be made by OA to maintain consistency across the National Apprenticeship System so that different States do not make substantially different suitability determinations. In addition, centralized suitability determinations would ensure that they can be made with the benefit of conferring with industry leaders across the country, and, once occupations are deemed suitable for apprenticeship, they could be registered across the country. Moreover, given the role and increasing Federal benefits associated with registration for Federal purposes, OA seeks to avoid situations in which the same occupation would be ineligible for registration in some States but eligible for registration and Federal benefits in other States.
Under this proposed rule, SAAs would be able to submit suitability applications to the Department for determination, including for those occupations they have previously approved but OA has not approved. The Department acknowledges that its decisions could impact receipt of State benefits conferred to employers, organizations, or other apprenticeship stakeholders.
The Department is interested in comments about this approach, or any alternatives, such as whether States should formally have the authority to approve occupations for Federal purposes within their State, or an additional option where an SAA could apply to OA for approval of an occupation for Federal purposes specific to that State. The Department is particularly interested in any comments on how this approach may impact reciprocity with other States or OA, the transferability and portability of a program that is approved for Federal purposes exclusively in that State, and what criteria the Department should consider when approving and implementing the determination that an occupation is suitable for “Federal purposes” (as described in § 29.2 of this proposed rule) specific to a State. The Department considered another alternative approach to revising the regulations for making suitability determinations wherein occupations could be approved for Federal purposes as “regional” occupations where appropriate (for example, an occupation that is prevalent in a State or region of States, but that otherwise does not have a nationwide footprint), and invites comments on this and all other regulatory alternatives, including transferability, criteria, implementation, or any other alternative approaches to the suitability process.
Proposed paragraph (b) would establish the minimum criteria that must be met for an occupation to be determined to be suitable for registered apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.7(b)(1) would replace existing § 29.4(b) with the additional clarification that to be suitable for registered apprenticeship, the occupation must be clearly identified and commonly recognized as a
Proposed § 29.7(b)(2) is new and would require applicants for a suitability determination to demonstrate that the occupation under consideration leads to a sustainable career. A sustainable career is one that places apprentices who complete their program on a trajectory to a sustainable career, one that provides a fair opportunity for career advancement and economic mobility. This proposed requirement is responsive to the ACA's interim recommendation that wages be taken into consideration in the process of determining which occupations may be suitable for registered apprenticeship. The proposed requirement is not intended to limit the number of programs or apprentices in occupations that have slower-than-average projected growth rates or estimated future job openings. The applicant may also provide supplemental information demonstrating that the occupation is associated with a career ladder or a “stackable” set of occupational credentials in that occupation to demonstrate the occupation's opportunity for career advancement and economic mobility.
The Department provides the following scenarios to illustrate the options available to applicants proposing a new occupation for a suitability determination. An applicant could propose a new occupation, such as Technologist I (term of 1 year), that upon completion has a compensation profile for a journeywork of $25,000 per year. An applicant could also propose a new occupation, such as Technologist II (term of 2 years), that has a compensation profile for a journeyworker of $70,000 per year. Finally, an applicant could propose a “stackable” apprenticeship model for Technologist II (term of 2 years) but include an interim credential at Year 1 to convey competency at the Technologist I level.
The Department is interested in hearing views on this approach, including perspectives on whether applying a more specific wage standard as part of the suitability determination process is appropriate, or if alternative standards or approaches should be considered, balanced against the goal of expanding apprenticeships models into new industries and building career ladders to higher quality jobs. In addition, the Department invites comments on what criteria should be taken into account to determine whether an occupation leads to sustainable careers.
Proposed § 29.7(b)(3) and (4) would replace existing § 29.4(a) and (c) and would require that a structured registered apprenticeship program provide the skills, techniques, and competencies required to attain proficiency in the occupation. However, proposed § 29.7(b)(3) would remove the qualifier of skills being “manual, mechanical or technical” as those terms are linked specifically to skilled trades and are not as broadly applicable to other industries expanding into developing registered apprenticeship models. The requirement that skills attainment be progressive would also be deleted in favor of the requirement of skill acquisition leading to proficiency in the occupation, as would be required by proposed § 29.7(b)(3). Proposed § 29.7(b)(4) would retain the requirement that at least 2,000 hours of on-the-job training be necessary to achieve proficiency in the occupation. As explained above, this 2,000-hour requirement is intended to capture roughly 1 year of full-time on-the-job training. The requirement is intended to distinguish between other forms of work-based learning, such as programs that only support on-the-job training, incumbent worker training, and other shorter certificate programs on the one hand, and proficiency in an occupation that would afford apprentices a lifelong career, on the other. Notably, the 2,000-hour requirement would apply specifically to on-the-job training—work process schedules that would last a calendar year or more but that would not require 2,000 hours of on-the-job training would not satisfy this requirement. The fact that an individual applicant for a suitability determination would require 2,000 hours of on-the-job training would not be dispositive in OA's analysis because OA would look to the number of on-the-job training hours typically required to achieve proficiency in the occupation. In addition, proposed § 29.7(b)(4) would require an industry standard of not less than a minimum average of 144 hours of off-the-job, related instruction for every 2,000 hours of on-the-job training in order to obtain proficiency in the occupation.
Proposed § 29.7(c) is new and explains the information that would be submitted electronically to the Administrator in support of a suitability determination request. The Department believes that specifying the documentation and explanation necessary for the Administrator to reach a new suitability determination would assist applicants who may be unfamiliar with this process.
Proposed § 29.7(c)(1) explains that an applicant for a suitability determination would need to submit sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the elements in proposed § 29.7(b)(1) through (4) are satisfied.
Proposed § 29.7(c)(2) would require that the applicant provide a work process schedule as well as an explanation of how the components of the work process schedule are appropriately structured such that completing apprentices will have achieved proficiency in the occupation. As part of the suitability determination,
Proposed § 29.7(c)(3) would require an applicant for a suitability determination to document the number of hours required to achieve proficiency in an occupation. Although the minimum number of hours would always be 2,000 as established by proposed § 29.7(b)(4) above, some occupations could require more than 2,000 hours of on-the-job training to achieve proficiency. For example, an industry standard term might be set at 8,000 hours for certain occupations. If an 8,000-hour term were to be set for an occupation through this process, future sponsors' work process schedules and related instruction outlines would need to substantially align with the work process schedule and related instruction outline approved under proposed § 29.7. If a work process schedule and related instruction outline submitted for registration under proposed § 29.10 do not substantially align, for example because the required hours of on-the-job training are substantially fewer, then a new suitability determination would be required as provided for in proposed § 29.10(b)(1). The Department acknowledges that an industry standard may change over time given changes in technology or other factors, which is addressed through proposed paragraph (h) of this section.
Proposed § 29.7(c)(4) is new and would require a related instruction outline that describes the proposed curriculum. The number of hours of related instruction would need to be at least an average of 144 hours for every 2,000 hours of on-the-job training. The number of related instruction hours would not need to be evenly distributed during the term of the apprenticeship as long as this average were achieved.
Proposed § 29.7(c)(5) is new and would require an applicant for a suitability determination to disclose if there are any interim credentials, recognized postsecondary credentials, or license requirements for an apprentice to obtain during their registered apprenticeship program to work in that occupation. This is important to ensure OA can validate those submissions through a process to ensure programs registered in an approved occupation provide the industry-validated credentials required for the occupation. The Department notes that programs may provide interim credentials to apprentices, which can signify the attainment of industry-recognized competencies; however, under this provision applicants would need to disclose required credentials needed to practice an occupation in a given State. For instance, some occupations, such as a teacher, nurse, or electrician, require a license in every State. This criterion would help provide more clarity to sponsors seeking to register programs regarding what credentials they must offer in a program, as well as what credentials a program may offer to apprentices.
As described earlier, proposed § 29.7(d) explains that the Administrator would solicit public comment for at least 30 days on all occupational suitability determinations. This addition would also ensure feedback from industry leaders is considered, while also allowing for additional registered apprenticeship and industry experts to provide input into the occupational and work process schedule design. The Administrator would render a determination within 90 calendar days from receiving a completed application, though this time period could be extended by notifying the applicant that more time is needed to reach a determination. Proposed § 29.7(d) would also require the Administrator to maintain an up-to-date publicly available list of all occupational determinations related to suitability for registered apprenticeship.
Generally, as a first step in evaluating an application, the Administrator would utilize a standardized process to identify a proposed occupation and determine whether it is already recognized as part of an existing suitable occupation. In practice, the Administrator currently utilizes industry-validated resources to assist in this determination such as the O*NET Program. The O*NET program assists the Administrator in identifying standardized and occupation-specific descriptors, such as core Tasks, and important knowledge, skill, and ability areas, for almost 1,000 occupations covering the entire U.S. economy. As an example of what might occur under this proposed provision, the Administrator could identify an O*NET code for each submission. Next, the Administrator would share the application with industry leaders and solicit feedback. Soliciting feedback from such stakeholders regarding whether an application for a suitability determination satisfies the requirements in proposed § 29.7(b) would assist the Administrator to adjudicate applications and to ensure that the work process schedule and related instruction outline are in accord with industry standards.
Although the Department feels that a process of soliciting feedback from industry leaders has worked well to date, the Department requests comments regarding how it may seek input from a wider distribution of industry leaders, the public, and other stakeholders, or utilize alternative or innovative methods such as analyzing data to assist the Administrator in making suitability determinations. In addition, the Department is interested in comments regarding when it may be appropriate to vary the process (
Proposed § 29.7(e)(1) through (4) explain the basis by which the Administrator could reach an unfavorable suitability determination. Proposed § 29.7(e)(1) explains that an application for a suitability determination could be rejected if the application were incomplete, meaning that it did not include or address all of the elements in proposed § 29.7(b) or include all of the information required in proposed § 29.7(c).
Proposed § 29.7(e)(2) explains that to be suitable for registered apprenticeship, all of the criteria in proposed § 29.7(b) would need to be satisfied. Ultimately, the discretion as to whether these criteria are satisfied would rest solely with the Administrator for the reasons discussed above.
Proposed § 29.7(e)(3) and (4) are intended to prevent the “splintering” of occupations as described above. Proposed § 29.7(e)(3) would prevent the Administrator from recognizing as suitable for registered apprenticeship an occupation if the scope of the apprenticeship training is confined to a narrowly specialized subset of skills and competencies within an established occupation that are not readily transferable between employers in the sector.
Proposed § 29.7(e)(4) would prohibit the Administrator from making a favorable suitability determination where the occupation under adjudication replicates a significant portion of the work processes from another occupation that OA previously approved as suitable for registered apprenticeship training without leading to a more advanced occupation. Thus, for example, if an occupation already considered suitable trains apprentices in
Proposed § 29.7(f) explains that in the event the Administrator determines that an occupation is not suitable for registered apprenticeship, the Administrator would notify the applicant and provide the Administrator's reasoning. In such cases of a final agency determination, the Administrator would need to publish the final agency determination on an OA public-facing website in compliance with proactive disclosure requirements under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(2)). An applicant could reapply by addressing the issues raised by the Administrator, and the Administrator could, in their discretion, reevaluate such an application and approve the application provided that it meets the criteria for approval.
Proposed § 29.7(g) provides that adjustments to existing suitable occupations, work processes, duration, or other significant adjustments in scope would need to be submitted to and approved by the Administration to remain valid. The Department anticipates that over time occupations could significantly adjust in scope or duration based on the needs of industry, advancements in technology, or other changes. Requiring adjustments to be submitted to the Administrator would help ensure that suitable occupations and work process schedules remain relevant for industry and provide the required training for an occupation.
Proposed § 29.7(h) is new and explains that the Administrator would review existing occupations determined to be suitable for registered apprenticeship on a 5-year cycle. In addition to determining whether the occupation is still suitable for registered apprenticeship, the Administrator would review to ensure that the work process schedule(s) and related instruction outline(s) approved with the prior suitability determination remain consistent with industry standards. In conducting this review, the Administrator would use the process described in § 29.7(d), meaning that the Administrator would seek public comment, input from industry leaders or other stakeholders, and make use of other relevant information to assist with reaching a suitability determination and updating the work processes schedule and related instruction outline. The substantive criteria for determining continued suitability on a 5-year cycle would be the same as outlined in § 29.7(b). If the Administrator determines that previously approved work processes schedules and related instruction outlines require revisions, the Administrator would notify in writing existing programs in the occupation of the need for updates. Existing programs would need to submit updated standards to their Registration Agency that reflect updates before the start of the next training cycle. If an occupation is determined to no longer be suitable for registered apprenticeship, the Administrator would notify any existing programs in writing and the programs would no longer be permitted to register apprentices in the occupation after the conclusion of their current training cycle.
Proposed § 29.8 describes the minimum standards of apprenticeship that would apply for all apprenticeship programs that are registered by a Registration Agency. The establishment and implementation of robust standards of apprenticeship is essential to ensuring that registered apprenticeship programs deliver consistently high-quality training to apprentices, while also ensuring that apprentices are trained in a safe and accessible workplace environment where they are protected from exploitation and abuse. While the current version of the labor standards of apprenticeship regulation at 29 CFR 29.5 does establish minimum standards of apprenticeship for the conduct of registered programs that address key program components (such as progressively increasing wages, apprentice-to-journeyworker ratios, work process schedules, safety requirements, probationary periods, and advanced standing and credit), the revised regulation would further elaborate and strengthen those minimum standards. As discussed in detail below, the proposed rule would extend the application of such minimum standards of apprenticeship to important topics that are not addressed in the current regulation, such as establishing a cost transparency and reasonableness requirement for registered apprenticeship programs, as well as stipulating that such programs undertake effective measures to ensure that apprentices are free from violence, intimidation, and retaliation in the workplace. Proposed § 29.8 would change the order in which the standards of apprenticeship are listed to assist program sponsors, participating employers, apprentices, and other interested parties in understanding the minimum standards of apprenticeship. Finally, proposed § 29.8 would include additional requirements as a result of statutory changes enacted by Congress. Taken together, the updated standards provisions contained in proposed 29 CFR 29.8 are intended to enhance registered apprenticeship program quality and to safeguard the welfare of apprentices.
Proposed paragraph (a) is based on an existing provision that sets forth that a registered apprenticeship program must have a written set of standards of apprenticeship and outlines what provisions must be included in those standards.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(1), which is based on an existing provision, would require that the standards of apprenticeship contain a provision that establishes the minimum eligibility requirements for entry into the registered apprenticeship program. Proposed § 29.8(a)(1), as with the existing provision, sets forth the minimum starting age for an apprentice of not less than 16 years to reflect the general 16-year minimum age requirement for apprentices to be employed in otherwise prohibited occupations in nonagricultural employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Proposed 29 CFR 29.8(a)(2) is not a new requirement for program sponsors. Under the current regulations at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(21), the Department requires program sponsors to include a provision in their program standards that describes the program's method for the selection of apprentices. The current regulations specify that program standards for all registered apprenticeship programs must fully comply with the EEO in Apprenticeship regulations at 29 CFR part 30, and current 29 CFR 29.5(b)(21)—which forms the basis for the language proposed at § 29.8(a)(2) in this NPRM—specifies that selection procedures must conform to the regulations governing the selection of apprentices at current 29 CFR 30.10. The current regulatory text covers selection procedures within a provision that includes other requirements for program sponsors that have EEO elements and corresponding part 30 requirements. The Department has determined that the regulatory community would benefit from the clarity that would arise from separating these elements out into distinct provisions. Accordingly, the Department proposes to relocate a distinct provision covering selection procedures to proposed 29 CFR 29.8(a)(2) and clarifies in this proposed provision that selection procedures must conform to the corresponding requirements at 29 CFR 30.10.
The EEO in Apprenticeship regulations at 29 CFR 30.10 reiterate the part 29 requirement that sponsors must submit selection procedures in the written plan for their program standards, which are submitted to and approved by the Registration Agency. The regulations at 29 CFR 30.10 stipulate that sponsors may use any method or combination of methods for the selection of apprentices, as long as the selection method(s) comply with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures found at 41 CFR part 60-3, which require an evaluation of the selection procedures' impact on race, sex, and ethnic groups, as well as a demonstration of the business necessity for procedures that result in an adverse impact across any of these demographic groups. The regulations at 29 CFR 30.10 also stipulate that selection procedures be applied uniformly and consistently across all applicants and apprentices, and that the selection procedures must comply with title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 1630. Finally, the regulations at 29 CFR 30.10 clarify that selection procedures must be facially neutral with respect to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age (40 or older), genetic information, and disability. Per the ruling from
Proposed 29 CFR 29.8(a)(3) is a new proposed provision in the program standards section of the part 29 registered apprenticeship regulations, but it corresponds to existing requirements in the part 30 EEO regulations regarding the registered apprenticeship program sponsor's obligation to take affirmative steps to provide EEO in apprenticeship. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would require program sponsors to include a description of their recruitment area for new apprentices in their program in the written program standards they submit to the Registration Agency. The Department has determined that the benefits of requiring a written statement on recruitment area in the program standards are two-fold: first, as a matter of transparency and access, receiving this information from sponsors would enable OA, SAAs, and other stakeholders to collaborate with program sponsors in outreach and awareness efforts to attract new apprentices to a program. Understanding whether a program is recruiting new participants online, in a given geographic area, or some combination thereof, for example, is useful information for OA, SAAs, and other stakeholders to include in publicizing registered apprenticeship program availability and options for potential apprentices, such as through the Apprenticeship Finder portal on Apprenticeship.gov.
In addition to the benefits related to access and transparency for this proposed addition, the Department has determined that requiring sponsors to report their recruitment area in their program standards would ultimately benefit sponsors in meeting their EEO obligation to engage in universal outreach and recruitment, as required by the existing regulations at 29 CFR 30.3(b). Identifying the recruitment area is a key piece of a program's outreach because the EEO regulations require that sponsors implement measures to ensure outreach and recruitment efforts extend to all people available to potentially participate in a registered apprenticeship program without excluding any person based on race, sex, ethnicity, or disability. Understanding a program's recruitment area is also important for identifying potential partnerships in a given area—these may be local government-funded resources, like one-stop centers or local workforce development boards, private-sector partners looking to support workforce development and locate potential talent for businesses, or community-based organizations or other community non-profit entities that are engaged and active with the local community and its resident. Ultimately, proposed paragraph (a)(3) is not a new requirement for program sponsors, which must identify their recruitment area as part of compliance with the part 30 EEO regulations. The Department has determined that requiring that program sponsors include information about their recruitment area in their program standards would provide transparency on programs' recruitment processes, would improve access to programs for interested apprentices, and would assist programs in meeting their EEO requirements. Examples of the recruitment area could include a range of miles from the location of the sponsor
Under the current labor standards of apprenticeship regulation at § 29.5(b)(2), a registered apprenticeship program may adopt one of three alternative approaches to providing apprenticeship training: (1) a “time-based” approach, which imputes an apprentice's acquisition of relevant occupational skills through their completion of at least 2,000 hours of on-the-job apprenticeship training; (2) a “competency-based” approach, under which a sponsor determines the apprentice's acquisition of relevant occupational skills during the apprenticeship, without specifying the minimum duration of such training; or (3) a “hybrid” approach, under which an apprentice acquires skills through a combination of a minimum number of on-the-job training hours and the successful demonstration of occupational competency. In addition, § 29.5(b)(4) of the current regulation stipulates that a program's standards of apprenticeship provide for organized, related instruction in technical subjects related to the occupation, and further states that a minimum of 144 hours of such instruction is recommended for each year of apprenticeship training.
In this proposed rule at § 29.8(a)(4)(i), the Department proposes to eliminate the tripartite on-the-job training approaches established in the current regulation and substitute a streamlined, unitary training approach for use by all registered apprenticeship programs that would combine key features of the current time-based and competency-based approaches to on-the-job training approaches. Proposed § 29.8(a)(4)(i) would establish a uniform minimum term of on-the-job apprenticeship training of not fewer than 2,000 hours in duration to ensure an apprentice's acquisition of proficiency in all of the skills and competencies relevant to an occupation during that apprenticeship term;
The Department recognizes that the minimum apprenticeship term for a particular occupation may be greater than the 2,000-hour threshold in those instances where a longer term of apprenticeship training is the customary industry standard for acquiring technical proficiency within that occupation. Conversely, the Department notes that the proposed minimum 2,000-hour requirement for program duration could be reduced on a case-by-case basis for individual apprentices in instances where an apprentice is granted advanced standing or credit by the program for prior learning or previously acquired skills and experience,
The adoption of a unitary on-the-job training approach in the standards of apprenticeship would serve to clearly differentiate registered apprenticeship programs from shorter-term, less intensive workforce training approaches (
The notion of linking the minimum duration of an apprenticeship term to the acquisition of key occupational competencies by apprentices received a clear endorsement in the ACA's 2022 Interim Report, which recommended updating the current regulatory framework “to ensure competency attainment is achieved through all [training] models, while providing certain protections into standards with regard to time in [on-the-job training] to ensure proficiency is obtained, potentially expanding the hybrid model as a long-term goal for quality
The proposed establishment of a 2,000-hour (or 1 year of full-time work equivalent) minimum standard for on-the-job-training would also be consistent with the notion of a minimum duration of on-the-job training for apprenticeship programs that are regulated in G20 nations and other peer countries,
The advantage of linking a minimum term of on-the-job apprenticeship training to the acquisition of an apprentice's acquisition of occupational proficiency was articulated in a 2012 landmark report prepared for the Government of the United Kingdom (the Richard Review of Apprenticeships)
[A]pprenticeships must endure. There is real value in an apprenticeship lasting for a year or more. Apprenticeships measured in weeks or months, even if it is enough time to teach the required material and gain the requisite experience, can still fall short. It is as though the apprenticeship experience itself requires time to bed in and for the individual to transform from an apprentice to a skilled worker.
The Department expects that ensuring that the on-the-job-training component of a registered apprenticeship program has a sustained duration of at least 2,000 hours would benefit program sponsors, employers, and the economy at large because workers completing such programs would be well-grounded and proficient in the skills and competencies associated with the occupation for which they have received training, thereby enhancing their overall productivity and labor market mobility.
It is also important to note that the longstanding 2,000-hour minimum durational standard in the United States for the on-the-job training component of an apprenticeship that is expressed in the current regulation actually predates the enactment of the NAA. The standard was established, pursuant to the labor standards-setting authority contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order (E.O.) 6750-C (June 27, 1934); the same presidential directive also established the Federal Committee on Apprenticeship Training (the forerunner of today's ACA) to advise the Secretary on apprenticeship-related matters. Pursuant to that executive order, the Secretary issued “General Regulation No. 1” on August 14, 1934, which
The proposed rule at § 29.8(a)(4)(ii) also would modify the current regulatory provision that appears at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(4) by expressly requiring, rather than recommending, that registered apprenticeship programs provide to apprentices a minimum average of 144 hours of related instruction in technical subjects relevant to the occupation for every 2,000 hours of on-the-job training provided by the program. As discussed above, the related instruction portion of the program is necessary to complement the on-the-job training by providing an apprentice with a sufficient amount of classroom learning that conveys key foundational and theoretical concepts that an apprentice needs to acquire in order to obtain full proficiency in the occupation covered by the program. In this connection, the Department invites comment from the public on whether the proposed 144-hour minimum durational requirement for related instruction is sufficient, or whether it should be raised to a higher amount, given that several Western nations (such as Canada,
The Department is also interested in any alternative suggestions from commenters, particularly as the Department is looking to align education systems more closely with registered apprenticeship, on whether a topic such as semester or trimester hours should be considered. Based on analysis by ED, 30 in-class or “clock” hours equates to 1 semester hour of academic credit.
The Department is proposing flexibility for program sponsors in how they would count the number of hours related to this requirement. Sponsors may utilize contact hours, credit hours, a conversion of credit to clock hours, or any combination. The Department is interested in any comments related to ensuring and calculating the total number of hours of related instruction for programs. The Department considers this to be an appropriate minimum amount because additional related instruction such as safety training, EEO training, anti-harassment training, and other sponsor or employer specific related instruction is likely necessary to successfully supplement the on-the-job training portion of the registered apprenticeship program. The Department believes that a minimum number of hours should be required but is open to comments on these alternative amounts or on whether a minimum amount should be established by occupation, and if so, how such occupation specific standards should be established.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(5) would require that the program's occupation(s), work process schedules, and related instruction outline(s) be included in the standards of apprenticeship. The submission by a registered apprenticeship program of the occupation and work process schedule is currently required under the existing regulation at 29 CFR 29.5(a)(3). However, the proposed revised standards of apprenticeship would also expressly require the submission of a related instruction outline so that a Registration Agency would have a clear understanding of the breadth and quality of such an off-the-job curriculum, and its relevance to providing an apprentice with the theoretical knowledge needed to attain full proficiency in an occupation. The Department notes that a sponsor could submit standards for multiple occupations as part of their submission, and if so, would need to submit work process schedules and related instruction outlines for every occupation for which it is seeking program registration.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(6) would add a new requirement that the standards of apprenticeship must include the related instruction provider and the instructional methods used to deliver related instruction. Currently, there is not a provision for including the related instruction provider or the instructional methods used to deliver related instruction in the development and subsequent approval of standards of apprenticeship. However, information about the related instruction provider and types of methods to deliver instruction is collected during program registration through Section I of the ETA 671 Form. Currently § 29.5(b)(4) requires standards of apprenticeship to include a “[p]rovision for organized, related instruction in technical subjects related to the occupation” and provides examples of how the instruction in technical subjects may be delivered. Permissible instructional methods include in-person classroom instruction; occupational or industry courses; electronic media, such as delivery via web-based instructional platforms; or other appropriate instructional methods that are approved by the Registration Agency. The proposed requirement for including this new information in standards of apprenticeship would create a record of the instructional methods utilized by the program to deliver related instruction to apprentices, thus providing the Department with a better picture of the types and prevalence of the different instructional modes and methods used by programs generally.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(7) is new and would create a requirement that the standards of apprenticeship include an attestation to document in writing that the qualifications and experience of the trainers and instructors providing the on-the-job training and related instruction to apprentices satisfy the
Proposed § 29.8(a)(8) is new and would create a requirement that the standards of apprenticeship include a description of interim credentials (including recognized postsecondary credentials), qualification, or credit received by an apprentice during the term or upon the completion of the registered apprenticeship program. The Department proposes this new requirement to provide increased transparency to the apprentice who, with this description, would be better able to understand the credentials and credit that they would receive because of participating in the apprenticeship program. Proposed § 29.8(a)(8)(i), which is based on an existing requirement, would require that the description include any interim credentials issued to an apprentice during the term of the registered apprenticeship program. Proposed § 29.8(a)(8)(ii) would require that the description include any industry-portable occupational qualification, license, credential, or certification that the apprentice receives, or may be eligible to receive, upon completion of the registered apprenticeship program. The Department is interested in collecting this information because it is aware that some programs do provide this information, and the potential benefits to apprentices as result of the attainment of these credentials means that the Department should begin collecting more information from program sponsors on this development. The Department is interested in any comments on this new requirement to collect more information about credentials and other measures as part of the registration process.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(8)(iii) would recognize that some registered apprenticeship programs may be operated by, or in partnership with, educational institutions that provide postsecondary credit.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(9) would create a new, separate provision that would require a statement in the standards of apprenticeship of whether time the apprentice spends in the related instruction component of the apprenticeship training would be counted as hours worked, and if so, what the wage rate and any fringe benefits would be for those hours. This requirement would serve as a safeguard to ensure that sponsors consider the payment of wages for related instruction and to provide notice to the apprentices of whether paid related instruction is a part of the registered apprenticeship program's standards. In considering whether related instruction would be paid, sponsors must comply with any Federal, State, or local legal requirements regarding the payment of wages for training time, including, but not limited to, the Fair Labor Standards Act and its implementing regulations. In addition, regardless of any legal obligations to pay for related instruction time, sponsors may choose to do so for the benefit of the apprentices.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(10) would be a new requirement for sponsors to set forth a process for regularly assessing and providing feedback to the apprentice regarding the apprentice's acquisition of job-related knowledge, skills, and competencies during the on-the-job training component of the apprenticeship. It would expand upon the requirement in existing § 29.5(b)(6) of periodic review and evaluation of the apprentice's performance on the job by requiring that a process for regular assessment of knowledge, skills, and competencies be set forth in the standards and that such feedback be shared with the apprentice. The Department notes the importance that feedback provided would be inclusive and structured in a way that would be accessible to all apprentices, including those with disabilities. This provision is intended to complement proposed § 29.8(a)(4), which would set forth the minimum term for the registered apprenticeship program sufficient for an apprentice to attain proficiency in the occupation, and proposed § 29.10(a)(1), which would require a sponsor to include in the submission for program registration the work process schedule and related instruction outline, by coupling the time requirements of the overall apprenticeship term, and work process schedule within such apprenticeship term, with a process for regular assessments. A clear process for regular assessment throughout the term of the apprenticeship, using the work process schedule and the term of the apprenticeship to measure progress, would ensure that the apprentice is achieving competencies and advancing throughout the registered apprenticeship program in accordance with the program standards. Additionally, a process for regular feedback would ensure ongoing dialogue regarding the performance of the apprentice and their progress through the program, as measured against the work process schedule and the term of the apprenticeship as set forth in the performance standards. Finally, to the extent that the progressive wage is measured by certain competencies achieved (rather than a set schedule per the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, for example), a process for regular assessment and feedback would ensure that the apprentice is on track for the wage progression set forth in the program standards and the apprenticeship agreement.
This proposed paragraph also provides that in instances in which an apprentice attains such occupational skills and competencies at an accelerated pace, the program may grant advanced standing to such an individual pursuant to proposed § 29.8(a)(20). This would allow flexibility for high performing apprentices who progress through their apprenticeship at an accelerated rate to gain advanced standing or credit and an increased wage commensurate with such progression. In this way, there would be flexibility for the sponsor to adapt to the progress of apprentices throughout the registered apprenticeship program and allow for acceleration where appropriate. The Department anticipates that such individual apprentices, may be able to complete their apprenticeship terms with fewer hours of on-the-job training or related instruction than the minimum standard established under the proposed rule at § 29.8(a)(4). Because of
Proposed § 29.8(a)(11) would address the utilization of end-point assessments the program uses to determine if an apprentice is fully proficient in the occupation and eligible to complete their registered apprenticeship program. Proposed § 29.16 would require stipulating the administration of an end-point assessment to apprentices at the conclusion of their apprenticeship term and proposed § 29.18 would require the maintenance of appropriate apprentice progress records by the sponsor or participating employer. As explained more fully at proposed § 29.16, an end-point assessment would serve to validate that the apprentice was successful in acquiring the skills and competencies necessary for proficiency in the covered occupation. The Department notes the importance of structuring end-point assessments in a manner that is inclusive to all apprentices, including those with disabilities. The requirement in this section would be an acknowledgment in the standards that the requirements of § 29.16 are being met. The Department believes it is important that the standards of apprenticeship include this requirement so that the process is clear to anyone reviewing the program standards.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(12) would retain language from the 2008 final rule at § 29.5(b)(8), which stipulates the provision of a probationary period that is “reasonable” and does not exceed 25 percent of the length of the program, or 1 year, whichever is shorter.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(13) is new and would require that the standards of apprenticeship include a statement that the registered apprenticeship program will be conducted in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, or local laws. The Department proposes to add this requirement to emphasize that the apprenticeship programs registered under this part must ensure apprentice safety and welfare. Program sponsors are responsible for ensuring their programs meet the requirements for apprentices to legally work in the occupation in which they are doing on-the-job training, such as if there are State licenses required to perform the work. In instances where the sponsor is not operating in accordance with all applicable law, they could be subject to deregistration proceedings for noncompliance with their program standards.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(14) is new and would require that the standards of apprenticeship include a statement that apprentices participating in an apprenticeship program registered under this part are entitled to the same worker allowances, rights, and protections, afforded by applicable Federal, State, or local laws, to which similarly situated, non-apprentice employees would be entitled. Such worker allowances, rights, and protections could include, but would not be limited to, family and medical leave; workers' compensation; and health and retirement plan benefits. The Department proposes to add this requirement in furtherance of its goal to ensure that these minimum standards of apprenticeship protect apprentice safety and welfare, while noting that it would not require that apprentices receive allowances, rights, and protections that similarly situated non-apprentices would not also be entitled to receive. The Department anticipates that adding this requirement would also provide apprentices with information about the allowances, rights, and protections to which they may be entitled, increasing transparency, and allowing potential apprentices to make an informed choice regarding a specific program.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(15) would expand upon an existing requirement and make changes to further emphasize the Department's commitment to ensuring apprentice safety and welfare. Specifically, proposed § 29.8(a)(15) would require that the standards of apprenticeship include an attestation that the program sponsor will provide adequate, safe, and accessible facilities for the training and supervision of apprentices. Additionally, sponsors should provide any documentation, where available, to support their attestation, such as any OSHA or other relevant certifications. The Department acknowledges that not all sponsors may have such certifications at the time of program registration, or they may not be relevant to all sponsors. However, this information could assist the Department in ascertaining a program's ability to meet this requirement. The Department proposes to change the existing requirement by requiring that the attestation include that the program sponsor will provide accessible facilities (including for individuals with disabilities), aligning with the Department's broader goal that apprenticeship programs registered under this part are career pathways available to everyone. For example, to ensure facilities are accessible, programs should ensure bathrooms and changing facilities, including for provision of lactation, should be close to sites where work and training is taking place. Additionally, such attestations and documentation for safety would need to ensure that personal protective equipment is available to apprentices and fits appropriately according to each apprentice's size and body type. The Department adds that the attestation also would require that the facilities be compliant with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, including, but not limited to, disability, occupational safety, and occupational health laws.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(16) would create a new requirement that the standards of apprenticeship include an attestation that the program sponsor will provide adequate, industry-recognized safety training for apprentices in both the on-the-job training and related instruction components of the registered apprenticeship program. This proposed change would expand upon the existing requirement at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(9) that addresses safety training in the standards of apprenticeship. This expanded requirement would further the goal of ensuring apprentice safety and welfare. Proposed § 29.8(a)(16) would require that safety training provided to apprentices be tailored to mitigate the potential workplace hazards that may be encountered in the covered occupation. For example, the standards of apprenticeship for registered apprenticeship programs in the electrician occupation would need to include an attestation that the program sponsor will provide adequate, industry-recognized safety training that addresses potential workplace hazards encountered specifically by electricians.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(17) would require the written standards to include wages and fringe benefits that the apprentice will receive during the registered apprenticeship program. The current regulation at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(5) stipulates the payment of a progressively increasing schedule of wages to be paid to the apprentice with the skill required, and the entry wage may not be less than the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage, where applicable, unless a higher wage is required by other applicable Federal law (such as the Davis-Bacon and related Acts), State law, respective regulations, or by collective bargaining agreement.
In the proposed rule at § 29.8(a)(17), the Department proposes to add the requirement that fringe benefits provided to the apprentice also be articulated in the program standards.
The Department also proposes to retain the requirement of a minimum wage floor at the outset of the apprenticeship and a graduated schedule of progressively increasing wages for apprentices during the remainder of the apprenticeship term. However, the proposed § 29.8(a)(17) would stipulate that the graduated schedule of wages paid to an apprentice would increase over the balance of the apprenticeship term to reflect the apprentice's progressive acquisition of occupational skills and competencies.
The Department also proposes that the graduated schedule of increasing apprentice wages paid by an employer include at least one incremental wage step increase between the entry wage and the final wage step during the first 2,000 hours of the apprenticeship term, with additional wage step increments scheduled at reasonable intervals for program terms of longer duration designed to support apprentices' progression and success throughout their apprenticeship. This proposed language is intended to require a thoughtful approach to wage progression in instances in which there is no governing collective bargaining agreement, such that adequate consideration is given to recognizing and compensating an apprentice's progress through the program. In addition, the Department proposes that the wages provision stipulate that the apprentice's final wage step in the program must be not less than 75 percent of the usual journeyworker wage paid by the employer for that occupation, except in instances where the scheduled progression of apprentice wages is stipulated by other applicable Federal, State, or local laws, such as those governing the payment of prevailing wages, or by the terms of an applicable collective bargaining agreement. This final requirement would be especially relevant for programs of longer duration where the apprentice may have spent several years with the employer and where it is more likely that the apprentice would be doing similarly skilled work as journeyworkers and should therefore be paid commensurate with that experience. The Department notes that Florida and Delaware have established similar standards for the final wage step paid to an apprentice for registered apprenticeship programs operating in those States, pegging that terminal wage to a percentage of the established wage paid to journeyworkers by an employer.
This revised wage provision is intended to protect apprentices from receiving low and relatively flat wages over the course of the apprenticeship term. Taken together, the enhanced wage provisions contained at proposed § 29.8(a)(17) are intended to place apprentices on a more secure career pathway, to enable apprentices to support themselves during an apprenticeship, and to provide skilled and productive apprentices with a positive incentive for completing the training program. The Department invites comments on these provisions to bolster the registered apprenticeship progressive wage requirements and is interested in the feasibility of this approach across industries. The Department believes that most programs already provide progressive wages consistent with these requirements but invites comments on a way to ensure continuous progressive wages with competency attainment against the needs for flexibility for industry regarding wage increases.
In addition to these proposed wage progression revisions, the Department reminds sponsors that, consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR part 30, the wages paid by a sponsor or a participating employer to an apprentice must not discriminate against such persons on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age (40 or older), genetic information, or disability. In addition, the Department reminds both registered apprenticeship program sponsors and participating employers that apprentices who meet the definition of an employee under either the Internal Revenue Code or the Fair Labor Standards Act—which they will in virtually every instance—must not be misclassified by such sponsors or employers as independent contractors.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(18) would address program costs and expenses incurred by apprentices. The current regulations do not address or place any limitations upon the costs, fees, or expenses that an apprentice may be obligated to assume
To address these concerns, the proposed § 29.8(a)(18) would establish cost transparency and reasonableness provisions as part of a program's standards of apprenticeship, requiring a sponsor or a participating employer to include in the program standards the nature and amount of any unreimbursed costs, expenses, or fees that the apprentice may incur for participating in the program (such as for equipment, supplies, on-the-job training, related instruction, books, tuition, or assessment fees). This provision would further stipulate that such unreimbursed costs, expenses, or fees could be assessed by a sponsor or participating employer only if they are necessary and reasonable, do not impose substantial or inequitable barriers to program enrollment or completion by an apprentice, and are compliant with all applicable Federal, State, and local wage laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act, and their implementing regulations. In instances where a program sponsor or a participating employer engages an outside party or educational institution (such as a community college) to provide related instruction to apprentices enrolled in the program, such sponsor or employer should ensure that the terms as articulated in the standards are complied with and that the costs of such instruction do not impose financial burdens of a magnitude that could jeopardize such a person's ability to participate in or complete the registered apprenticeship program.
This new regulatory provision would empower potential apprentices by providing them with the fundamental consumer protection of having complete program cost information disclosed to them prior to their participation in the program. In addition, this provision would serve to protect enrolled apprentices from possible financial exploitation or abuse by prohibiting the imposition of unnecessary or unreasonable costs by program sponsors or participating employers during the course of the apprenticeship term. The Department thinks that the inclusion of a cost transparency and reasonableness provision in the standards of apprenticeship would help to advance DEIA in registered apprenticeship programs by reducing or eliminating barriers to program access and completion by individuals from underserved communities and populations. The Department believes mitigation and removal of such financial barriers is essential if registered apprenticeship is to fulfill its potential as an effective vehicle for enabling persons from underserved communities and population to achieve economic mobility.
The Department is cognizant of the fact that, despite its proven capacity to provide a skilled and talented workforce, a registered apprenticeship program nevertheless requires a significant investment of time and funds by a sponsor or an employer to achieve its desired outcomes. To mitigate such training costs, many sponsors and employers have formed effective partnerships with labor unions, intermediaries, educational institutions, trade and industry associations, and other organizations to create efficiencies of scale that can reduce the costs of delivering on-the-job training and related instruction to apprentices. In addition, sponsors and employers may qualify to receive Federal or State apprenticeship grants, tax credits, or other resources that may help to offset such training costs. The utilization of such partnerships and grant opportunities by sponsors and employers to defray training costs can also serve to minimize the imposition of such costs upon apprentices, many of whom may not be able to sustain such a financial burden. The Department encourages sponsors to partner with organizations that can provide resources in their communities to mitigate any costs passed on to apprentices, which may include tuition, supportive services, or other assistance.
The Department is also interested in receiving comments on the impact of costs borne by apprentices that relate to the up-front purchase of equipment and supplies essential to their work or required by the sponsors or participating employers, but that have not been not paid for by such sponsors or participating employers; in addition, the Department is interested in receiving comments on the impact of any deferred payments required of apprentices that relate to the costs of maintaining such essential equipment and supplies. In addition, the Department is interested in receiving comments as to whether the “necessary and reasonable” standard for evaluating unreimbursed costs in this provision should be modified to establish a more precise, mathematical formula for ascertaining cost reasonableness (such as a threshold value as a percentage share of wages), or whether the more flexible standard proposed in this provision is more appropriate and administratively feasible.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(19) would update and reformat an existing requirement that is addressed in § 29.5(b)(7), regarding the ratio of apprentices to journeyworkers. The intended purpose of this ratio requirement is to further the Department's goal of ensuring the safety and welfare of apprentices, while on the job, via an established ratio of apprentices to journeyworkers. Proposed § 29.8(a)(19)(i) would specify that the sponsor's ratio must be approved by a Registration Agency, consistent with the proper safety, health, supervision, and training of the apprentice. This requirement would center apprentice safety and welfare as the main considerations in the establishment of the specific numeric ratio for a registered apprenticeship program. To ensure that the ratio is consistent with the proper safety, health, supervision, and training of the apprentice, program sponsors and the reviewing Registration Agency should consider factors that could endanger the welfare of an apprentice who is participating in the program, such as risk of exposure to hazardous working conditions and risk of serious bodily injury or death while on the job.
One such consideration to help protect the safety and welfare of
The Department is adding “health” to the list of factors for establishing a numeric ratio. Health and safety go hand in hand, and the Department thinks that apprentices should have proper supervision and training when they participate in on-the-job training at worksites that may expose them to toxic materials or harmful physical agents. This change would ensure that program sponsors, employers, and Registration Agencies are aware of and consider potential health risks for apprentices at worksites, and that an appropriate numeric ratio of apprentice-to-journeyworkers is used to allow for the necessary training and supervision to mitigate potential material impairment of health or functional capacity of an apprentice who may be exposed to toxic materials or harmful substances while on the job.
The Department notes that it has not included “continuity of employment” in the factors. “Continuity of employment” was previously listed with additional factors, such as “proper supervision, training, and safety,” in establishing a numeric ratio of apprentices-to-journeyworkers under 29 CFR 29.5(b)(7). The Department understands that the term has been carried forward from previous rulemaking and may have numerous operational meanings as a term of use; however, the Department no longer thinks that it is relevant to an assessment of whether a particular ratio is appropriate—that is, whether a particular ratio will further the safety of the apprentice. Accordingly, the Department is proposing to remove it as a factor. However, the Department is interested in comments as to what and how “continuity of employment” could or should mean in the context of ratios and providing a safe workplace and any rationales for continuing to have that language or alternative language to address the proper ratio factors.
In practice, a ratio of one apprentice to one journeyworker has been the norm for programs; however, as registered apprenticeship has expanded into new industries the Department has considered expanded ratios particularly in industries where there is a reduced safety risk (for example, a job primarily in an office setting).
While apprentice safety is the focus of the proposed requirement, there would also be flexibility provided to sponsors in setting the specific numeric ratio. Proposed § 29.8(a)(19)(ii) would specify that sponsors must use a ratio that is consistent with the provisions of any applicable collective bargaining agreements, as well as any applicable Federal and State laws governing ratios of apprentices to journeyworkers, and specific and clearly described as to its application to a particular workforce, workplace, job site, department, or plant. The Department recognizes that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be feasible with respect to ratios and that ratios could differ depending upon the specific industry or occupation in which the registered apprenticeship program is taking place. The Department also recognizes that a specific numeric ratio of a registered apprenticeship program could be set in an applicable collective bargaining agreement or by applicable Federal and State laws. Ultimately, each program must have a ratio specific to that program that is designed to protect the safety of its apprentices consistent with the considerations described and discussed above. The Department is seeking comments on these longstanding criteria, particularly to ensure how the ratios are applied in both emerging and traditional industries.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(20) would change an existing requirement concerning the granting of advanced standing, credit, and an increased wage to an apprentice. The proposed provision would require that the standards of apprenticeship grant advanced standing, credit, and an increased wage to an apprentice when appropriate, and in such circumstances would instruct sponsors to include a process by which they would reduce the usual term of on-the-job training or related instruction. This change would recognize that the reduction of the usual term of on-the-job training or related instruction could be appropriate in two scenarios: (1) where an apprentice comes to a program with prior qualifications that warrant the reduction of the usual term of on-the-job training or related instruction; and (2) where an apprentice demonstrates expedited progress while in a registered apprenticeship program that warrants the reduction of the usual term of on-the-job training or related instruction. Proposed § 29.8(a)(20)(i) would require that the established process be fair, transparent, and objective in identifying, assessing, and documenting an apprentice's prior learning or experience as well as any accelerated progress made by an apprentice.
The Department's proposed method of requiring a minimum amount of on-the-job training hours while allowing advanced standing based on existing competency would be similar to the current “hybrid” model and provide the right balance of training participants to an industry standard and duration, while recognizing the unique skill and competency progressions of apprentices. This provision would also ensure that an apprentice does not have an abbreviated on-the-job training experience in the program if circumstances do not warrant it, so that a program is not graduating apprentices from their program before they have completed their training and demonstrate the requisite proficiency.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(21) would update an existing requirement concerning the transfer of apprentices. The changes made by proposed § 29.8(a)(21) would be non-substantive and seek to increase clarity by explicitly stating that the standards of apprenticeship must include a provision addressing the transfer of apprentices. The substantive elements of existing § 29.5(b)(13)(i) through (iii), which require that a transferring apprentice be provided a transcript of related instruction and on-the-job learning, transfer to the same occupation, and sign a new apprenticeship agreement when the transfer occurs, would remain unchanged in proposed § 29.8(a)(21).
Proposed 29 CFR 29.8(a)(22) would build upon the existing regulations at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(23) and add a reference to participating employers. The Department has determined that the maintenance of apprenticeship records by all parties involved with operating or participating in a registered apprenticeship program is critical to achieving the Department's goal of collecting and analyzing high-quality data to enhance its ability to oversee, analyze, and improve registered apprenticeship and the National Apprenticeship System. Information about an apprentice's interactions with an employer participating in their registered apprenticeship program, such as whether the apprentice was ultimately hired, any interim credentials earned by the apprentice that would certify them to complete job tasks for an employer, the apprentice's wage upon hire, and other important data, is vital for achieving the Department's data and information goals. Adding participating employers here would allow the Department to collect more important data on the utilization of registered apprenticeship programs by employers.
In addition to adding participating employers to the maintenance of records requirement, the Department proposes to replace the existing language of 29 CFR 29.5(b)(23) covering recordkeeping requirements that “may be required by the Office of Apprenticeship or recognized State Apprenticeship Agency and other applicable law” with a cross-reference to the proposed recordkeeping provisions set forth in this NPRM at proposed § 29.18. As described below, the Department has determined that enhancements to the recordkeeping requirements for registered apprenticeship are essential for the development of a comprehensive, national dataset on apprenticeship, for garnering data-driven insights about the National Apprenticeship System, and for making data-driven decisions to improve the National Apprenticeship System. The change made here would clarify that program sponsors and participating employers must maintain the records specified in proposed § 29.18 for five years.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(23) would address a program's adherence to EEO Requirements. The proposed § 29.8(a)(23) would replicate the requirement currently at § 29.5(b)(21), which stipulates that the standards of apprenticeship must include a statement that the program must be conducted, operated, and administered in conformity with 29 CFR part 30, as amended, or, if applicable, an approved State EEO plan.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(24) would address maintaining a safe and inclusive workplace. The proposed § 29.8(a)(24) would obligate program sponsors and participating employers to promote and maintain a safe and inclusive workplace environment that is free from violence, harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against apprentices. The requirement to maintain such a workplace environment would include an obligation to develop and implement procedures to ensure that its apprentices are not harassed and the program is free from intimidation and retaliation. The inclusion of this provision in the standards of apprenticeship would serve to supplement and reinforce the retained non-discrimination and EEO requirement at proposed § 29.8(a)(23) and is intended to make it clear that any such conduct or actions directed against apprentices is completely unacceptable.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(25) is new and is being added to ensure compliance with a related Federal law. Proposed § 29.8(a)(25) would require, for those apprenticeship programs registered on or after September 22, 2020, that the standards of apprenticeship include an attestation that the program sponsor will provide each of the written assurances as required under sec. 2(b)(1) of the Support for Veterans in Effective Apprenticeships Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116-134, 134 Stat. 277, 29 U.S.C. 50c). The Department has previously implemented these provisions through its information collection requests (ICRs) under OMB Control Number 1205-0223; however, as this is a statutory requirement the Department considers it important to include in the operative regulatory text.
Proposed § 29.8(a)(26) would carry forward an existing requirement that the
Proposed § 29.8(b) would address a gap in the existing minimum standards of apprenticeship by creating a new requirement with respect to group programs and participating employers. Currently, employers can participate in a group program, and these employers often sign an agreement (commonly referred to as an employer acceptance agreement), or participate via a collective bargaining agreement, with a joint labor-management group program sponsor. This agreement seeks to ensure that the participating employer will abide by the minimum standards of apprenticeship, but the existence of such an agreement is not currently required. This lack of requirement means that the sponsor is not formally required to ensure that the employer is abiding by the terms of the standards of apprenticeship and apprenticeship agreement, and therefore limits the Registration Agency's ability to hold the sponsor responsible. The lack of accountability may allow harm caused to apprentices to go unaddressed, or at least make it harder to address and remedy.
This rulemaking proposes a new § 29.11, Program Standards Adoption Agreement, which would outline the requirements of such agreements signed by participating employers. Proposed § 29.8(b) would synchronize the minimum standards of apprenticeship with proposed § 29.11, creating a corresponding requirement on group program sponsors to ensure that the minimum standards of apprenticeship include an attestation from each participating employer, which is required prior to the employer being admitted to the program. Proposed § 29.8(b)(1) would require the attestation include that a participating employer will abide by the requirements in parts 29 and 30.
Proposed § 29.8(b)(1) would require group program sponsors to ascertain, via the attestation, whether a participating employer has violated any applicable laws governing workplace practices or conduct, and actions taken to remedy any violation. This disclosure would not prevent a program from being registered or from allowing the sponsor to enter into an agreement with the participating employer; however, the Department, in safeguarding the welfare of apprentices, considers it important that a Registration Agency know of these instances as part of its program oversight role. If an entity fails to disclose such violations, then, as with any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation knowingly and willfully to the Federal Government, a referral to the Department of Justice for a potential violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 would be necessary.
Proposed § 29.8(b)(3) would require group program sponsors to monitor participating employers for their compliance with the minimum standards of apprenticeship and other requirements contained in parts 29 and 30. The Department has determined that creating this requirement would help address a gap in existing requirements with respect to group programs and participating employers. Through this requirement, the Department anticipates furthering apprentice safety and welfare by adding a check on the actions of the participating employer and providing a mechanism for the Registration Agency to hold the sponsor accountable. These safeguards would promote compliance with the terms of the standards of apprenticeship and apprenticeship agreement. While not an explicit requirement, group program sponsors may need to dedicate staff as coordinators to ensure all the program partners and employers are coordinated and connected in the delivery of the registered apprenticeship program.
As discussed above, one of the principles informing the development of this proposed regulation is the desire to increase transparency and accountability throughout the National Apprenticeship System. The apprenticeship agreement between registered apprenticeship program sponsors and apprentices joining their programs is critical to allowing the apprentice to understand their rights and obligations. The apprenticeship agreement is the agreement that governs the relationship between the apprentice and the sponsor (and employers, where applicable) regarding the terms and conditions of the registered apprenticeship program. A potential apprentice seeking to join a program should have access to as much information as possible to help them make such an important career decision, including any costs associated with participating in or completing the program, the types of training and instruction they can expect to receive, what will be expected of them in order to complete the program, and what completion of the program will mean for their near- and longer-term career development.
The agreement also serves as an assurance to the potential apprentice, as well as the Department and any other entities with a role in overseeing a program, that the program sponsor will abide by the terms and conditions of the registered apprenticeship program as laid out in the agreement. As an important tool for achieving optimal transparency and accountability within the National Apprenticeship System, the apprenticeship agreement is central to registered apprenticeship and thus represents an important piece of the Department's focus in proposing strengthened transparency, accountability, and worker protections in the part 29 regulations.
The current regulatory provisions governing the apprenticeship agreement are at 29 CFR 29.7. The Department proposes to move that provision to § 29.9, retaining and reorganizing many of the existing provisions and adding further measures to strengthen transparency, accountability, and worker protections within the National Apprenticeship System.
The apprenticeship agreement is intended to clearly encompass all fundamental aspects of the terms and conditions of the registered apprenticeship program, as described in the requirements below, and cannot be modified or altered by a subsequent agreement that contravenes the requirements of this part.
Proposed § 29.9(a) would require that all apprenticeship programs registered by a Registration Agency develop and establish a written apprenticeship agreement that contains the terms and conditions of the employment and training of the apprentice, and that such agreement must be signed by the parties prior to the start of the apprenticeship term. Proposed § 29.9(a) incorporates existing text currently at § 29.7 that establishes the requirement for an apprenticeship agreement setting forth the terms and conditions of the employment and training of the apprentice and existing text at § 29.7(a) requiring the signatures of the relevant parties. It would further require the signature of a participating employer in a group program that has adopted the sponsor's standards of apprenticeship through a program standards adoption agreement. This is to ensure that the participating employer understands the terms and conditions of the apprentice's employment and training and can be held accountable by the apprentice or a Registration Agency for any violations of the terms and conditions of the
Proposed section 29.9(b) contains a new requirement that, prior to signing the apprenticeship agreement, an apprentice who has been admitted to the apprenticeship program must be furnished by the program sponsor with a copy of both the proposed apprenticeship agreement and the program's standards of apprenticeship, and must also be provided with a reasonable opportunity to inspect and review the content of those documents. Proposed section 29.9(b) also stipulates that, after the apprenticeship agreement has been signed by the apprentice, the sponsor, and any other relevant parties, the sponsor must transmit or deliver to the apprentice a copy of the executed apprenticeship agreement and the program's standards of apprenticeship not later than the starting date of the apprenticeship. The Department takes the view that this disclosure provision is necessary to ensure that apprentices are made fully aware of the terms and conditions of their employment before entering into an apprenticeship agreement with the sponsor or participating employer and beginning their work as an apprentice. The inclusion of this disclosure requirement is also a recognition that apprenticeship agreements entered into between apprentices and sponsors or participating employers often involve a significant imbalance of bargaining power between the contracting parties, and that apprentices are thus more susceptible to entering into an apprenticeship agreement without an understanding of the terms of the contract or, in some circumstances, as a result of coercion, deception, and other forms of procedural unconscionability. The Department further believes that adherence to this disclosure requirement should help to ensure that the apprenticeship agreement is procedurally lawful, and that the apprentice has entered into the agreement freely, voluntarily, and with a reasonable opportunity to review its terms and understand its meaning. The Department has refrained from establishing in proposed § 29.9(b) a uniform, minimum duration of time that would constitute “a reasonable opportunity to inspect and review the content” of the apprenticeship agreement and the program's standards of apprenticeship; in this connection, the Department has abstained from specifying such a quantitative requirement in order to provide program sponsors with some measure of flexibility in determining what would constitute an appropriate period of time for an apprentice to review the documents, based upon a given set of facts and circumstances. However, the Department invites comments on whether the establishment of a specified minimum duration of time for an apprentice to review these documents would be appropriate in this rulemaking, and, if so, what that duration of time should be.
The Department understands that the proposed requirement to include the standards of apprenticeship in the apprenticeship agreement may appear to be duplicative, as such standards include similar provisions such as the progressive wage schedule and associated program costs. However, it is important to include the standards in the agreement to make compliance with the standards part of the contract between the apprentice, program sponsor, and participating employer. Moreover, because the standards could be incorporated by reference, the apprenticeship agreement would not need to repeat verbatim the content of the standards, but rather would only need to provide the information described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3). The proposed requirement to give the apprentice both the signed apprenticeship agreement and the program standards accompanies the requirement in proposed § 29.9(c)(4) to incorporate the program standards into the apprenticeship agreement either directly or by reference and would expand upon the current apprenticeship agreement requirement to incorporate by reference the standards of apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.9(c) would contain the minimum requirements of the apprenticeship agreement. It would incorporate many of the current requirements in § 29.7. As discussed above, existing § 29.7(a) would now be a part of proposed § 29.9(a).
Proposed § 29.9(c)(1) would require apprentice contact information and identifying information for the apprentice, including the apprentice's date of birth and, on a voluntary basis, their Social Security number. Both the date of birth and the voluntary provision of the apprentice's Social Security number are in the current requirement at § 29.27(b). Proposed § 29.9(c)(1) would also require that the apprentice's contact information be provided. This would be consistent with current practice and necessary for the administration of the apprenticeship program and registration of the agreement. Apprentices may not be denied program entry or subjected to any adverse action taken by a program sponsor if an apprentice refuses to disclose their Social Security number.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(2) would require that the apprenticeship agreement contain the contact information for the Registration Agency, the program sponsor, and the participating employer(s). This requirement would be similar to the existing requirement in § 29.7(c), with the addition of the contact information for any participating employers that are signatories to the agreement at the time the apprenticeship agreement is signed. However, the apprenticeship agreement would not need to be modified or re-signed if any participating employers join the registered apprenticeship program after the apprenticeship agreement is signed because those participating employers agree to comply with the existing program standards and are bound by the program adoption agreement to employ apprentices based on the terms of the apprenticeship agreement. The Department is proposing this while mindful of the potential burden of re-signing apprenticeship agreements for each program standards adoption agreement that an apprentice may be employed by. The Department is interested in any comments on this proposed flexibility, or any comments recommending a requirement that the agreements be re-signed as a transparency feature for an apprentice.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(3) would incorporate the existing requirements in § 29.7 to include the occupation in which the apprentice is to be trained as well as the associated work process schedule and related instruction outline.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(4) would require that the program's standards of apprenticeship be incorporated into the apprenticeship agreement either directly or by reference. This requirement is in
Proposed § 29.9(c)(5) is new and would require that the apprenticeship agreement contain a description of the respective roles, duties, and responsibilities of the parties to the apprenticeship agreement. This description would need to include the responsibility of sponsors and any participating employers to provide information to apprentices about their rights and protections under Federal, State, and local laws, including their right to file complaints with the applicable Registration Agency. This proposed provision would capture an important element of the apprenticeship agreement—that the parties have clearly defined roles and responsibilities—and would emphasize that a particularly important responsibility of the sponsors and employers is to ensure that apprentices are aware of their rights under the apprenticeship agreement and applicable laws. This proposed provision would also align with the 2023 Quality Apprenticeships Recommendation of the ILO, specifically Conclusion 18(a), which advises that Member States should ensure that an apprenticeship agreement “clearly defines the parties' respective roles, rights and obligations.”
Proposed § 29.9(c)(6) would require that the agreement contain the dates of the registered apprenticeship program, including the beginning date and expected duration of the apprenticeship program, the beginning date of the on-the-job training, and the duration of any probationary period of the apprenticeship program. This would incorporate requirements in existing § 29.7(d) and (h) regarding dates, expected duration of the apprenticeship, and the length of the probationary period. By requiring disclosure of the start date of the program and start date of the on-the-job training portion of the program apprentices would have more complete information and expectations of when they will begin the paid on-the-job training portion of the program. In addition to these key dates, the apprenticeship agreement would also inform the apprentice of the expected duration of the registered apprenticeship program in addition to the duration of any probationary period.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(7) would require a detailed statement of the entry wage, subsequent graduated scale of increasing wages to be paid to the apprentice over the term of the apprenticeship, the journeyworker wage, and any fringe benefits. This requirement would incorporate the existing requirement in § 29.7(g) but would add the requirement that the wages correspond to specific periods of time: an entry wage, a graduated scale of wages that correspond to the apprentice's attainment of occupational skills and competencies throughout the registered apprenticeship program, and the journeyworker wage that the apprentice can expect to receive upon their successful completion of the apprenticeship. This added requirement in the apprenticeship agreement would align with the program standards requirements for a graduated schedule of increasing wages, from entry wage to journeyworker wage, in proposed § 29.8(a)(17)(B) and is intended to provide explicit notice to the apprentice of the expected cadence of wage increases that corresponds to the acquisition of specific occupational skills and competencies. It would also give notice to the apprentice of fringe benefits provided as a part of the registered apprenticeship program.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(8) would require that the apprenticeship agreement disclose the expected minimum number of hours that are allocated by the program to the on-the-job training component and the related instruction component during the apprenticeship term. In practice, because progress in the program is measured through both time in on-the-job training and competency attainment, this may include an approximate range of hours from the minimum to a maximum number of on-the-job training hours to obtain proficiency in the occupation. This proposed provision would replace existing § 29.7(e) and align with the program standards requirement in proposed § 29.8(a)(4) regarding the minimum duration of the on-the-job training and related instruction components of the registered apprenticeship program.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(9) would be a new requirement for the apprenticeship agreement to include a description of the methods used during the course of the apprenticeship to measure progress on competency attainment and the program's end-point assessment. The Department emphasizes here that the methods should be inclusive and accessible to all apprentices, including those with disabilities and others from underserved communities. This proposed requirement would add transparency to the apprenticeship agreement regarding the assessment and evaluation of apprentices, both on a continuous basis throughout the apprenticeship and at the end of the registered apprenticeship program. It corresponds to the new requirements at proposed § 29.8(a)(10) and (11) regarding regular and end-point assessments in the program standards of apprenticeship. As with many other requirements, the Department thinks that adding this information into the apprenticeship agreement would ensure transparency to the apprentice, who would have a better understanding of the program they are joining, what will be expected of them, and, in this case, how they will be assessed.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(10) would be a new requirement that the apprenticeship agreement include a description of any supportive services that may be available to the apprentice including childcare, transportation, equipment, tools, or any other supportive service provided by the sponsor or a partnering organization. This proposal would provide transparency to the apprentice of any supports they may receive during their participation in the program. Such supports may be arranged through partner organizations or in coordination with the workforce development system.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(11) would be a new requirement that the apprenticeship agreement disclose the nature and amount of any unreimbursed costs, expenses, or fees that the apprentice may incur during their participation in the registered apprenticeship program. This corresponds with the proposed § 29.8(a)(18) requirements in the standards of apprenticeship regarding disclosure and conditions of any unreimbursed costs, expenses, or fees incurred by the apprentice during the registered apprenticeship program. The Department discussed above its reasons for requiring this information in the program standards. This proposed addition here would give the apprentice explicit notice of such costs, expenses, or fees so that they have necessary and relevant information regarding their wages and costs during the registered apprenticeship program and can plan accordingly. It would also ensure
Proposed § 29.9(c)(12) would be a new requirement that the apprenticeship agreement must describe any recognized postsecondary credits, credentials, and occupational qualifications that the apprentice will receive or be eligible to receive upon successful program completion, as well as a description of any additional conditions or requirements that the apprentice must fulfill to satisfy any applicable Federal, State, or local qualification and licensure requirements to engage in the occupation. This proposed inclusion in the apprenticeship agreement corresponds with the proposed standard at § 29.8(a)(8) to include a description of any interim credentials, occupational qualifications, licenses, credentials, or certification, or postsecondary credit that an apprentice may receive or be eligible to receive upon successful completion of the registered apprenticeship program. This provision would provide notice to the apprentice of expected outcomes throughout and at the conclusion of the registered apprenticeship program and would allow the apprentice to understand the full benefits of the apprenticeship program.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(13) would require a statement in the agreement that the parties will adhere to the applicable requirements of 29 CFR part 30 as amended and, where applicable, an approved State EEO plan. This would replace the requirement in § 29.7(j) to include an equal opportunity statement with a statement instead regarding adherence to part 30 and any applicable State EEO plan. This proposed change is meant to explicitly reference the requirements in part 30 in their entirety to not only avoid duplication but also clarify that the expectation is for sponsors and employers to adhere to all applicable requirements.
Proposed § 29.9(c)(14) would require a statement addressing whether the apprentice is paid wages and any fringe benefits during the related instruction component of the program and, if so, what the wage rate and fringe benefits are, and whether the related instruction is provided during work hours. This requirement would be similar to the existing requirement in § 29.7(g) that the apprenticeship agreement specify whether related instruction is compensated; however, it would more precisely require that the apprenticeship agreement address both any wages (
Proposed § 29.9(c)(15) would be the existing requirement in § 29.7 that the apprenticeship agreement include the contact information of the appropriate party to address complaints within the program. As discussed below, in addition to filing complaints with the program, apprentices may make complaints to a Registration Agency consistent with proposed § 29.17, and information on how to do so would need to be included in the apprentice agreement as required by proposed § 29.9(c)(5).
Proposed § 29.9(c)(16) is new and would require the apprenticeship agreement to contain a description of the processes and procedures that the sponsor will utilize to grant advanced standing or credit to apprentices. The processes and procedures in the apprenticeship agreement would need to be the same as in the sponsor's approved standards. This proposed provision would ensure that apprentices are aware of the processes and procedures in place for receiving advanced standing before the apprentice signs the apprenticeship agreement.
Proposed § 29.9(d) is new and would prevent sponsors and participating employers from including in the apprenticeship agreement or otherwise imposing on apprentices a non-compete provision or similar provision that would restrict an apprentice's labor market mobility and limit competition among employers. Proposed § 29.9(d) would include a prohibition on any provisions restricting the apprentice's ability to seek or accept employment with another employer prior to the completion of the registered apprenticeship program. The substance of a non-compete provision may vary between employers and jurisdictions, but the general purpose of a non-compete provision is to restrict the ability of a worker to compete with their current employer for some specified period of time, often in a specified geographic area.
At the turn of this century, the use of non-compete provisions in employment contracts was typically concentrated within higher paying occupations requiring advanced levels of education; today, however, such restrictive employment covenants have increasingly been utilized by employers for workers entering jobs in occupations that pay considerably less.
Prohibiting the inclusion of a non-compete provision in the apprenticeship agreement would align with the Department's broader goal of ensuring good jobs, increased earnings for workers, and competition among employers. A Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposal that would ban non-compete provisions more broadly in the American economy estimated a potential increase in workers' earnings by nearly $300 billion per year.
Proposed § 29.9(e) would prevent including in the apprenticeship agreement or otherwise imposing on apprentices a non-disclosure provision that would have the effect of preventing the worker from working in the same field after the conclusion of the worker's employment with the employer, or that would restrict an apprentice's ability to file a complaint with a Registration Agency or other governmental body concerning possible violations of this part or of 29 CFR part 30. Non-disclosure provisions, more acutely, can have the effect of silencing workers if and when they experience harassment, discrimination, or violations of worker rights.
Non-disclosure provisions, like non-compete provisions, vary in substance, but they share a common purpose in seeking to prevent disclosure of information designated as confidential by the agreement.
Proposed § 29.9(f) would require the program sponsor to submit a copy of the executed apprenticeship agreement for each apprentice registered to the program's Registration Agency within 30 days of execution. This change, which would be a reduction in time from the 45 days currently required, is being proposed as part of a broader change to require more expedited reporting to OA from 45 days to 30 days, which the Department thinks is reasonable given the advancements in technology available to sponsors and the ability to use RAPIDS, which provides for these submissions electronically. In proposing this change, the Department expects sponsors to take active steps to provide all appropriate information required in the agreement. Agreements submitted with incomplete or inaccurate information would not be deemed to have met this requirement. Further, in situations in which a sponsor submits an apprenticeship agreement that covers multiple apprentices and contains a list of signatories, the sponsor would need to provide the updated list of signatories to the apprenticeship agreement within 30 days.
Proposed § 29.9(g) is based on an existing requirement that the apprenticeship agreement may be cancelled during the probationary period specified in the agreement by either party without cause and would modify the current provision relating to this topic found in the existing regulation at § 29.7(h)(1). As discussed below, the current language in § 29.7(h)(1) regarding written notice to the Registration Agency would be relocated to proposed § 29.25(a)(2).
Proposed § 29.9(h) states that after the probationary period of the apprenticeship concludes, the apprenticeship agreement: (1) may be cancelled at the request of the apprentice at any time; or (2) may be
The “Program registration” section would incorporate requirements from existing §§ 29.3 and 29.6 for program registration and the provisional registration of new programs while adding further provisions containing the requirements for a prospective program sponsor's application for apprenticeship program registration and the process for determination, provisional and permanent registration, and ongoing program compliance. Provisions in this section would describe the required contents of the application, such as the inclusion of a work process schedule that has been developed for an occupation suitable for registered apprenticeship as determined by the Administrator. This section would describe new requirements that a prospective program sponsor must include in their application, such as a written plan of recruitment sources, information on a potential program's financial capacity for program sustainability, and disclosure of violations and actions taken to correct violations. Requirements for applications described in this section would also include a written acknowledgement of whether or not the program would participate in partnership through such mechanisms as a collective bargaining agreement and how the program sponsor intends to align with 29 CFR part 30 requirements. A Registration Agency's determination process and subsequent issuance of a Certificate of Registration for provisional approval if requirements are met would be described in this section. This section would also include the requirements for permanent approval along with the necessary compliance measures for programs to meet 29 CFR parts 29 and 30 requirements and maintain at least one apprentice with a given timeframe.
Proposed § 29.10(a) would contain the requirements for submitting an application for registration of a new apprenticeship program. The Department anticipates electronic submission of applications, which would lead to a more efficient process, increased timeliness of reviews, and improved technical assistance. The Department has successfully launched a web-based platform called Standards Builder,
Proposed § 29.10(a)(1) through (3) would require a prospective program sponsor to submit: (1) the work process schedule and related instruction outline that is consistent with an occupation deemed suitable for registered apprenticeship by the Administrator, set forth in proposed § 29.7; (2) the standards of apprenticeship for the proposed program, set forth in proposed § 29.8; and (3) the apprenticeship agreement for the registered apprenticeship program, set forth in proposed § 29.9.
Proposed § 29.10(a)(1) would explicitly require that the occupation has been determined suitable for registered apprenticeship. OA maintains a list and sample work process schedules of occupations suitable for registered apprenticeship, which is available at OA's Occupation Finder Tool.
Proposed § 29.10(a)(4) is a new provision that would require a prospective program sponsor to submit a written plan for the equitable recruitment and retention of apprentices, including those from underserved communities. This provision is intended to ensure that all registered apprenticeship programs, including those that are not subject to the affirmative action requirements of 29 CFR part 30, develop and implement intentional and achievable strategies for optimizing apprenticeship program participation by individuals who face persistent structural or environmental barriers to program entry or retention, such as persons from underserved communities. For example, a sponsor's plan could detail how it intends to leverage local partnerships with third-party entities such as intermediaries, State or local workforce development boards, one-stop centers, pre-apprenticeship programs, educational institutions, labor unions, community-based organizations, or regional economic development bodies to facilitate access to a suite of supportive services for its apprentices, such as the provision of childcare services, and transportation. The provision of supportive services to individuals from underserved communities often plays a critical role in enabling such persons to enroll in, and complete, a registered apprenticeship program, thereby optimizing the recruitment and retention of a talented and motivated cadre of apprentices who reflect the demographic composition of the community in which the sponsor operates.
Potential program sponsors may utilize technical assistance from Registration Agency field representatives in helping to identify potential community or intermediary partnerships. Potential program sponsors are strongly encouraged to develop effective partnerships with educational and workforce intermediary organizations to form the foundation of a coherent strategy for the equitable recruitment and retention of apprentices. In particular, the formation of close partnerships between registered apprenticeship programs and local pre-apprenticeship programs can be an effective vehicle for optimizing sponsor access to untapped pools of talent, as many of the participants in pre-apprenticeship programs are drawn from underserved communities. Partnerships with one-stop centers, workforce boards, and community organizations can also be particularly advantageous for those program sponsors with limited financial resources, as such networks can provide sponsors with a cost-effective strategy for gaining access to supportive services provided by such third parties. Local partnerships with intermediary organizations can also assist sponsors in advancing equity goals by providing access to funding sources that can alleviate the cost burdens typically associated with the operation of a registered apprenticeship program (such as for tuition, books, supplies, and equipment); these costs often pose barriers to program entry and retention for individuals, particularly those from underserved communities, when they are passed along to such persons by apprenticeship programs with limited resources.
Proposed § 29.10(a)(5) is a new provision that would require that a prospective program sponsor submit information showing that it possesses and can maintain the financial capacity and other resources necessary to operate the proposed program on a sustained basis. For example, the prospective program sponsor may submit a narrative explaining its financial capacity to operate a program, in particular its ability to ensure pay to apprentices over a sustained period. In instances where employers are sponsors, they could demonstrate this by identifying their intent to hire and train apprentices in the program, and through the wages they pay apprentices. Additionally, this provision would be particularly useful for programs where the employers are not the sponsors of programs, and the payment to apprentices would be made through a group program with participating employers. Among other considerations, this provision is intended to protect against the proliferation of registered apprenticeship programs that are initially set up and financed through a grant program but lack the financial resources, consistent funding streams, or both that would be necessary to maintain a registered apprenticeship program over an extended period beyond the life cycle of a grant.
The Department anticipates that the submission of a forward-looking narrative around the sponsor or sponsor organization's financial planning, funding streams, and overall financial solvency would satisfy the financial integrity provision at proposed § 29.10(a)(5). The Department primarily wants to see some discussion in the application about how the sponsor or sponsor's organization intends to operate and sustain itself, whether it is an employer sponsor that is ensuring it has the necessary in-house infrastructure or partnerships, a community college sponsor ensuring it has the sufficient commitment of employers and resources to provide related instruction, or other entities such as intermediary sponsors indicating they have the necessary programmatic infrastructure and resources to maintain the programmatic requirements. Given its role in protecting the safety and welfare of apprentices, the Department envisions this requirement to ensure the sponsor is intentional in its commitment and securing of resources for the employment and training of apprentices in a registered apprenticeship program. The Department is interested in public comments on the value and feasibility of this proposed financial integrity provision, as well as additional examples or suggestions regarding the information sponsors may submit to demonstrate financial solvency.
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that prospective program sponsors are financially solvent and can maintain financial integrity, transparency, and accountability to sustain program operations. In particular, if the program anticipates relying on grants or other resources, such as WIOA, to fund some of the program operations, it would be expected to disclose this information. Workforce investments, such as investments in industry intermediaries, have shown promise in expanding registered apprenticeship models to new industries; however, many of these investments are designed to assist in starting a program. Over the long term, programs should not need to rely on grant funds for their day-to-day operations.
Proposed § 29.10(a)(6) is a new provision that would require a prospective program sponsor to submit with their application a disclosure in writing of all instances where a Federal, State, or local government agency has issued a final agency determination that the prospective sponsor (or any of its officers or employees) has violated any applicable laws pertaining to occupational safety and health, fair labor standards (including wage and hour requirements), financial mismanagement or abuse, EEO, protections for employees against harassment or assault, or other
Proposed § 29.10(a)(7) would incorporate an existing requirement at § 29.3(j) about union participation. It would divide the requirement at § 29.3(j) into two parts and make non-substantive edits to the first part. The proposed provision would require the sponsor to include union participation provisions in the application where the apprentice(s) in the program would be a part of a collective bargaining unit and would incorporate existing language at current § 29.3(j) regarding collective bargaining agreements. It would be divided into two parts: one relating to programs in which the union participates in the operation of the registered apprenticeship program and one relating to programs in which there is no union participation in the operation of the apprenticeship program. Section 29.10(a)(7)(i) would provide that in instances where a registered apprenticeship program is proposed for registration by a sponsor, employer, or employers' association and the standards of apprenticeship, collective bargaining agreement, or other instrument provides for participation by a labor union in any manner in the operation of the substantive matters of the apprenticeship program (and where such participation is exercised), written acknowledgement of union agreement or lack of objection to the registration is required. Section 29.10(a)(7)(ii) would provide that where no such participation is evidenced and practiced, the sponsor, employer, or employers' association must simultaneously furnish to an existing union, which is the collective bargaining agent of the employees to be trained, a copy of its application for registration and of the apprenticeship program. The Registration Agency would need to provide for receipt of union comments, if any, within 45 days before final action on the application for registration or approval. Both proposed § 29.10(a)(7)(i) and (ii) are existing requirements in § 29.3(j) and function to provide appropriate participation of the union that represents the prospective apprentices' collective bargaining unit.
Proposed § 29.10(a)(8) would require sponsors to submit to the Registration Agency a description of the immediate steps it will undertake to implement the requirements of 29 CFR 30.3(b). This description would need to, at a minimum: identify the individual(s) responsible for overseeing the sponsor's EEO obligations; identify how the EEO pledge will be published, publicized, and available to apprentices; describe the planned schedule for EEO related orientation and information sessions; provide the list and contact information of current recruitment resources that will generate referrals and describe procedures to address anti-harassment training and procedures for handling complaints about harassment and intimidation. These part 30 elements would be required in the application because they must be implemented at the time of program registration, and Registration Agencies are expected to evaluate applications to determine whether they include sufficient information that these elements will be met at the time of registration.
Proposed § 29.10(b) states that a complete electronic application for registration of an apprenticeship program that includes all of the requirements of proposed § 29.10(a) would be reviewed within 90 calendar days by the Registration Agency. An application would need to be complete in order to start the 90-day review period for a decision on the application. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) would describe how the application will be reviewed and what determinations the Registration Agency must make in reviewing the application. These determinations would correspond to the materials submitted by the sponsor in support of their application for program registration. All eight requirements would need to be met to receive approval for program registration. The Department has made notable strides to provide sponsors with the opportunity to access the registration process electronically both through the provision and release of boilerplate standards of apprenticeship, which have eased the process of assembling compliant standards, as well as the launch of OA's Standards Builder tool, which allows potential sponsors to begin the registration process online.
Proposed § 29.10(b)(1) would require a determination from the Administrator that the occupation covered by the proposed program is suitable for registered apprenticeship training pursuant to proposed 29 CFR 29.7. This would be a step taken by the Registration Agency to verify that the occupation of the proposed program is suitable for registered apprenticeship. If the occupation has not been determined to be suitable for registered apprenticeship, then the Registration Agency may not approve the application. As discussed in proposed § 29.10(a)(1), the sponsor should verify that the occupation has been deemed suitable for registered apprenticeship or should obtain such a determination prior to or at the time of applying for program registration under this part. Proposed § 29.10(b)(1) would further clarify that the Administrator may in their sole discretion determine whether the work process schedule submitted for registration under proposed § 29.10(a) substantially aligns with those previously approved work process schedules such that the occupation in question needs to be determined to be suitable under proposed § 29.7. A suitability determination under proposed § 29.7(a) would always be made consistent with the work process schedule and related instruction outline submitted in support of the suitability determination request. Even if an application for registration is submitted for an occupation previously determined to be suitable for registered apprenticeship, the Administrator could need to make a new suitability determination if the work process schedule and related instruction outline submitted for registration differ significantly from the work process schedule and related instruction outline previously approved under § 29.7. In other words, the Administrator would
Proposed § 29.10(b)(2) would require a determination that the work process schedule proposed for that occupation provides training in the specific skills and competencies associated with the approved occupation as required by proposed § 29.7.
Proposed § 29.10(b)(3) would require a determination that the applicant's work process schedule and related instruction outline would provide an apprentice with a portable set of occupational skills and competencies that are readily transferable between employers within the same industry or sector as required by proposed § 29.7.
Proposed § 29.10(b)(4) would require a determination that the standards of apprenticeship submitted are consistent with the requirements of proposed § 29.8.
Proposed § 29.10(b)(5) would require a determination that the apprenticeship agreement adheres to the requirements of proposed § 29.9.
Proposed § 29.10(b)(6) would require a determination that the sponsor possesses the financial capacity and other resources necessary to operate the proposed program.
Proposed § 29.10(b)(7) would require a determination that the types of misconduct or violations of law acknowledged by the applicant pursuant to proposed § 29.10(a)(6) have been satisfactorily addressed and cured by the applicant, and therefore would not pose a significant ongoing risk to the welfare of apprentices who elect to enroll in the program.
Proposed § 29.10(b)(8) would require a determination that the union participation requirements of paragraph (a)(7) are satisfied, if applicable. The Registration Agency would review the documents submitted verifying the required union engagement as outlined in proposed § 29.10(a)(7) and determine whether the requirements have been met.
Proposed § 29.10(b)(9) would require a determination that the sponsor's submission of their written plan for the equitable recruitment and retention of apprentices is satisfactory and that they have included a satisfactory description of how they will implement, upon registration, each of the EEO requirements in proposed § 29.10(a)(8).
Proposed § 29.10(c) describes the potential outcomes of the Registration Agency's review of the apprenticeship program application. It states that applications for new programs that the Registration Agency determines meet the required standards for program registration would be given a Certificate of Registration and provided provisional registration. It further provides that in instances where a Registration Agency declines to register a program, the Registration Agency would provide a written explanation of the reasons why it determined the application does not meet the requirements of this subpart, and how any deficiencies could be cured, to the applicant. Finally, it provides that applicants denied approval could resubmit consistent with the requirements of this subpart. The written notice of denial by the Registration Agency should contain adequate explanation for the sponsor to understand why the application was denied and any specific instructions for resubmitting an application with new or supplemental information.
Proposed § 29.10(d) provides additional explanation of provisional registration and review of provisionally registered programs for permanent registration. The purpose of the provisional status for new programs is to establish the relationship between the program sponsor and Registration Agency and ensure that new program sponsors fully understand and are willing to take action on requirements for compliance, that program sponsors can request and access technical assistance from a Registration Agency, and that program sponsors make necessary changes to their program during the expected timeframe to build and sustain an effective and successful program that is compliant. This provisional status would also serve to protect apprentices in newer programs until they have established that they are operating in accordance with Registration Agency approval and to ensure that any necessary corrections are made at an early stage by programs. It would require the Registration Agency to review all provisionally registered programs for compliance with the requirements of this part and of 29 CFR part 30 within 2 years of the program's registration date or at the end of the first training cycle, whichever is sooner. This means that provisionally registered programs with a duration of less than 2 years would be reviewed at the end of their training cycle, rather than at the 2-year mark. The proposed change from a review after the first year, as currently provided in § 29.3(h), to a review at either the end of the full training cycle or the 2-year mark, whichever is sooner, would allow sufficient time for programs of longer durations to progress through their programs prior to being subject to an initial review and also would eliminate a need for two-part review for programs with full training cycles that are longer than 1 year but shorter (or equal to) 2 years. This would allow for programmatic efficiencies both for the Registration Agency and the registered apprenticeship program sponsor. It would also coincide with the requirement in 29 CFR 30.4(e) to have an initial written affirmative action plan completed within 2 years of program registration.
Proposed § 29.10(d)(1) describes the two possible scenarios after a Registration Agency approves an application. If the provisionally registered program has completed its first full training cycle, then it would be granted permanent registration. If the provisionally registered program has not completed its first training cycle, then it would continue to be provisionally approved until it receives its subsequent program review at the end of the first full training cycle. Proposed § 29.10(d)(2) provides that if a program is not found to be operating in compliance with the requirements of this part and part 30, it would be subject to the deregistration procedures at proposed § 29.20. It is important to note here that proposed § 29.20(a) would allow a Registration Agency to provide technical assistance to a program such that it can continue to operate subject to additional oversight, so a provisionally registered program that is found to be noncompliant may receive technical assistance and enhanced oversight prior to formal deregistration actions being taken. Finally, proposed § 29.10(d)(3) provides that programs that receive permanent registration would be subject to subsequent program reviews by Registration Agencies as provided in proposed § 29.19.
Proposed § 29.10(e) is a new provision that would incorporate the requirement in existing § 29.6(a) that every registered apprenticeship program must have at least one apprentice and would add to this requirement by providing that the failure to comply could result in deregistration proceedings. Specifically, proposed § 29.19(e) states that if a registered apprenticeship program does not have at least one apprentice enrolled and participating in the apprenticeship program and registered with the
This proposed requirement is primarily administrative in nature and is intended to underscore that registered apprenticeship programs must have apprentices participating in their programs in order to remain registered or else risk deregistration. Such a requirement is also administratively appropriate to address those limited instances where a newly registered apprenticeship program uses that registration to qualify for the Department's Eligible Training Provider List and receive Federal WIOA funds but fails to actually enroll any apprentices. This proposed requirement, however, is not intended to create undue burdens for new programs that are just beginning to register apprentices or smaller programs that may have gaps between the graduation of one apprentice and the start date of another, and it would allow for a 1-year grace period under these circumstances. The Department also notes that programs deregistered for having zero apprentices could reregister with a Registration Agency when they anticipate utilizing their program again, if it meets the requirements of this part and part 30. The Department is interested in comments as to whether a “latency” period of more than 1 year of no apprentice enrollment by a program would be a more appropriate grace period, such as in instances where an economic downturn may impact apprenticeship hiring. The Department is also interested in any comments that can address scenarios where programs have apprentices but do not successfully graduate or convert them. While the Department is proposing two different completion rate metrics (annual and cohort), it is interested in any comments that may address this scenario to ensure programs are seeking to graduate apprentices and not just to access benefits available for Federal purposes such as those available under 29 CFR part 5.
Proposed § 29.10(f) would update an existing requirement in § 29.5(b)(18) concerning modifications to standards of apprenticeship. It would provide that any sponsor proposals for modification(s) or change(s) to standards of apprenticeship or certified National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards for a registered program must be submitted to the Registration Agency. It would also provide that the Registration Agency must make a determination on whether such submissions are consistent with the requirements of this part and 29 CFR part 30, and if so, will approve such submissions within 90 calendar days from the date of receipt of a complete submission. Finally, it would provide that, if approved, the modification(s) or change(s) will be recorded and acknowledged within 90 calendar days of approval as an amendment to such program, and if not approved, the sponsor must be notified of the disapproval and the reasons therefore and provided the appropriate technical assistance. This language would clarify the process for reviewing and approving or denying modifications or changes to approved standards.
Proposed § 29.11 would prescribe the content and operational requirements for a written program standards adoption agreement, as defined in proposed § 29.2, between a sponsor and a participating employer that is reached outside of a collective bargaining process. Agreements between the non-union sponsors of a registered apprenticeship program and an individual employer that elects to participate in that sponsor's program are not uncommon, but there is currently no mechanism in place to ensure participating employers' accountability for compliance with the program's standards and apprenticeship agreement and no mechanism to hold sponsors accountable for the actions of the entities with whom they partner. The Department believes that the inclusion of a regulatory provision expressly obligating participating employers to comply with the sponsor's standards of apprenticeship and to adhere to the requirements contained in 29 CFR parts 29 and 30 would serve to bolster registered apprenticeship program accountability and integrity and protect the safety and welfare of apprentices. Because a participating employer in a sponsor's group program is typically the entity that employs and pays wages to the apprentices enrolled in that program, and that also typically provides close on-the-job direct supervision and training to such individuals, it follows that such employers should be contractually obligated to adhere to the same standards of apprenticeship and regulatory obligations as the sponsor of the program. This would ensure that apprentices are protected and receive the full benefit of the program.
Specifically, proposed § 29.11(a) would require that the terms and conditions of a program standards adoption agreement include the requirements that a participating employer will: (1) adopt and comply with the sponsor's registered standards of apprenticeship; (2) comply with all other applicable requirements in this part; and (3) cooperate with, and provide assistance to, the program sponsor to meet the program sponsor's obligations under this part and 29 CFR part 30, including by providing any apprenticeship-related data and records necessary to assess compliance with these regulatory provisions. These requirements would operate in tandem to ensure that the employers of apprentices clearly understand their obligations to comply with the sponsor's registered standards of apprenticeship, comply with the applicable requirements in 29 CFR parts 29 and 30, and assist in any review or compliance efforts concerning such compliance, including providing any information necessary to assess compliance. Program sponsors would need to ensure that these requirements are clearly articulated in every program standards adoption agreement and that participating employers understand their obligations under these requirements. This requirement is modeled after the existing practice of an “Employer Acceptance Agreement,” for which a template exists currently in Appendix D of OA's boilerplate standards of apprenticeship in Bulletin 2022-17.
Proposed § 29.11(b) would require transmission of the program standards adoption agreement to the Registration Agency within 30 days of the execution of the agreement. This would be necessary for the Registration Agency to verify compliance with this subpart as well as provide assurance that employers understand their obligations and responsibilities as employers of apprentices in registered apprenticeship programs and to allow the Registration Agency to engage in more comprehensive oversight of the program.
Proposed § 29.11(c) would provide the process for the suspension or cancellation of a program standards adoption agreement. As described below, a participating employer could cancel the agreement by providing 30-day written notice to the sponsor, and a sponsor could cancel or suspend the agreement if the participating employer violates the terms of the program standards adoption agreement relating to proposed § 29.11(a)(1) through (3).
Proposed § 29.11(1) provides that the agreement could be cancelled by the participating employer upon providing 30 days written notice to the sponsor. The Department anticipates that a participating employer that decides to cancel the agreement would not have apprentices in their employment at the time of the cancellation, meaning that prior to cancellation, the employer's apprentices were converted into regular employees, ended their on-the-job training with the employer, or were otherwise placed by the sponsor with a different participating employer.
Proposed § 29.11(c)(2) provides that the agreement would be suspended or cancelled by the program sponsor if the program sponsor determines that the participating employer failed to satisfy the requirements of the program standards adoption agreement's mandatory provisions described in proposed § 29.11(a). The sponsor would be responsible for determining compliance with the program standards adoption agreement and cancellation or suspension of such agreement if there were noncompliance by the participating employer.
Proposed § 29.11(c)(2)(i) through (iii) discuss the process that sponsors would follow to suspend or cancel the program standards adoption agreement.
Proposed § 29.11(c)(2)(i) would require the program sponsor to provide written notice of any suspension or cancellation to the participating employer, all apprentices affected by the suspension or cancellation, and to the applicable Registration Agency. It would also specify that the notice must explain the reason for the suspension or cancellation. The purpose of this proposed provision is to ensure that adequate written notice is provided to everyone affected by a cancellation or suspension of a program standards adoption agreement and the reason for the suspension or cancellation.
Proposed § 29.11(c)(2)(ii) provides that if the suspension or cancellation results in an interruption or cessation of training for apprentices, the program sponsor would need to make a reasonable effort to place such individuals with another of the sponsor's participating employers or a different registered apprenticeship program in the same occupation. The purpose of this proposed provision is to ensure that any apprentices whose programs are affected by such cancellation or suspension are placed with either another employer or another registered apprenticeship program, to the extent possible. Registration Agencies could provide technical assistance upon request if the sponsor encounters challenges to placing apprentices with other employers or programs.
Proposed § 29.11(c)(2)(iii) provides that in instances where a program sponsor fails to suspend or cancel a program standards adoption agreement as required by this paragraph, the Registration Agency could initiate deregistration proceedings against the sponsor pursuant to proposed § 29.20. This proposed provision is intended to both signal to the sponsor the importance of monitoring compliance with program standards adoption agreements and to emphasize that neglecting to do so risks deregistration per the procedures in proposed § 29.20.
In registered apprenticeship, trainers and instructors play a pivotal role in the realization of the benefits of the system's earn-and-learn framework. The quality of the source material and resources underpinning training and instruction in registered apprenticeship programs is vital, but in order for such material to take hold among apprentices learning about an occupation, the individuals providing training and instruction must be knowledgeable experts in their field, must be skilled in instructional competencies, and must be willing and able to take a lead role in establishing a safe and welcoming environment conducive to learning for apprentices of all backgrounds.
The current regulatory framework for registered apprenticeship does not establish any baseline qualifications for apprentice trainers. The Department has determined that establishing such a baseline in regulation would benefit all existing and potential registered apprenticeship programs and apprentices by promoting quality and transparency within the National Apprenticeship System. Potential program sponsors of new registered apprenticeship programs would benefit from regulatory provisions that clarify the baseline elements of quality trainers and instructors in apprenticeship. Ultimately, the Department proposes to include a provision on trainer and instructor quality to ensure that all programs recognize the importance of trainer and instructor quality, to encourage programs to take steps to keep trainers and instructors up-to-date on emerging techniques and technologies, and to promote transparency for potential apprentices, who would understand the qualifications of those they are receiving training from and that any trainers and instructors in any registered apprenticeship program will meet baseline quality standards.
Proposed § 29.12 is a new provision stipulating proposed requirements for the qualifications of individuals designated to provide training and related instruction to apprentices. For apprentices, training and learning while on the job is a core, definitional element of registered apprenticeship. Trainers and instructors (traditionally referred to as “journeyworkers” in the apprenticeship context, and used here in the proposed regulatory text to align with the journeyworker-to-apprentice ratio requirements discussed above in this NPRM) hold the key to the benefits of apprenticeship for all stakeholders: apprentices benefit from such training and learning by developing in-demand skills and becoming proficient in job tasks that are central to the careers they are pursuing, and employers benefit from a capable workforce that can deliver a quality work product. As such, the Department has determined that trainer and instructor (journeyworker) quality is central to the success of registered apprenticeship and proposes to include a new section in the registered apprenticeship regulations at 29 CFR 29.12 to outline the attributes, qualifications, and experiential requirements necessary to ensure all training and learning in registered apprenticeship is high in quality.
Proposed § 29.12(a) would require that all sponsors and participating employers in the National Apprenticeship System must ensure that journeyworkers providing on-the-job training meet the quality requirements that follow in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6). The proposed regulatory text would clarify that the proposed quality requirements at paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) are minimum requirements, and the Department expects that most registered apprenticeship programs or their participating employers already employ journeyworkers whose qualifications meet and exceed these proposed minimum requirements.
The first proposed minimum requirement at proposed 29 CFR
Proposed § 29.12(a)(2) would further require that journeyworkers stay up to date on the latest advances in technology, technical knowledge, new and emerging techniques, and evolving job skills necessary to maintain their proficiency and mastery in an occupation. Emerging technologies, technical and mechanical refinements to machinery and equipment, the proliferation of digital and online tools, platforms, and capabilities, and developments in the modern workspace and the emergence of remote work
Proposed § 29.12(a)(3) through (5) discuss the proposed requirements for journeyworkers' capabilities as instructors, communicators, and evaluators. In addition to possessing a mastery of the relevant job skills and techniques for their occupation and keeping up to date on their mastery and proficiency, journeyworkers would need to be effective communicators to ensure their mastery is passed on to the apprentices training in their programs. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would require that journeyworkers be effective communicators capable of transmitting and demonstrating any specialized knowledge, job skills, techniques, or processes necessary for achieving proficiency in an occupation.
Paragraph (a)(4) would cover another critical aspect of instruction and training: journeyworkers' ability to evaluate apprentices' progress and performance fairly and objectively throughout the term of a registered apprenticeship program, including the ability to evaluate apprentices' progress in attaining competencies during on-the-job training. The Department views the fair and transparent evaluation of apprentices throughout a program as a critical element for registered apprenticeship program success, because such evaluation is essential for understanding if apprentices have learned all they need to during their program and are assured that they are emerging from the programs with a valuable set of transferrable skills for their careers. Fair, transparent, and effective evaluation is also an important equity consideration, and in line with its goal of advancing equity in the National Apprenticeship System with this proposed regulation, the Department seeks to embed such qualities in the evaluations provided by apprentice trainers through the proposed minimum trainer qualification requirement at proposed paragraph (a)(4). This proposed minimum trainer qualification requirement is intended to protect apprentices from diverse backgrounds against unequal treatment in evaluation, to establish a baseline of equitable and objective evaluation for all apprentices in a program, and to ensure that apprentices from diverse backgrounds receive training from, and are evaluated by, qualified and experienced trainers.
Proposed § 29.12(a)(5) would concern apprentice trainers' role in establishing practical connections between the conceptual and theoretical knowledge apprentices attain through related instruction and their implications and applications for the covered occupation. Such connections may clarify how to perform a job-related task successfully, explain a task or sub-task's importance to successful, safe, and efficient performance within the occupation, or otherwise provide apprentices with theoretical context and broader understanding of the tasks they must perform in the occupation. The Department has determined that apprentices benefit from developing a clear understanding of why they are required to participate in the related
Finally, proposed § 29.12(b) would require that journeyworkers fulfill their important role in ensuring apprentices are receiving training in a safe and inclusive work environment that supports the effective development of apprentices from all backgrounds. Studies, research, and evaluations applying the DEIA lens to analyzing the roles of trainers, instructors, mentors, and others in positions of authority indicate that such individuals are in a unique position to shape the learning and professional environments in which they are operating, including the creation of an inclusive environment where everyone feels represented, supported, empowered to speak up, and protected from harassment, intimidation, or retaliation. OA's fact sheet on advancing DEIA in registered apprenticeship, designed to inform registered apprenticeship stakeholders on the key elements and benefits of robust DEIA protocols in registered apprenticeship programs, discusses the importance of inclusive leaders in establishing workplace culture and the role of mentors in building networks to help apprentices from diverse backgrounds develop positive connections with their place of work.
Proposed paragraph (b) would also reiterate that trainers in registered apprenticeship programs must also have completed all anti-harassment trainings required in the part 30 regulations, which is not a new requirement for program sponsors. Additionally, the Department is proposing that the trainer should not have a record of substantiated noncompliance with the EEO requirements to ensure that trainers are fully inclusive of the EEO in apprenticeship requirements and that apprentices are protected from trainers unwilling to incorporate these requirements. The Department has determined that including the maintenance of a safe and inclusive working and learning environment is equally important as the anti-harassment training requirements for ensuring apprentices are supported and protected by the trainers guiding their professional development during their apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.12(c)(1) and (2) would concern providers of related instruction and the minimum requirements such individuals must possess in the registered apprenticeship context. These proposed paragraphs would relocate much of the existing regulatory text in the Standards of Apprenticeship section of the regulation at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(4)(i) and (ii) with minor adjustments and are not new requirements for registered apprenticeship programs. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that providers of related instruction must either be faculty members or instructors at an accredited postsecondary institution or meet the State's certification requirements for CTE instructors in the State where the apprenticeship program is registered. The Department proposes to add to the existing regulatory text on this topic, found in the existing regulation at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(4)(i), by clarifying that providers of related instruction who serve as a faculty member or instructor at an accredited postsecondary institution would meet the proposed requirement at § 29.12(c)(1). The Department also proposes to retain the language from the existing regulation at § 29.5(b)(4)(i) stating that a subject-matter expert, such as a journeyworker, may also provide related instruction to apprentices. Many registered apprenticeship programs rely on their journeyworker assets to provide such instruction because such individuals possess a mastery of the occupation that enables them to select the related instruction curricula most appropriate for a worker's success in the occupation. The Department has determined it is important to maintain this flexibility in the proposed rule and is including that language in proposed § 29.12(c)(1).
The Department has determined that it is prudent to maintain these requirements because the quality of the related instruction components of registered apprenticeship programs depends on the qualities and capabilities of the instructor, including their capabilities as an educator and their ability to communicate complex subject matter. The certification requirements at proposed paragraph (c)(1) are intended to ensure that instructors are capable and effective teachers, which the Department views as a unique skill that transcends the occupation-specific aspects for any registered apprenticeship program.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) is not a new requirement and leverages the existing regulatory language at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(4)(ii). The Department proposes to maintain the existing requirement that instructors possess skills in teaching techniques for different audiences, including adult learning styles. Apprentices in a given registered apprenticeship program may come from a variety of backgrounds, and many are adult workers seeking to retrain or upskill in a different career or occupational sector. As with journeyworkers providing on-the-job training, providers of related instruction
While the Department expects that training and related instruction providers in most registered apprenticeship programs either will already meet these proposed minimum qualification requirements or will have clear options available to ensure they meet these proposed requirements (through existing partnerships, industry certification programs, learning certification programs, or others), the Department is committed to providing technical assistance to programs to streamline registered apprenticeship programs' compliance with this proposed section. In addition, the Department will commit to promoting the development of mentorships, templates for trainer and instructor assessment, and a system-wide network of stakeholders (currently contemplated as an “Registered Apprenticeship Academy”) to facilitate mentoring and trainer development, create a critical feedback loop, and otherwise provide support for programs and the trainers and instructors who are so critical to the registered apprenticeship program and apprentices success profile.
Proposed 29 CFR 29.13 is a new proposed section of the part 29 regulations that would describe the development and intended use of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. Accelerated expansion of the National Apprenticeship System is one of the Department's primary goals in the development of this proposal, and OA views the continued development of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship as an important tool for achieving that goal. National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship are industry-validated standards that are national in scope and can be used to accelerate the development of a registered apprenticeship program. National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship are intended to be an off-the-shelf resource for potential programs seeking to establish a registered apprenticeship program in an occupation that is national in scope and suitable for registered apprenticeship, and they would enable potential sponsors to quickly develop a set of standards of apprenticeship particular to their proposed program that aligns with the apprenticeship training standards for the occupation as advanced by stakeholders and experts in their industry.
The Department has received feedback from stakeholders, including the members of the 2021-2023 term of the ACA, that potential registered apprenticeship program sponsors need robust tools, templates, and other resources to assist sponsors in meeting the required steps for setting up a new registered apprenticeship program. The Department agrees with this feedback, captured in several recommendations from the ACA's 2022 Interim Report, and will continue to work with industry stakeholders to develop such tools.
• Identify opportunities for more standardization across the registered apprenticeship system while preserving necessary flexibilities to ensure the registered apprenticeship model is adaptable to different industry and regional needs.
• Provide detailed guidance so that State-level or employer/sponsor-level stakeholders know exactly where they need to go and what they need to do to register a program, obtain answers to questions, pursue funding opportunities, and whether there are templates or other guidance to get them started.
• Create a toolkit/resource to communicate this information and refine apprenticeship referral processes, support provided to apprentices, etc.
• Leverage existing tools for onboarding, such as the Standards Builder (
ACA, “Interim Report to the Secretary of Labor,” May 16, 2022,
With regard to these standards, the Department envisions its role as being a convener of national stakeholders that would take the initiative in the development of such occupational standards across a given industry. OA's vision for National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship is to convene industry leaders for their expertise and input on the development of such standards. Engagement with industry leaders will ensure that occupational competencies needed for apprentices to be fully proficient in an occupation are industry-recognized. In addition, OA will seek public comment on the National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship in the Administrator's determination process. OA anticipates that industry leaders and other stakeholders will have ample opportunity to provide comprehensive input to inform these new products.
The purpose of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship is to ensure that registered apprenticeship programs continually adapt to meet quality training needs of industry, and that programs that leverage these standards can ensure that they are training apprentices utilizing a nationally recognized approach. As occupations, technology, and the overall economy evolve, National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship may need to be updated or revised, underscoring the importance of OA's continuous engagement with industry stakeholders and leaders. The Department recognizes that such industry stakeholders will be the first to know about changes to technology or business needs that would necessitate an update to the training standards for an occupation and intends to rely on those stakeholders to bring forth suggested changes to established National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship for registered apprenticeship programs within their industry. The Department will be responsive to such industry suggestions and will work with stakeholders to update, vet, and re-establish National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship as needed. The Department further invites comments on the most effective ways to keep pace with evolving industry needs and their implications for established templates for National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship.
While the procedure for receiving approval for an occupation in proposed § 29.7 does have a process for industry vetting, that process would be more reactive to the first entity that proposes a work process schedule for an occupation. The process for the development of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship would not be designed as a first-come, first-served approach to registered apprenticeship training. Instead, it would be based on intentional, proactive, nationwide, and industry-validated curriculum for on-the-job training and related instruction, including relevant interim credentials and industry-validated end-point assessments that can be responsive to emerging labor force needs. The section would provide the criteria that the Administrator will use in reviewing National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship for approval. The criteria listed in the section would include the suitability of an occupation for registered apprenticeship under proposed § 29.7 and an industry-validated work process schedule. Additional criteria described in this section would include proposed standards that have a nationally applicable, industry-validated curriculum framework for the provision of related instruction and the methods for conducting ongoing evaluations of apprentices successfully attaining the skills and competencies under such frameworks. As such, proposed § 29.13 is new and sets forth a discretionary process by which the Administrator would develop and approve National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. The Department proposes the development of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship as a driver of system quality and a resource for easing a sponsor's access to the National Apprenticeship System by making these standards publicly available to be utilized by sponsors and employers. These would be required as they are developed to ensure greater quality and industry support for programs with a national scope as described in proposed §§ 29.14 and 29.15 to a common set of high-quality standards.
Proposed paragraph (a) describes the purpose of the proposed National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. The Department, in developing National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship, intends to drive the growth of high-quality registered apprenticeship programs across a wide range of sectors and occupations deemed suitable for registered apprenticeship training under proposed § 29.7. The Department, aligning with broader administration goals, has specific interest in using National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship to increase registered apprenticeship programs in emerging and high-growth occupations; in occupations and sectors where apprenticeship programs are not currently widespread; and in occupations and sectors that the Administration has deemed critical to maintaining or enhancing the manufacturing capacity, critical infrastructure, public health and safety, supply chain resilience, environmental protection, renewable energy resources, educational and cultural advancement, or economic and national security of the United States. Expansion of the registered apprenticeship model into new and emerging industries would also align with recommendations and guidance provided by national apprenticeship stakeholders. For example, multiple subcommittees of the ACA, including a subcommittee entirely devoted to this area (the Industry Engagement in New and Emerging Sectors subcommittee), recommended that OA target new and emerging sectors for registered apprenticeship expansion.
• Accelerate registered apprenticeship deployment in growing industries and sectors, while ensuring curricula are responsive to industry needs, and templates and requirements are compatible with and flexible for different kinds of jobs and industries.
• Continue expansion of industry intermediary contracts targeting new and emerging sectors, which have been effective engines to target incentives.
Proposed paragraph (b) describes the criteria by which the Administrator would review and approve proposed National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. As noted previously, the Administrator and OA continually engage with industry representatives, labor unions, workforce development experts, and other relevant stakeholders to keep abreast of evolving industry needs and priorities and updates or changes to work processes and job skills necessary for successful job performance in an occupation or industry. Such ongoing engagement ensures that National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship remain current and are also supported and relevant for industry, that any registered apprenticeship programs informed by such National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship are responsive to and in alignment with industry needs and priorities, and that the workers entering into such industries are prepared for success based on the factors and standards applicable to a particular industry. Apprenticeship stakeholders in the ACA have identified the need to develop, maintain, and update template occupational standards in service of multiple goals, including system alignment and easing the onboarding of new programs, and OA intends to implement such a process for the development of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship to achieve these goals based on the criteria in (b)(1) through (4).
Proposed § 29.13(b)(1) would require that the National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship must be for an occupation that has been determined suitable for registered apprenticeship training by the Administrator, pursuant to proposed § 29.7. National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship are ultimately intended as a resource to help set up new registered apprenticeship programs in their associated occupations, and to help registered apprenticeship programs providing apprenticeship training for an occupation stay up to date on the evolving needs of industry. In order for National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship to be useful and relevant within the National Apprenticeship System, they must be tied to an occupation that has been deemed suitable for registered apprenticeship training. These products would inform the development of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards and National Program Standards for Apprenticeship, all of which would be tools for onboarding new registered apprenticeship programs. As such, the national standards frameworks discussed in this proposal would all relate to an occupation deemed suitable for registered apprenticeship training.
Proposed § 29.13(b)(2) would require that the work process schedule framework associated with the occupation be documented as nationally applicable. In order to make National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship a useful resource for setting up programs covering an occupation that is national in scope, OA would work with industry and other relevant stakeholders to determine if the occupation's proposed work process schedule is workable and applicable
Proposed § 29.13(b)(3) would require that the National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship include a curriculum framework for related instruction. As with proposed § 29.13(b)(2), this proposed requirement seeks to ensure that the National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship are documented or endorsed by relevant stakeholders for the occupation for which the standards are being developed. This approach to curriculum development would further the growth and establishment of registered apprenticeship programs, on a national scope, that provide apprentices with the necessary related instruction for the subject occupation. OA also intends for curricula in National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship to remain up to date, in line with the ACA's recommendation to update standards to reflect emerging technologies, work processes, or economic trends affecting an occupation.
Proposed § 29.13(b)(4) would require the inclusion of methods to evaluate apprentice progress throughout the registered apprenticeship program, including the development of an appropriate end-point assessment. This proposed requirement seeks to ensure that the National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship are documented as relevant for the occupation and provide a framework for the methods to assess the attainment of the skills and competencies required under the work process schedule framework. As with the other requirements in this proposed provision, these methods would need to be nationally applicable and validated by industry. This provision would build on the Department's goals to elevate registered apprenticeship program quality and establish greater accountability measures in the National Apprenticeship System's governing regulations by requiring that programs develop transparent, accountable assessments to evaluate apprentices' attainment of proficiency in an occupation. In the Department's view, this proposed new requirement for registered apprenticeship programs also represents an opportunity to further engage with industry to refine registered apprenticeship programs' responsiveness to industry needs. The Department expects that industry stakeholders and leaders will be instrumental in the development and refinement of rigorous, nationally applicable methods for assessing apprentices' attainment of proficiency in occupations. In addition to the assurances that the successful completion of an end-point assessment would provide for employers hiring apprentices, this new requirement could also be leveraged by program sponsors to analyze their program's overall effectiveness and implement continuous improvements in program design.
Proposed § 29.13(c) explains the proposed process for approving National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. Once the Administrator has developed National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship for an occupation, OA would seek public comment on the standards to include a nationally applicable end-point assessment. This process of seeking public comment is intended to ensure that the finalized National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship are industry-vetted and will lead to occupational proficiency anywhere in the country. To ensure that OA receives sufficient feedback from industry leaders, OA may specifically invite industry leaders to submit public comments. Public comments would be accepted for at least 30 calendar days, and the National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship in question would be finalized within 90 calendar days from the opening of the public comment period, though this time period may be extended at the discretion of the Administrator. The Administrator may also consider data and other relevant information to assist in evaluating whether the requirements in proposed § 29.13(b) are satisfied, such as O*NET data. Finally, proposed § 29.13(c) provides that the Administrator will maintain an up-to-date list of all National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship.
The Department is interested in any comments about the proposed development of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship and their potential benefit to potential sponsors or current sponsors in providing support on some of the upfront challenges with starting a registered apprenticeship program for an occupation, identifying high-quality apprenticeship curriculum, development of end-point assessments, and in turn implementing it at a program level. The Department is also interested in any comments about the proposed criteria by which it would evaluate proposed National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship, including comments regarding any additional or different criteria that would assist in meeting the needs of employers or in successfully training apprentices.
The “National Program Standards for Apprenticeship” section describes the criteria for establishing National Program Standards for Apprenticeship, the scope and reciprocity of registration, and alignment with the National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. The concept of National Program Standards for Apprenticeship has been developed by OA through subregulatory guidance.
Proposed paragraph (a) would establish the criteria that National Program Standards for Apprenticeship must meet to be registered by the Administrator.
Proposed § 29.14(a)(1) would explain that National Program Standards for Apprenticeship must be for training in an occupation not ordinarily subject to Federal, State, or local licensing requirements. The Department recognizes that the existence of Federal, State, or local licensing requirements impedes the ability of a registered apprenticeship program to operate with a uniform set of standards nationally. For an occupation with licensing requirements that differ across jurisdictions, the training and related instruction necessary to prepare an apprentice for that occupation would not be adequately addressed by National Program Standards for Apprenticeship that aim to provide a uniform standards and training experience regardless of where the program is taking place. Accordingly, the Department has determined that National Program Standards for Apprenticeship would be appropriate for occupations not subject to differing licensing requirements.
Proposed § 29.14(a)(2), in alignment with the Department's broader goal of driving system alignment and apprenticeship expansion on a national scale, would require that National Program Standards for Apprenticeship must be national or multistate in their design, suitability, and scope. The Department recognizes that there are multiple ways in which a program may be national or multistate in design, suitability, and scope. For instance, a program sponsor may be a national or multistate employer with business operations in multiple States. In addition, a program sponsor may be an international or transnational company with business operations in multiple States as well as in different countries. Also, a sponsor may be a national organization that has only one physical location in a single State but is affiliated with multiple employers that operate in multiple States.
Proposed § 29.14(a)(3) explains that any National Program Standards for Apprenticeship would need to meet the requirements in proposed parts 29 and 30.
Proposed paragraph (b) explains that upon demonstration that the National Program Standards for Apprenticeship meet the established criteria set forth in proposed paragraph (a), the Administrator would register the standards on a nationwide basis for Federal purposes. The Administrator would endeavor to render a determination on whether to approve and register a set of National Program Standards for Apprenticeship within 90 days of their receipt from an applicant, consistent with proposed § 29.8. If the Administrator were to decline to register the standards, the Administrator would provide a written explanation explaining the decision.
Proposed paragraph (c) explains how National Program Standards for Apprenticeship would be treated by SAAs. In furtherance of the goal of driving system alignment and apprenticeship expansion on a national scale, SAAs would be required to reciprocally approve and register programs registered via National Program Standards for Apprenticeship.
Proposed paragraph (d) would explain that National Program Standards for Apprenticeship must use any existing National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship that have been approved under proposed § 29.13. This requirement would only apply if a sponsor is seeking registration of National Program Standards for Apprenticeship in an occupation for which the Administrator has already approved National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. For those occupations where National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship currently exist, a program sponsor seeking registration of its National Program Standards for Apprenticeship would need to use such National Occupational Standards. The Department further clarifies that a program could pursue registration using National Program Standards for Apprenticeship if there is no established set of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship for the subject occupation. The existing National Program Standards for Apprenticeship are already in use within the National Apprenticeship System and were last updated and outlined in the Department's OA Circular No. 2022-01.
Programs registered with National Program Standards for Apprenticeship may receive certain benefits, such as reduced reporting requirements to Registration Agencies, VALOR Act eligibility, and registration status for Federal purposes, so the need to ensure high-quality programs is vital. The Department is interested in any comments on this approach given the increased Federal benefits associated with this model, the quality expectations of a program operating with this designation, and any potential burdens with following a National Occupational Standard approach. The
Proposed § 29.15, the “National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards” section is new and describes the proposed criteria for approval of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards, the Certificate of Recognition, local registration requirement, the criteria for resubmission, and required alignment with the National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards are a template of standards of apprenticeship that are registered nationally and adopted locally. They would allow local affiliates of national organizations or an employer with locations in multiple States to efficiently adapt recognized guidelines for local registration of program standards. Since National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards are intended to be adapted for local registration by local affiliates of national organizations or an employer with a national presence with locations in multiple States, the establishment of a uniform process to recognize such standards would drive system alignment by ensuring locally registered programs adhere to a common set of industry-validated standards.
Unlike National Program Standards for Apprenticeship, which can be registered once nationwide, National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards are a customizable template for registered apprenticeship program standards. They would provide a nationally certified—but locally registered—framework for occupational standards, while also preserving programmatic flexibility to account for local needs and requirements. For example, potential program sponsors with nationally designed apprenticeship program standards that cover certain occupations that are subject to extensive State licensing requirements may be more appropriately served by obtaining National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards certification for their program and then registering each program utilizing such standards on a State-by-State basis; this is because the National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards model would allow the template standards developed by the sponsor to be modified to account for these additional State law requirements and then registered in those States. In addition, the National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards approach may be more suitable for organizations with national scope, including labor organizations as well as trade and industry associations, that wish to provide State or local affiliates of their organizations with the option to adapt a set of nationally designed apprenticeship program standards to meet local conditions and register such programs on a State-by-State basis. Similarly, the National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards, with its ability to adapt to local labor market needs, may be more suitable for workforce intermediary program sponsors that only intend to provide related instruction in connection with a registered apprenticeship program.
Adoption of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards often provides an expedited pathway for a local affiliate to register an apprenticeship program and provides program flexibility to accommodate local industry and regional economy needs. Proposed § 29.15(c) provides for State or local affiliates of a national organization to use the proposed National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards as a template for their specific standards of apprenticeship that are submitted to the applicable Registration Agency, including SAAs, for registration of individual programs. By using a template that has already been registered, the sponsor would be able to more easily meet the requirements for registration locally. For those occupations where National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship currently exist, a program sponsor seeking certification of its National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards would need to use such National Occupational Standards. If a sponsor is seeking certification of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards in an occupation for which the Administrator has already approved National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship pursuant to proposed § 29.13, the sponsor would need to use those approved National Occupational Standards.
The criteria for National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards established in this section would require that guidelines submitted by organizations must be national in their applicability and scope with respect to the covered occupation; be suitable for either adoption or adaptation by State or local affiliates of the program sponsor; and satisfy the applicable requirements of this part and 29 CFR part 30. This section would grant the Administrator sole approval authority. This section would also describe the requirement for State and local affiliates to register a program in accordance with proposed § 29.10 and the requirement for National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards to align with National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship under proposed § 29.13.
National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards are a concept that exists in the National Apprenticeship System pursuant to the current § 29.3(h)(1), and they have been further recognized in previously issued subregulatory guidance.
Proposed paragraph (a) would establish the criteria that National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards must meet to be recognized by the Administrator.
Proposed § 29.15(a)(1) would explain that National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards must be national in their applicability and with respect to the covered occupation. The Department recognizes that there are multiple ways in which an organization may demonstrate that their standards are national in applicability and scope. For example, an organization seeking recognition of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards may demonstrate that they have a national presence with local affiliates in different States, or by demonstrating that they have a presence in multiple States, even if the organization is concentrated regionally. The Department has proposed this criterion because the intent of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards is to create an adaptable template of standards that can be tailored to meet regional labor market requirements. For example, an occupation suitable for registered apprenticeship may need to be adjusted to align with local conditions or requirements such as the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or applicable State and local laws and regulations such as occupational licensing or ratio requirements.
Proposed § 29.15(a)(2) would explain that National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards must be suitable for use by State or local affiliates of the program sponsor. National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards are a template intended for adaptation, customization, and ultimately, registration at the local level. Accordingly, the Department proposes this requirement to ensure that National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards would be designed for this intended purpose.
Proposed § 29.15(a)(3) would explain that, as with any program standards, National Program Standards for Apprenticeship must meet the requirements in proposed parts 29 and 30.
Proposed paragraph (b) would explain that upon demonstration that the National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards meet the established criteria set forth in proposed paragraph (a), the Administrator will recognize the standards. If the Administrator declines to recognize the standards, the Administrator would provide a written explanation explaining the decision. The Administrator would be solely responsible for the recognition of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards and would seek to review these submissions within 90 days of receipt, consistent with the Administrator's goal to review National Program Standards for Apprenticeship submissions within 90 days of receipt.
Proposed paragraph (c) would explain the process by which State or local affiliates of the organization receiving recognition of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards may seek registration of an individual program. National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards are a template intended to be adapted or adopted for local registration. Accordingly, the Department provides in proposed paragraph (c) that State or local affiliates of a national organization may use the National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards as a template for their specific standards of apprenticeship that are submitted to the applicable Registration Agency, including SAAs, for registration of individual programs. National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards may be adjusted for the purposes of local registration to meet State or local requirements such as ratios, safety, occupational licensing requirements, different wage scales, and contact information. The Department is interested in any comments about other acceptable adjustments between the certified National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards and the locally registered standards.
Proposed paragraph (d) would explain when National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards must be resubmitted for approval by the Administrator. The Department recognizes that organizations may amend the content of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards based on changes to an occupation's training needs, the needs of its State and local affiliates, or other reasons. The Department also recognizes that a periodic review can help ensure that National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards continue to meet the training needs of apprentices and to meet the industry-validated standards for a specific occupation. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (d) would require that National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards must be resubmitted for approval upon amendment to the standards or at least every 5 years, from the date that the standards are originally approved. The Department is proposing 5 years to align with the general requirement that program reviews occur every 5 years. Generally, the program review period has been an opportunity for programs to update their standards to ensure they continue to meet the requirements of 29 CFR parts 29 and 30, and are current with any changes to approved occupations, new laws, regulations, or subregulatory guidance. There is no similar requirement currently for sponsors of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards to update their standards, which leads to inconsistencies between the local registrations and National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards. This proposal would require a certification timetable. The Department is interested in any comments about this concept or any different timeframes it should consider.
Proposed paragraph (e) would explain that National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards must use any existing National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship that have been approved under proposed § 29.13. This requirement would only apply if a sponsor is seeking registration of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards in an occupation for which the Administrator has already approved National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. To define and communicate the purpose and intended use of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship, National Program Standards for Apprenticeship, and National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards, the Department clarifies that programs can pursue registration using National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards in scenarios where National Occupational Standards have not been developed. National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards are an existing tool for potential registered apprenticeship stakeholders to utilize, and their use and parameters were outlined in the Department's OA Circular No. 2022-02.
The Department anticipates that aligning National Guidelines for
Proposed § 29.16 would require registered apprenticeship programs to administer an end-point assessment at the conclusion of the apprenticeship term to establish the apprentice's successful attainment of all of the knowledge, skills, and competencies associated with the occupation. The purpose of this new requirement is to provide objective confirmation that the apprentice has acquired all of the skills and competencies required to be proficient in the occupation covered by the program. A rigorous end-point assessment at the conclusion of the apprenticeship is essential to give employers in an industry or sector confidence that the worker can perform successfully in the occupation in which they have been trained, and possess a set of relevant skills that are transferrable within that industry. The absence of an end-point assessment requirement in the current apprenticeship regulation means that individual apprenticeship program sponsors can adopt widely differing methods of assessing apprentice performance, which means that other employers within an industry or sector cannot be sure whether a graduating apprentice has really “made the grade” for proficiency in the occupation. The end-point assessment should be the culminating activity of the apprenticeship, and an apprentice should only be awarded a Certificate of Completion upon successful completion of the assessment. The Department takes the view that any additional burdens that this new requirement may impose on program sponsors would be outweighed by the significant practical benefits that would accrue to both employers and apprentices on account of a more uniform and rigorous standard for assessing and confirming the competencies acquired by apprentices. The proposed introduction of an end-point assessment requirement for apprenticeship programs is also consistent with the Department's goal of developing a highly skilled American workforce that is capable, agile, and competitive at both the domestic and international level.
Throughout the course of a registered apprenticeship program, apprentices will learn how to perform critical job tasks, understand and apply theoretical concepts, and continuously develop a set of core competencies for the occupation for which they are receiving apprenticeship training. Developing occupational competencies is important for apprentices' ability to adequately complete the discrete set of tasks necessary to accomplish a job task they would be assigned in the occupation after their apprenticeship training. In order to fully realize the benefits of the high-quality training and instruction of a registered apprenticeship program for both apprentices and their employers, apprenticeship programs should implement effective training protocols and accurate assessments to ensure apprentices are not only competent in the discrete job tasks for an occupation, but also proficient in the occupation overall. This includes assessing the apprentice's ability to perform the task(s) safely and accurately (competently), as well as timely and efficiently. Businesses often need their workforce to complete work to the satisfaction of their customers within a timeframe that makes it worthwhile (
Apprentices who successfully complete the assessment would be able to demonstrate to employers throughout an industry or sector that they are proficient in their occupation, and that their skills are transferrable between employers in the relevant sector. The successful completion of an end-point assessment would benefit apprentices by improving their employability and labor mobility and would add value to the Certificate of Completion earned by the apprentice. The assessment, which the sponsor develops according to the parameters of their program, could involve a practical, hands-on application of the apprentice's acquired skills to the completion of a project or the solution of a problem; alternatively, it may involve both a practical component and a written component that assesses the acquisition of occupation-relevant theoretical knowledge by the apprentice. Other methods would be allowed under this approach and may simply take the form of an individual meeting, such as a performance review, to assess and provide feedback on the apprentice's proficiency.
Several nations with well-regarded apprenticeship systems require an apprentice to complete an end-point assessment at the conclusion of their apprenticeship training; among these nations are Canada, England, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. These assessments utilize nationally applicable standards in evaluating the apprentice's proficiency in an occupation. The Department expects that the end-point assessment requirement would lend greater credibility and value to the apprenticeship credential, and potential
Proposed § 29.16(a) would establish the requirement of an end-point assessment requirement for all programs to ensure that they measure an apprentice's attainment of occupational skills, knowledge, and competencies necessary to determine proficiency in an occupation. The Department recognizes that end-point assessments developed and administered by a given program's operators may result in an assessment that is more relevant to the training and instruction provided through the program. However, the Department also recognizes the value of assessments performed by independent organizations or third parties to reduce any undue bias and incorporate ideas from outside partners. The Department invites public comment about the value and feasibility of end-point assessments generally, as well as whether such assessments should be performed by independent or third parties or by those operating a program and delivering on-the-job training or related instruction.
Proposed § 29.16(b) would provide that an apprentice must be entitled to at least one additional opportunity to complete an end-point assessment if they do not pass on the first attempt. This is intended to ensure apprentices are entitled to a fair opportunity to pass the assessment if their first attempt to do so is not successful, and that the end-point assessment does not operate as an inequitable significant barrier to program completion and journeyworker entry, such as for apprentices with disabilities. The Department is interested in any comments on if there should be a limit to the number of opportunities an apprentice may have to complete the assessment, balancing the burden of performing multiple assessments against the importance of providing opportunities for apprentices to demonstrate proficiency.
Proposed § 29.16(c) would include a provision that ensures an apprentice's end-point assessment includes an appropriate reasonable accommodation, if requested prior to the administration of the assessment. This proposed provision is intended to ensure that registered apprenticeship programs are fully accessible to job seekers, including those with disabilities that may require reasonable accommodations. The ACA's DEIA subcommittee recommended OA take steps to identify and assess any barriers to accessing or completing a registered apprenticeship program, and the Department agrees that programs should make reasonable accommodations when appropriate.
Proposed § 29.16(d) would provide that individuals who successfully complete the on-the-job training and related instruction requirements of a program and pass an end-point assessment are eligible for a Certificate of Completion from the appropriate Registration Agency.
As proposed, this section would not require that sponsors use a specific type of assessment, given the unique needs of different industries and occupations. However, the Department sees an opportunity for greater standardization of tools, such as an end-point assessment, by engaging industry and sponsors alike through the development and subsequent approval process of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship. The Department invites comments on whether the final rule should expressly require that all end-point assessments administered by sponsors should objectively measure the apprentice's acquisition of the relevant knowledge, skills, and competencies necessary to demonstrate proficiency in the occupation covered by the program, or if the proposed rule should remain silent and leave it to sponsors to establish what they think is an appropriate assessment. The Department is particularly interested in comments around any burdens or challenges with this approach, the extent to which programs have already adopted an end-point assessment as a means for measuring attainment, and the value of strengthening those requirements.
In addition, the Department invites commenters to discuss whether the final rule should expressly require that end-point assessments should only be administered by qualified and objective examiners who have not previously provided either on-the-job training or related instruction to the apprentice during the apprenticeship term. Finally, the Department invites commenters to opine on whether the final rule should permit sponsors to utilize third-party examinations as the program's end-point assessment in instances where: (1) an independent certification body within a particular industry or sector offers a nationally recognized examination that incorporates uniform, industry-recognized quality standards to objectively measure and validate the attainment of the relevant knowledge, skills, and competencies for the occupation(s) covered by the registered apprenticeship program; or (2) the occupation covered by the apprenticeship program is one that requires the passing of a State-mandated and administered examination to receive a license or certificate enabling qualified individuals to perform work in that occupation within a particular jurisdiction.
Complaints or expressions of concern about a program are critical for transparency into the daily operation of a registered apprenticeship program, an apprenticeship program's adherence to the labor and quality standards throughout the parts 29 and 30 regulations, and ultimately, the protection of apprentices' welfare and well-being. Apprentices are vulnerable to retaliation or other negative outcomes if their ability to speak up confidentially and securely is curtailed or compromised. Apprentices must be afforded opportunities to file complaints if they are subjected to unsafe or unfair conditions. The Department believes that the existing complaints process in part 29 should be retained and proposes enhancements to the complaints policy and additional procedures to investigate complaints, protect complainants, and improve transparency and accountability throughout the National
Proposed § 29.17 would carry forward much of existing § 29.12 with a few notable changes. Proposed § 29.17(e) would establish more robust and detailed procedures for investigating complaints and would afford anonymity to complainants, to the extent practicable, as explained below.
Proposed § 29.17(a) would carry forward existing § 29.12(a) verbatim.
Proposed § 29.17(b) would carry forward much of existing § 29.12(b), which allows apprentices not covered by a collective bargaining agreement to submit a complaint to the Registration Agency when a controversy or difference arises under an apprenticeship agreement. Two changes in proposed § 29.17(b) would permit but not require that disputes be resolved locally before a complaint is submitted to the Registration Agency. OA anticipates that most complaints will be resolved most efficiently and effectively by the program sponsor. However, the proposed change to § 29.17(b) recognizes that there should be an avenue for complaints to be filed directly with the Registration Agency, such as if the matter complained of is particularly egregious or if the complainant wishes to remain anonymous. Complainants who wish to remain anonymous would need to file their complaints directly with the Registration Agency. Under proposed § 29.17(b), a Registration Agency would still be prohibited from resolving a complaint covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Upon receiving a complaint relating to a union program, OA would be able to ask the sponsor, participating employer, complainant, or union representatives whether the complaint is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. OA would also be able to request a copy of the collective bargaining agreement. Proposed § 29.17(b) would also clarify that a complaint must either arise under an apprenticeship agreement or allege a violation of this part. Minor stylistic changes were also incorporated into proposed § 29.17(b) for clarity.
Proposed § 29.17(c) would revise the content of the first sentence of existing 29 CFR 29.12(c) and would establish a deadline to file a complaint within 300 calendar days after the conclusion of the events that gave rise to the dispute or the alleged violation of this part. In the case of an alleged continuing violation of this part, the 300-day period would begin on the day when the violation ceases. However, to accommodate extenuating circumstances that an apprentice might face, the Registration Agency would be able to extend the filing time upon a showing of good cause. For example, the granting of an extension for good cause could arise where the complainant only became aware of the alleged violation at a point in time more than 300 days after the alleged occurrence of the alleged event, or such an extension might be granted in instances where an apprentice missed the 300-calendar-day deadline because of an illness or an injury that prevented them from filing a timely complaint. This proposed time period aligns with the complaint timeline under 29 CFR part 30 and is designed to allow apprentices sufficient time to file a complaint with the Registration Agency. The Department is also proposing a period of 300 days to file a complaint in recognition of the important quality control function that complaints and complaint investigations serve.
Proposed § 29.17(d)(1) is new and would require that the complaint include a means of contacting the complainant or the authorized representative. Requiring the complaint to contain a means for contacting the complainant or authorized representative, but not identifying information such as a name or physical address, is intended to facilitate the submission of anonymous complaints while also allowing the Registration Agency to contact the complainant or representative as part of their review of the complaint. The requirement in existing § 29.12(c) that complaints be signed would not be carried forward in this proposed rule to facilitate the submission of anonymous complaints.
Proposed § 29.17(d)(2) is new and would require that the complaint include the identity of the individual or entity that is alleged to be responsible for the conduct giving rise to the complaint to facilitate the Registration Agency's investigation of any complaint.
Proposed § 29.17(d)(3) incorporates language in existing § 29.12(c) with minor clarifying changes. As proposed, it would require a short description of the events, facts, or circumstances giving rise to the complaint, including a discussion of when the events giving rise to the complaint took place.
Proposed § 29.17(e) is new and would explain the process by which the Registration Agency will investigate a complaint. It would require that the Registration Agency proceed expeditiously to investigate complaints. The proposed requirement that investigation of complaints be conducted expeditiously is intended to require Registration Agencies to resolve complaints, whenever possible, before impacted apprentices complete the program so that the apprentice can benefit from any action necessary to address the matter. However, the Department invites comments as to whether it is either feasible or appropriate to establish a uniform ceiling in this proposed rulemaking on the number of days allotted to a Registration Agency to complete the investigation of a complaint.
Proposed § 29.17(e)(1)(i) would require the Registration Agency to provide written notice that the complaint was received. Initially, only the complainant and the authorized representative, if any, would receive notice of the complaint.
Proposed § 29.17(e)(1)(ii) would require the Registration Agency to investigate complete complaints.
Proposed § 29.17(e)(1)(iii) would require the Registration Agency to complete a thorough investigation of the complaint. Documentation in the complaint file should include the complaint itself, a rebuttal statement from the respondent (if provided), interview statements, copies of pertinent documents as appropriate, and a narrative report of findings. Proposed § 29.17(e)(1)(iii) is intended to require Registration Agencies to compile a robust complaint investigation file, especially where the complaint was filed with the Registration Agency in the first instance. A robust file is needed to ensure that an adequate investigation was completed, to facilitate further review, and to facilitate referral to other government agencies or the initiation of a program review, if warranted. Although Registration Agencies would collect names and contact information of witnesses, Registration Agencies should protect such identifying information consistent with privacy laws, including the Freedom of Information Act, including withholding information where appropriate.
Proposed § 29.17(e)(1)(iv) would require the Registration Agency to provide a written notification of its findings to the complainant and respondent at the conclusion of the investigation.
Proposed § 29.17(e)(2) is new and would require the Registration Agency to protect the identity of the complainant to the extent practicable. If a complainant expresses a desire to remain anonymous, the complaint would need to be filed with the Registration Agency in the first instance, and the Registration Agency would need
Proposed § 29.17(e)(3) explains that if at the conclusion of a complaint investigation, the Registration Agency determines that a violation of part 29 or the apprenticeship agreement occurred, the Registration Agency would attempt to resolve the violation as quickly as possible, generally through technical assistance, initiating a program review, or the initiation of deregistration proceedings.
Proposed § 29.17(f) would carry forward existing § 29.12(e), which states that no part of existing § 29.12 precludes apprentices from pursuing alternative avenues of relief authorized under Federal, State, or local law.
Proposed § 29.17(g) would carry forward existing § 29.12(f) but clarify that, for an SAA to utilize a complaint review procedure that differs from the one provided here, the complaint review procedure would need to first be approved by the Administrator as part of the process described in proposed § 29.27.
Proposed § 29.17(h) is new and would establish anti-retaliation protections under part 29 by adapting language from part 30. This provision would prohibit a broad range of adverse actions, including intimidation, threats, coercion, retaliation, and discrimination. The provision would protect a broad range of protected activities, including filing a complaint, opposing a practice prohibited by this part or an apprenticeship agreement, furnishing information, or exercising any rights or privileges afforded under this part or an apprenticeship agreement. Notably, anti-retaliation complaints cannot be filed anonymously because Registration Agencies must always reveal the identity of the complainant to seek a remedy.
Proposed § 29.17(i) would speak to consequences for sponsors that fail to prevent or remedy retaliation as defined in paragraph (h), including retaliation by a participating employer in the sponsor's program. The presumptive remedy for sponsors found to have retaliated in violation of § 29.17(h) would be to make the apprentice whole. If, for example, an apprentice is terminated from a program for filing a complaint, the presumptive remedy would be for the apprentice to be reinstated to the same step in the registered apprenticeship program with back pay plus interest. OA also may pursue a remedy for violations of § 29.17(h) by limiting the responsibilities of the individual responsible for misconduct such as removing the individual from interactions with the complainant, to the extent practicable. Regardless of what the appropriate remedy would be, sponsors that fail to remedy retaliation may be subject to deregistration under § 29.20(a).
Recordkeeping is an essential and fundamental requirement in documenting compliance with the requirements of this rulemaking. Under this proposed rule, programs would need to maintain records for the purposes of demonstrating compliance to a Registration Agency as part of a program review and assisting a Registration Agency in conducting a complaint investigation. Programs would also need to maintain sources of data or information used to report to the Registration Agency. The Department thinks that these proposed requirements balance the needs of sponsors, employers, and Registration Agencies to conduct effective monitoring and oversight of program compliance with the burden of maintaining the required records. The Department is interested in any comments on whether the Department should add or subtract records from this proposed section.
Proposed § 29.18 is a new section that would expand upon the recordkeeping requirement that is in current § 29.5(b)(23) and detail the categories of records that sponsors and any participating employers are expected to maintain. Proposed § 29.18 would describe the general recordkeeping requirement with respect to specific records, the requirement to maintain records for a specific period of time, the requirement to allow the Registration Agency access to the records, and the format of such records. The section would mirror some of the recordkeeping requirements of 29 CFR 30.12 in order to create uniform requirements for recordkeeping for registered apprenticeship programs.
Proposed § 29.18(a) would state the general obligation of the program sponsor, and any participating employer, to maintain any records that the Registration Agency considers necessary to determine whether the sponsor has complied or is complying with the requirements of this part and any applicable Federal or State laws. It would further list in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) the specific categories of documents that are required to be maintained.
Proposed § 29.18(a)(1) would require that records be maintained concerning employment decisions, such as the hiring or placement, promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, right of return from layoff, and rehiring of apprentices. These are typically employment records maintained in the ordinary course of business. The Department considers these records paramount for a sponsor to maintain since they relate to a foundational requirement of registered apprenticeship programs, the employment of apprentices. Effective oversight of the program would not be possible without such records.
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2) would require that records be maintained related to the operation of the registered apprenticeship program, including but not limited to the specific requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (x).
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2)(i) would require the maintenance of records containing information related to the qualification, recruitment, employment, and training of apprentices, such as the apprenticeship program standards, apprenticeship agreements, completion records, cancellation and suspension records, and program review files. This provision would complement proposed § 29.18(a)(1) in that it would require maintaining records specific to the operation of the apprenticeship training program in addition to the requirements of proposed § 29.19(a)(1) regarding the individual employment decisions concerning each apprentice. These records are necessary to ensure the program is operating in compliance with proposed §§ 29.8 through 29.10.
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2)(ii) would require maintaining records pertaining to each apprentice's performance and
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2)(iii) would require maintaining records pertaining to an apprentice's attainment of an interim credential as part of the program, postsecondary academic credit, or other interim milestones attained during the course of an apprentice's participation in the program, if available. The Department acknowledges that not all programs may provide interim credentials or postsecondary academic credit; however, those that do would need to maintain records of their provision to apprentices. One quality metric proposed in this NPRM relates to credential attainment, and maintaining records associated with those credentials would be required. The Department has proposed a requirement in this proposed rule to have sponsors disclose any interim credentials an apprentice receives in the program. Credentials are both a key source for documenting apprentice progression and success in a program and represent an additional, tangible benefit for apprentices in the program. This proposed rule does not propose interim credentials or academic credit be provided, but because it would ask that they be disclosed, it is vital that the Department can validate this information from the sponsor's records if needed.
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2)(iv) would require maintaining records for each apprentice regarding the number of hours of on-the-job training, the number of hours of related instruction, the total number of hours worked, and the wages and fringe benefits paid for all hours. This is an integral part of the standards of apprenticeship and apprenticeship agreement, and these records are necessary to demonstrate compliance with both.
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2)(v) would require that records be maintained, including personnel records, applicable to any non-EEO complaints filed with the Registration Agency pursuant to proposed § 29.17.
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2)(vi) would require that all records be maintained related to the safety record of the sponsor and all participating employers in the sponsor's program, where applicable, including records relating to any safety and health training provided to apprentices, incident logs required to be maintained under applicable Federal or State occupational safety and health laws, and current worker's compensation documentation.
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2)(vii) would require maintaining any records required to be maintained by a program sponsor under 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2)(viii) would require maintaining any records required to be maintained under title 38, United States Code, in order for veterans and other individuals eligible for educational assistance under such title to use such assistance for enrollment in registered apprenticeship programs.
Proposed § 29.18(a)(2)(ix) would require maintaining records demonstrating program compliance with registered apprenticeship requirements to meet Federal purposes as defined in this part. This could include documents maintained for purposes of compliance with registered apprenticeship requirements in Federal grants such as WIOA, the IRA, the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, and any Federal purposes.
Proposed § 29.18(b) is a new requirement in part 29 but would use the language in part 30 at § 30.12(d) regarding maintenance of records to provide some uniformity to the recordkeeping requirements across both sections. Proposed § 29.18(b) would provide that the records required by this part and any other information relevant to compliance with these regulations must be maintained by a program sponsor (or any participating employer, if applicable) for 5 years from the date of the making of the record or the personnel action involved, whichever occurs later. The 5-year timeframe would be consistent with the recordkeeping requirement in 29 CFR 30.12 and align with the 5-year program review requirement in proposed § 29.19. This provision would also provide that failure to preserve complete and accurate records (as would be required by paragraph (a) of this section) constitutes noncompliance with this part that could lead to OA initiating deregistration proceedings. This language would be similar to the language in § 30.12(d).
Proposed § 29.18(c) would provide that the program sponsor (and any participating employer) must allow the Registration Agency access to the records described in paragraph (a) of this section upon request for the purpose of conducting program reviews and investigating complaints arising under part 29; such program reviews and investigations may involve the inspecting and copying of books, accounts, records (including electronic records), and any other material the Registration Agency deems relevant to the review or investigation and pertinent to compliance with this part. It would also provide that, upon request, the program sponsor (and any participating employer) must provide the Registration Agency information about all format(s), including specific electronic formats, in which its records and other information are available. Finally, it would clarify that information obtained in this manner will be used only in connection with the administration of this part or other applicable laws. Proposed § 29.18(c) would adopt language similar to the part 30 recordkeeping requirements at § 30.12(f) but specific to records related to program reviews and investigations under part 29. This access provision is important for the Registration Agency to conduct program reviews and investigate complaints arising under part 29.
Proposed § 29.18(d) is a new requirement. It would acknowledge that forms, records, and any other documents used and maintained by the program sponsor (and any participating employer) in the administration of this part may exist in paper or electronic form or a combination thereof. It would also specify that, regardless of the medium, these records must be available and accessible as required under paragraph (c) of this section for oversight and compliance purposes.
The Department's ability to conduct comprehensive reviews of the apprenticeship programs it registers and oversees is the linchpin for the quality standards, worker protections, and transparency and accountability measures discussed throughout this NPRM's preamble and envisioned in the Department's proposed update to the part 29 regulations. Establishing a clear, transparent, and fair process for such reviews in the part 29 regulations is critical for all stakeholders within the
To provide clarity for the regulated community, the Department has decided to propose a new section of the part 29 regulations to encapsulate all elements of the program review process, which is referenced in several places throughout the existing parts 29 and 30 regulations. For example, 29 CFR 29.5(b)(21), in the existing regulation's section on program standards, states that programs must affirm compliance with the part 30 EEO regulations, and § 29.6(b)(1)(ii) refers to EEO compliance reviews as a responsibility of Registration Agencies. Under the Department's proposed regulation, EEO compliance reviews, quality assurance assessments, and other oversight activities would be covered by this new section, now collectively referred to as “program reviews,” which would clarify the scope of Registration Agency review of programs' compliance with the entirety of the regulations at parts 29 and 30. In addition to this reorganization and consolidation of the program review provisions in the existing regulation, the Department is proposing various enhancements to the program review process to increase transparency and accountability in the system in service of maintaining and improving program quality throughout the system.
Proposed § 29.19(a) would explain that once a program's registration is made permanent, the applicable Registration Agency must conduct a program review at least every 5 years, though more frequent reviews are permitted based on capacity. This timeframe aligns with the current rule, wherein new registered apprenticeship programs enter into an initial, “provisional” status upon registration, and are reviewed approximately 1 year after the registration date. Provided that the program is operating in accordance with the standards approved by the Registration Agency, the program then moves out of “provisional” status and continues operating as a registered apprenticeship program. Such programs are then reviewed once every 5 years, with more frequent reviews occurring depending on specific circumstances.
Proposed paragraph (a) would further clarify that the Registration Agency will include a review of any participating employers in a sponsor's program during such program reviews, in line with the proposal's overall goal of establishing and maintaining accountability throughout the National Apprenticeship System. Throughout the proposal, the Department seeks to establish accountability measures to monitor, assess, and address participating employers' compliance with the proposed registered apprenticeship regulations, and has proposed changes to the existing registered apprenticeship regulations to require participating employers' compliance where appropriate. Proposed § 29.19(a) would establish the necessary connection between participating employers and the Registration Agency's primary oversight mechanism—program reviews—to establish such accountability.
Proposed § 29.19(b) would require the Registration Agency to conduct a review of a program if it receives credible information that a program, participating employer, or other registered apprenticeship stakeholder is not operating in compliance with the program's accepted program standards or any other requirements set forth in this part or 29 CFR part 30. Such credible information or allegations could be received through any means including, but not limited to, complaints, referrals, or news stories. Proposed § 29.19(b) would also require a Registration Agency to conduct program reviews at the request of the Administrator. The Administrator may request that a Registration Agency conduct program reviews because the Administrator has received credible information that a program is not operating in conformance with its registered standards, part 29 or part 30, because the Administrator disagrees with a Registration Agency as to whether credible information of potential noncompliance exists, or for any other reason the Administrator determines a review is warranted.
Proposed § 29.19(c) would clarify that Registration Agencies may consider all information and data that are pertinent to the purpose of the review in reaching a determination at the conclusion of the review. Registration Agencies would need to consider the program's performance under § 29.25(b). This provision would ensure that program performance is included as part of a program review and can ensure that technical assistance related to program performance is provided to sponsors.
Proposed § 29.19(d) would require sponsors and participating employers to cooperate with requests for interviews and documentation from the Registration Agency. This proposed paragraph would further clarify that sponsors and participating employers may never impede the Registration Agency's ability to interview prospective, current, or former apprentices because such interviews are essential to conducting a program review. Registration Agencies would be entitled to draw adverse inferences in the event that a sponsor or participating employer declines to answer questions, gives evasive answers, or fails to produce records that the sponsor or participating employer is required to maintain pursuant to proposed § 29.18. This section is intended to make program reviews by Registration Agencies as efficient and effective as possible.
Proposed § 29.19(e) explains what would happen at the conclusion of a program review. At the conclusion of a program review, the Registration Agency would need to provide its Notice of Program Review Findings to the sponsor using the contact information listed in the registered standards. The Department is proposing to notify the sponsor using the most recent contact information provided in the standards because it assumes that the sponsor has provided the most up-to-date, accurate contact information with its standards, because the Department should be able to rely on the sponsor's representation that it can
Paragraphs (e)(1) though (4) would detail what must be contained in a Notice of Program Review Findings, including a summary of any noncompliance identified, a concise explanation as to how the noncompliance may be cured, an explanation that the sponsor has to develop a compliance action plan as described in paragraph (f), and a statement that an enforcement action may be taken if compliance is not achieved within an established timeframe. The Department thinks that the information required here is sufficient to make the sponsor aware of the Registration Agency's concerns and steps needed to address areas of noncompliance.
Proposed § 29.19(f) would describe the steps that the sponsor must take when it receives a notice pursuant to paragraph (e) as well as the further actions that the Registration Agency may take in response.
Proposed § 29.19(f)(1) would explain that where a Notice of Program Review Findings details one or more areas of noncompliance, the sponsor is afforded 45 calendar days from the date of notification to either rebut the findings or submit a compliance action plan. The Department notes that 29 CFR 30.15 affords sponsors 30 days to implement a compliance action plan. In proposed § 29.19(f)(1), the time period would be extended from 30 to 45 days to ensure that the time period is not shorter than that referenced in § 30.15. The 45-calendar-day period may be extended once by the Registration Agency for up to 45 additional days for good cause. Good cause to extend the period may be present if, for example, the sponsor recently implemented staffing changes that would alter the personnel responsible for rebutting the findings or developing a compliance action plan. The determination as to whether the findings are appropriately rebutted would be entirely within the discretion of the Registration Agency.
Proposed § 29.19(f)(2) would detail the minimum requirements that must be included in a compliance action plan. A compliance action plan would need to make a specific commitment in writing to correct or remediate identified deficiency(ies) and area(s) of noncompliance, specify actions that will be taken to remedy each deficiency, specify a timeline, and provide the name of the individual responsible for correcting each deficiency. Proposed § 29.19(f)(2) would also explain that if a sponsor submits a rebuttal to the Notice of Program Review Findings that in the discretion of the Registration Agency does not rebut the Findings, the sponsor is afforded 45 calendar days from receipt of the final notice to submit a compliance action plan for approval. The compliance action plan should include: (1) a written commitment to correct or remediate any deficiencies and areas of noncompliance that have been identified by a Registration Agency; (2) the precise actions a program sponsor will take for each deficiency identified; (3) the time period within which a program sponsor will remedy each deficiency that has been cited and any corresponding program changes implemented to correct each cited deficiency; and (4) the name of the individual or individuals responsible for correcting each deficiency.
Proposed § 29.19(g) explains the menu of options that would be available to Registration Agencies upon receiving and reviewing a compliance action plan. Proposed paragraph (g)(1) states that a Registration Agency could approve the compliance action plan, determine that the sponsor is in compliance, and terminate the program review process. This first option is more likely to be selected upon receipt of a particularly robust compliance action plan. A program sponsor charged with developing a compliance action plan would need to take steps to implement that plan in accordance with the requirements of the regulation, even in instances where the formal program process has been completed.
Proposed paragraph (g)(2) states that a Registration Agency could approve the compliance action plan but continue the program review process until the compliance action plan is appropriately implemented. This second option may be more appropriate where the Registration Agency determines that continued monitoring may be necessary to ensure appropriate implementation of the compliance action plan. For example, a sponsor could submit, and the Registration Agency could approve, a compliance action plan that details the sponsor's plan to register its first apprentice. However, the Registration Agency may elect to wait until the sponsor in fact registers its first apprentice before making the determination that the compliance action plan is appropriately implemented and the sponsor is in compliance.
Proposed paragraph (g)(3) states that a Registration Agency could reject the compliance action plan and proceed with deregistration according to proposed § 29.20. A Registration Agency may elect to work with the sponsor to revise a compliance action plan that had been rejected instead of proceeding with deregistration.
Proposed § 29.20 would substantially revise the existing provisions regarding deregistration of a registered apprenticeship program found at 29 CFR 29.8 of the current regulation. Under the current 29 CFR 29.8, the Department is afforded no administrative tools, sanctions, or alternatives short of initiating formal deregistration proceedings in instances where a program is not being conducted, operated, or administered in accordance with the program's registered provisions or the requirements of 29 CFR part 29. This administrative inflexibility stands in sharp contrast to the more graduated EEO in apprenticeship enforcement provisions found at 29 CFR 30.15, which permit the Department to work with a program sponsor to rectify areas of noncompliance with the EEO regulatory requirements of 29 CFR part 30 through the pursuit of an intermediate administrative step: the development of a limited-time compliance action plan that identifies and rectifies a program's operational deficiencies. Accordingly, to better align and harmonize the enforcement structures in 29 CFR parts 29 and 30, the Department has proposed substantially replicating the compliance action plan procedural mechanism currently found at 29 CFR 30.15 and incorporating it into the proposed program review process outlined at § 29.19(f) and (g) of this proposed regulation (see above). Should a sponsor fail to develop a compliance action plan that satisfies the Department's requirements, however, formal deregistration proceedings may then be initiated by the Department as a last resort under this proposed § 29.20, which the Department has proposed be significantly updated to improve procedural clarity and efficiency. Proposed § 29.20(a) would replace the undesignated introductory paragraph in existing § 29.8 and eliminate ambiguous references to “deregistration proceedings” in favor of outlining the process step by step. The first step would be to notify a sponsor or a participating employer of the specific violations of parts 29 or 30 that were identified as a result of a program review, complaint investigation, or “any other basis.” The reference to “any other basis” is intended to capture the
Proposed § 29.20(a)(1) through (4) are new and detail a proposed menu of options available to a Registration Agency upon making a determination that a violation of this part occurred. A Registration Agency could proceed with any single option or multiple options concurrently if the Registration Agency thinks such action is necessary to address the noncompliance, these include
(1) offering the sponsor or participating employer technical assistance to promote compliance;
(2) requiring the sponsor to submit a compliance action plan pursuant to § 29.19(f);
(3) suspending the sponsor's right to register new apprentices for a specified time period; or
(4) deregistering the program pursuant to paragraph § 29.20(b) of this section.
Proposed § 29.20(a)(1) would be an option to provide technical assistance to the sponsor. This option may be selected where there is a clear misunderstanding of the regulatory requirements on the part of the sponsor and technical assistance may support a timely remedy to the violation.
Proposed § 29.20(a)(2) would be an option to require that the sponsor submit a compliance action plan that meets the requirements of proposed § 29.19(f)(2). This option may be selected where the noncompliance was discovered outside of the program review process.
Proposed § 29.20(a)(3) would be an option to suspend the sponsor's right to register apprentices for a set period of time. This option may be appropriate where there is a concern about the safety of apprentices in the program.
Finally, proposed § 29.20(a)(4) would be an option to deregister the program for cause pursuant to proposed § 29.20(b). Proceeding to deregistration may be appropriate if the sponsor was already afforded an opportunity to submit a compliance action plan and the plan was rejected, in the case of particularly egregious violations, or where the program has failed to respond to the Registration Agency.
Proposed § 29.20(b) would substantially streamline existing § 29.8(b). It would remove references to persistent and significant failure to perform successfully and other enumerated bases for deregistration and would instead implement a standard for deregistration by which any program not operated in accordance with parts 29 or 30 could be deregistered if the sponsor fails to correct the violations or fails to receive approval of a compliance action plan and implement that compliance action plan within the required timeframes. The determination as to whether a compliance action plan is approvable and whether an approved compliance action plan is being appropriately implemented would be at the sole discretion of the Registration Agency. Proposed § 29.20(b) would eliminate references to “reasonable cause to deregister,” which in existing § 29.8(b)(5) serves as the point at which an appeal of the Registration Agency's decision must be taken. By requiring a sponsor to appeal deregistration before a final agency determination as to deregistration has issued, current § 29.8 requires appeals to be taken before they are ripe. Proposed § 29.20(b) would correct this problem by making a Notice of Deregistration the point after which a sponsor may either request a review by the Administrator or, in certain cases, request a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ).
Proposed § 29.20(c) would carry forward much of existing § 29.8(a). References to cancellation are proposed to be struck to avoid confusion with the cancellation of apprenticeship agreements. The proposed paragraph would clarify that the Registration Agency will deregister a program upon receipt of a written request, in contrast with the existing text that says a Registration Agency may do so. This change would reflect the reality that OA will always deregister a program upon the request of the sponsor.
Proposed § 29.20(d) is new and would establish the process by which the Administrator will review the Registration Agency's Notice of Deregistration. In summary, this provision would establish a three-step process of review when a Notice of Deregistration is issued by an SAA: (1) Informal Resolution (by the Administrator); (2) Appeal (to OALJ); and Appeal (to ARB). The Department is proposing the addition of this review process for two reasons. First, the Department believes that where the deregistration decision was made by an SAA, the Administrator should review the SAA's deregistration decision so that any novel issues relating to this part, part 30, or the National Apprenticeship System are resolved by the Administrator in the first instance, as opposed to the OALJ. Accordingly, where the Notice of Deregistration was issued by an SAA, this review process would be a required step before requesting a hearing before the OALJ. Where the Notice of Deregistration was issued by the Administrator, this review process would not be necessary before a request for a hearing is requested. Second, the Department is proposing the process in § 29.20(d) to minimize the Departmental resources that must be used to deregister programs that become unresponsive, even after multiple attempts by the Registration Agency to contact the sponsor, or where the sponsor fails to register at least one apprentice. Accordingly, where the Notice of Deregistration states the basis for deregistration as a failure to respond to multiple attempts from the Registration Agency to contact the sponsor or a failure to register at least one apprentice, or both, the outcome of this review process would serve as the final agency determination of the Department regarding deregistration. The Administrator shall publish a notice of final agency determination on an OA public-facing website in compliance with proactive disclosure requirements under the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(2)).
Paragraph (d)(1) would explain how a former sponsor may request review from the Administrator. Requests would need to be submitted electronically and in writing within 30 calendar days from the date of the Notice of Deregistration. The request would not need to be made in any particular format, but the request itself would need to provide any and all relevant facts or documentation that exist as of the time of the request. It would be entirely the obligation of the former sponsor to provide any arguments, facts, and documents in an understandable manner as part of the request for review. The Administrator would take into consideration the totality of the request and supporting documentation presented and render the Administrator's final decision.
Paragraph (d)(2) would address deregistrations where an SAA is the Registration Agency. In these situations, the request for review would need to be sent to the Registration Agency and the Administrator simultaneously such that the Administrator and the SAA are provided with identical copies of the request and all supporting documentation. The SAA would then have 15 calendar days to provide the Administrator with a record containing the pertinent facts underlying the SAA's deregistration determination. The Administrator could request additional information from the sponsor, the Registration Agency, or both, though the Administrator would not be required to do so.
Paragraph (d)(3) would explain that if OA is the Registration Agency, OA will compile for the Administrator's review all relevant information already in OA's possession or already submitted by the former sponsor, and may request additional information from the former sponsor, though OA is not obligated to do so.
Paragraph (d)(4) would explain that the Administrator will issue a final decision that explains the basis for the decision as quickly as practicable after receiving all information necessary for the Administrator to make a decision. While the Administrator would work as quickly as possible, the Department has not included a required timeframe because the facts and issues in specific cases may require more or less time to make a decision and, therefore, a uniform timeframe may inadvertently require the Administrator take less time than necessary to fully consider a request for reconsideration.
Paragraphs (d)(5) and (6) would explain that except where the basis for deregistration is a failure to respond to multiple attempts from the Registration Agency to contact the sponsor or a failure to register at least one apprentice, or both, the former sponsor may still request a hearing before the OALJ within 15 calendar days of receipt of the Administrator's final decision. Where the former sponsor does not request a hearing within 15 calendar days, or where the basis for deregistration is a failure to respond or a failure to register at least one apprentice, the Administrator's final decision would be the Department's final agency action and the OALJ would not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal. The Department's intent in proposing to preclude the OALJ from hearing appeals based on a failure to respond or a failure to register at least one apprentice is to limit the expenditure of Departmental resources on disputes that are typically very straightforward and easily resolved by engagement with the Registration Agency. The Department's intent is to encourage sponsors of such programs to work with the Registration Agency before deregistration to address the lack of responsiveness or failure to register an apprentice through the provision of technical assistance or an action plan. If the cause of the deregistration stems from the program's lack of commitment to operating an apprenticeship training program, the Department thinks that it is better for the broader apprenticeship system to deregister such programs expeditiously. In addition, because these problems are readily resolved, sponsors may always seek reinstatement of their program under proposed § 29.22 once the issue that gave rise to the failure to respond or failure to register an apprentice is resolved.
Proposed § 29.20(e) would address the process for requesting a hearing before the OALJ and would streamline existing § 29.8(b)(6) through (8). Proposed paragraph (e)(1) would explain that all requests for hearings must be sent to the OALJ. It would further note that where an SAA is the Registration Agency, the former sponsor has 15 calendar days from the date of the Administrator's final decision to request a hearing. Where an SAA deregistered the program, the Department is proposing to require the former sponsor to request review by the Administrator first to ensure that any novel or incorrect interpretations of parts 29 or 30 are not decided in the first instance by the OALJ. As OA is the Department's subject-matter expert on apprenticeship, the Department thinks it most appropriate that OA should always be afforded the opportunity to review a deregistration decision by an SAA before the OALJ or the Administrative Review Board (ARB) render the final agency decision for the Department. As noted above, this would allow OA to provide input on any novel issues relating to this part, part 30, or the National Apprenticeship System that are present in the matter.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) would explain that a request for a hearing must simultaneously be furnished to the Administrator (
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) would explain that hearings would be conducted per proposed § 29.21.
Proposed § 29.21 would carry forward much of current § 29.10. However, existing § 29.10(a), which currently requires the Administrator to request a hearing from the OALJ, would be deleted entirely and replaced with the process described above. The Department determined that the current process outlined in § 29.10(a) is inefficient and that the appealing party's notice is sufficient.
Proposed § 29.21(a)(1) and (2) would carry forward existing § 29.10(b)(1) and (2) verbatim. In addition, the proposed rule would add paragraphs (a)(3), to clarify that the request for a hearing is not a complaint to which an answer is required, and (a)(4), to clarify that limited pre-hearing motions and discovery may be permitted at the discretion of the assigned Administrative Law Judge. The clarification in paragraph (a)(3) that no answer to a request for hearing would be required is intended to supplement the OALJ regulations at 29 CFR part 18 and capture the reality that an Administrative Law Judge assigned to a deregistration hearing will receive a comprehensive administrative file from the Administrator, which should render a separate answer unnecessary. The clarification in paragraph (a)(4) is intended to allow for limited discovery, though the Department anticipates that in most instances the case will be able to be decided on the record without further discovery.
Proposed § 29.21(b) would carry forward existing § 29.10(c) with the only additions being added citations to the ARB's recently promulgated Rules of Practice and Procedure and the inclusion of a standard of review for the OALJ. The Department proposes to clarify that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies because it is regularly used in administrative adjudications reviewing final agency determinations. The arbitrary and capricious standard of review would require the Administrative Law Judge to uphold the Administrator's decision unless it is shown by the sponsor to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
Proposed § 29.22 is new and would explain that an apprenticeship program that is deregistered may have its registration reinstated if the prospective sponsor submits adequate evidence that the program is operating in compliance with parts 29 and 30. Although a former sponsor would normally be able to reapply for registration, this section would establish a parallel process by which a former sponsor with an active but unregistered program could submit evidence in support of having its registration reinstated. The Department envisions that this process would address situations where a former sponsor's deregistered standards are in conformance with parts 29 and 30 but where the former sponsor was deregistered for not operating its program in conformance with the standards, with part 29, or with part 30. For example, a sponsor could be deregistered for failure to register a single apprentice, but post-deregistration provide the Registration Agency with evidence of registering at least one apprentice as well as an adequate explanation for not doing so previously; the determination as to what constitutes adequate evidence lies exclusively with the Registration Agency.
Proposed § 29.23 would permit the Administrator to entertain requests for exemptions from any or all of the provisions contained in subpart A of 29 CFR part 29. Such requests would be required to be made in writing and transmitted to the Administrator and would also be required to contain a statement of the reasons supporting the request. The Administrator would only grant an exemption for good cause. Good cause may be found in instances where the sponsor demonstrates to the Administrator that the granting of the exemption will expand or support the safety and welfare of apprentices. The Department would not grant an exemption that would reduce or minimize the protections afforded apprentices under this proposed regulation. The Department is interested in any comments regarding criteria the Department could use to establish when good cause may be found.
This proposed exemption provision would be similar to the existing exemption allowance contained in 29 CFR 30.19 of the EEO in Apprenticeship regulations, except that SAAs would be excluded from involvement in the consideration or issuance of exemptions under proposed § 29.23, and the Administrator would retain the full and exclusive authority to evaluate and grant exemptions from the provisions of subpart A of 29 CFR part 29.
The Department also wishes to note that the proposed exemption provision would not apply to any of the regulatory provisions contained in either subpart B or subpart C of the revised 29 CFR part 29. The Department is proposing this to ensure the exemptions are solely based on labor standards requirements. The Department would consider comments on exemptions for subpart B for potential sponsors of registered CTE apprenticeship. The Department is not proposing an exemption authority for subpart C because that subpart addresses the collection of apprenticeship data, which as described below is a key priority of this rulemaking to ensure a comprehensive data set on registered apprenticeship programs. Subpart C also governs the SAAs; the Department is not proposing any exemptions regarding their individual governance, in an effort to build a more cohesive system. While the Department may consider individual program level exemptions on labor standards, given the Department's goal of building a National Apprenticeship System, the elements of subpart C are not being proposed to be eligible for exemption.
The Department has long heard from National Apprenticeship System stakeholders that creating additional apprenticeship opportunities would expand the benefits of apprenticeship and maximize its workforce development potential, particularly for individuals who are in the early stages of career development, such as students in high school and postsecondary students who are actively taking steps to begin their future careers and assessing the postsecondary opportunities available to them. It also would be a beneficial model for businesses looking to expand their talent pipelines, including businesses that participate in registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A. Registered apprenticeship has been a successful workforce development tool for job seekers for decades, and the Department recognizes that many of the occupational training and professional development elements of registered apprenticeship would be valuable for the subset of the population who are enrolled in high school and in community and technical colleges and are taking steps to improve their career opportunities. However, the existing National Apprenticeship System has had very limited participation from high-school-aged youth. In FY 2022, only 1.2 percent of active apprentices, or 7,643 apprentices, in registered apprenticeship programs were 16-18 years old.
More broadly, the Department is concerned about the persistent decline in youth labor force participation, as well as an unemployment rate more than twice as high as the national average, for those individuals aged 16 to 24 years old. The summer labor force participation rate for 16- to 24-year-olds was 60.2 percent in July 2023, down from 61.8 percent in July 2019.
Nationally, Perkins CTE programs enroll roughly 8.3 million secondary students and 3.5 million postsecondary students,
This proposed registered CTE apprenticeship model seeks to strengthen the connection with secondary and postsecondary education programs by bringing together the core concepts of registered apprenticeship and CTE, and working to ensure that strong State-level coordination exists to manage the program. To this end, the Department has proposed the registered CTE apprenticeship program be delivered through a Perkins-eligible recipient's CTE program because Perkins already provides a high-quality framework for apprenticeship-related instruction and can capture economies of scale in matching students interested and involved in CTE with registered apprenticeship. Perkins-eligible recipients may choose to become CTE apprenticeship sponsors to expand and enhance their Perkins CTE program with high-quality on-the-job experience for their students, culminating in a credential that would enhance CTE students' prospects to transition to employment, registered apprenticeship under subpart A, or postsecondary education. The proposed regulation and registered CTE apprenticeship program would not impact the independence and function of ED's Perkins program or that of Perkins grantees and subgrantees. That is, the proposed subpart would only apply to States that develop a written agreement between their State CTE Agency and a Registration Agency, States that wish to become Registration Agencies, and States and CTE programs that wish to become registered CTE apprenticeship sponsors as recognized by DOL. Further, ED's implementation and oversight of the Perkins CTE program would be unaffected. In addition, though the regulations propose that the State CTE Agency (
The proposed requirements for registered CTE apprenticeship's labor standards, program registration, and program administration would largely reflect the labor standards, program registration, and program administration requirements for registered apprenticeship, with some distinctions and differences as explained in this NPRM's preamble for subpart B. Many of the proposed requirements are already common practice in high-quality CTE programs and related work-based learning programs. The primary distinctions between these two types of registered apprenticeship programs, under subparts A and B, would be: (1) the required use of industry skills frameworks to support CTE apprenticeship-related instruction and provide direction for on-the-job training; (2) different hours thresholds for related instruction and on-the-job training; (3) different eligibility requirements for who may serve as program sponsors; and (4) student outcomes focused on post-completion career pathways. The Department proposes to center registered CTE apprenticeship programs around industry skills frameworks (rather than the occupational basis of most registered apprenticeship programs). Industry skills frameworks more broadly encompass the range of career options available to high school and college students by integrating industry-recognized competencies and skills. Registered CTE apprenticeship programs would be guided by an approved industry skills framework and delivered through a Perkins-eligible recipient's CTE program and paid on-the-job training.
In addition, the registered CTE apprenticeship model would place a greater emphasis on the related instruction element of registered apprenticeship, and proposes to involve a higher amount of required time spent in related instruction (CTE apprenticeship-related instruction) with postsecondary credit hours and a lesser amount of on-the-job training, compared to the proposed program in subpart A. For registered CTE apprenticeship, the Department proposes a minimum of 540 hours of required CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, which encompasses not less than 12 postsecondary credit hours as part of the program. The proposed 540 hours of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction and 900 hours of on-the-job training could occur while a student is enrolled in high school, or while a student is enrolled in postsecondary education, or the program could be structured to span high school and postsecondary education.
For secondary school systems, the registered CTE apprenticeship model may expand opportunities for students
For postsecondary institutions the registered CTE apprenticeship model may create opportunities to develop additional employer-driven educational programs, particularly in programs where clinical experiences and similar models may not exist, and where students would benefit from paid on-the-job training offered alongside or included as part of a postsecondary credential and/or degree program. Registered CTE apprenticeship may also help postsecondary institutions to create education programs that bridge their workforce and degree programs within their institution, potentially creating opportunities for students to access federal student aid to support their participation in the program, in addition to creating opportunities to embed an apprenticeship program within a degree program, and expand programs that are offered as an ETP under WIOA.
For regions that are seeking to create or have already established strong linkages between their secondary education system and community and technical college system, registered CTE apprenticeship can be structured to bridge these two education systems, ensuring that students graduate high school, transition into postsecondary education with at least 12 postsecondary credit hours, earn a recognized postsecondary credential, and have strong pathways to continue their education while simultaneously participating in the workforce and receiving progressive wage increases. Registered CTE apprenticeship may also help these communities to better position employers as co-owners of their education and workforce systems, support paid on-the-job learning and other forms of Federal and State financial aid that may be available, to help to offset their education costs, provide additional student mentorship, and leverage additional support from community-based organizations to provide wraparound or other student services.
In contrast, for registered apprenticeship under subpart A, the Department is proposing 144 hours of related instruction for every 2,000 hours of on-the-job training. The higher amount of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction is proposed to ensure that CTE apprentices have the requisite number of hours to successfully complete a program and academic requirements for graduation. The lower amount of on-the-job training hours is proposed to ensure that CTE apprentices receive the technical, hands-on opportunities to demonstrate their progress and attainment of industry-recognized competencies and skills while also ensuring that CTE apprentices work an age-appropriate number of hours while attending school. Specifically, researchers have consistently found that there are negative academic outcomes for students who work intensively (
Standards of registered CTE apprenticeship would be based on approved industry skills frameworks and delivered through CTE programs and paid on-the-job training that must be completed by a CTE apprentice to receive a certificate of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship. Completing a registered CTE apprenticeship program would provide a CTE apprentice with industrywide skills and competencies, a recognized postsecondary credential(s) and at least 12 transferable postsecondary credit hours, which would enable CTE apprentices to enroll in a postsecondary educational program, enroll in a registered apprenticeship under subpart A, potentially with advanced standing, or continue employment.
While the new model of registered CTE apprenticeship is designed to align with Perkins CTE programs, CTE apprenticeship programs under this proposal also would have the option to design programs that meet the registration requirements of subpart A, particularly in CTE program areas that are more occupationally based. In doing so, secondary and postsecondary institutions may choose to build onto their existing registered apprenticeship programs to create additional opportunities for learners or they may wish to connect registered apprenticeship programs that are developed under subparts A and B to create stackable instructional models. For secondary and postsecondary institutions that already support registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A, the development of registered CTE apprenticeship programs may help to create new pathways into registered apprenticeship, may support diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility efforts, and may create opportunities to engage existing or new employers to expand their partnership in new or different occupations and industries.
Registered CTE apprenticeship would be an additional model designed to specifically align labor standards with State-approved CTE programs and, where appropriate, State or locally developed educational curriculum, where it may not always be feasible under subpart A and, in doing so, would provide multiple postsecondary pathways for CTE students and employment, and may include opportunities for CTE students to earn advanced standing in registered apprenticeship under subpart A. Registered CTE apprenticeship would retain most of the key elements of the registered apprenticeship model as set forth in proposed subpart A, with some differences or adjustments based on the unique characteristics of the population registered CTE apprenticeship will serve—namely, high school and college students—including, among other considerations, their age and typical experience, their courseload, schedule, and stage of career development or transition into a new career. As proposed, the Department envisions some key adjustments to the registered apprenticeship model for registered CTE apprenticeship. The Department considered using exemptions proposed under subpart A to accommodate this program design, but determined that the requirement for Registration Agency coordination with State CTE Agencies is an essential element of this proposal and could not be implemented through use of exemptions under subpart A. In addition, programs are not exempt from the establishment and implementation
The Department coordinated and sought consultation with ED in developing the proposed regulations for registered CTE apprenticeship. In addition, this new model is informed by existing and ongoing efforts to develop youth and registered apprenticeship models that incorporate CTE.
The Department has also taken into consideration the recommendations from the ACA to expand apprenticeship opportunities that offer postsecondary credit and the ability to advance along a career pathway for in-school youth and other individuals.
The Department recognizes that previous efforts to create and strengthen articulation between secondary and postsecondary institutions have had positive effects for the populations targeted by this proposal. From fall 2019 to fall 2021, 586,000 fewer recent high school graduates were enrolled in community college compared with 277,000 fewer older adults, a troubling trend as students of all ages enter or re-enter the labor market without the necessary education and training for economic success. However, during this same time, dual enrollment, a hallmark of successful CTE programs and youth apprenticeship models that incorporate CTE, continued to grow with high school students accounting for one in five community college students.
The Department believes a unique model of quality labor standards, based on the success of registered apprenticeship, that is designed for individuals in secondary or postsecondary education can help students have successful careers and can benefit employers in developing a skilled workforce. This model, in conjunction with an existing infrastructure that supports the capacity and expertise to administer and provide quality CTE curricula and program offerings, could help to close a widening divide and ensure all learners and workers who face labor market disparities have greater opportunities for economic mobility. These quality labor standards while participating in education activities can be especially beneficial for youth and other individuals starting their careers by ensuring they are receiving and applying industry-validated skills and competencies in a paid work setting.
Proposed § 29.24 would create the regulatory structure for registered CTE apprenticeship programs to meet the following core requirements: coordination between a Registration Agency and State CTE Agency; program standards and the requirement that they be registered with a Registration Agency; alignment of competencies obtained through on-the-job training outlined in approved industry skills frameworks that provide CTE apprentices with industry-recognized skills and competencies; CTE apprenticeship-related instruction component of the standards delivered through a CTE program; program sponsor eligibility and requirements for LEA, institutions of higher education, State CTE Agencies, or designated intermediaries; partnership
Proposed § 29.24(a)(1) would establish the requirement for a Registration Agency, whether it is OA or the SAA, and the State CTE Agency to coordinate on the administration of Registered CTE apprenticeship programs in each State. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate a flexible framework between the Registration Agency, which would have the responsibility for approving standards of registered CTE apprenticeship, and the State CTE Agency, which has the existing responsibility to oversee Perkins CTE programs within respective States and approved CTE programs. Areas of coordination include the process of program approvals, program reviews, data collection, and compliance activities established within this part. The purpose of coordinating administrative responsibilities is to ensure that both parties work cooperatively to support registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors, such as LEAs, institutions of higher education, and their designated intermediaries, in the coordination of registered CTE apprenticeship programs while ensuring that such programs meet the requirements of this part. Most importantly, coordination is necessary to ensure the welfare of CTE apprentices, many of whom are likely to be high school and community college students who will be transitioning into a postsecondary educational program, a registered apprenticeship program under subpart A, or other employment following the completion of the registered CTE apprenticeship. Coordination to engage industry and business is integral to the success of all registered apprenticeship programs, especially a new model that would provide career readiness and exploration through paid on-the-job training for students in State-approved CTE programs. A State CTE Agency and Registration Agency are encouraged to coordinate industry engagement, provide services to business and employers, promote CTE apprenticeships, and provide technical assistance on developing program standards.
While high school youth can currently participate in registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A, this new model would provide an opportunity for secondary and postsecondary schools to engage with the National Apprenticeship System and work with education administrators, instructors, and practitioners to utilize and leverage their institutional expertise in developing and structuring CTE related instruction and paid on-the-job training. The Department understands that the State CTE Agency would have the statutory responsibility for a number of requirements under this part. If the proposed rule is adopted as drafted, it would be incumbent on States to develop the proper coordination to ensure that the welfare of CTE apprentices and administrative oversight by each party meet all existing Federal and State statutory and regulatory requirements. The Department notes that nothing in this proposed rule is intended to alter the existing authorities of the State CTE Agency for oversight of Perkins and the Registration Agency for oversight of any registered apprenticeship program. The Department is interested in comments on how Registration Agencies and State CTE Agencies should develop the necessary coordination, what elements should be included in the coordination process, and what challenges and barriers may exist that would require technical assistance or additional subregulatory guidance.
Proposed § 29.24(a)(2) would establish the requirement for the State CTE Agency and Registration Agency to enter into a written agreement for the statewide coordination and operation of registered CTE apprenticeship programs. The written agreement should describe the roles and responsibilities of each agency that has programmatic and administrative responsibilities throughout this part. The Department recognizes that States can develop various agreements, such as memoranda of understanding, interagency agreements, and other types of written agreements, that establish roles and responsibilities for the purposes of aligning State resources, administrative infrastructure, and program accountability. States should have maximum flexibility in developing such written agreements, but the requirement to have a written agreement is designed to ensure that a formal understanding about roles and responsibilities has been agreed upon. The Department is interested in comments about whether there should be additional guidance on what should be included in a written agreement. The Department is also interested in comments about existing coordination mechanisms for the establishment of written coordination agreements between a Registration Agency and State CTE Agency that might be incorporated into SAA State Apprenticeship Plan efforts described below and in subpart C to facilitate program oversight and fulfill administrative requirements, such as program review processes and data sharing agreements.
Proposed § 29.24(b) would establish industry skills frameworks as a distinct requirement and component of registered CTE apprenticeship that would be required to be included in registered CTE apprenticeship program standards. An industry skills framework describes industrywide competencies and skills that are foundational to any number of career pathways within an industry or industry sector for which the framework has been developed. Industry skills frameworks would provide the basis for assessing competency and skill attainment of CTE apprentices in the on-the-job training component of a registered CTE apprenticeship. They also would be the framework whereby high-quality labor standards can be applied and integrated into the registered CTE apprenticeship model. In conjunction with CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, industry skills frameworks would enable the programmatic outcomes of placement into employment, a postsecondary educational program, or a registered apprenticeship program under subpart A.
Industry skills frameworks are similar in concept to the National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship detailed in proposed § 29.13 but are different in that they focus on industrywide competencies, whereas National Occupational Standards focus on occupational proficiency. Industry skills frameworks are foundational industrywide skills and competencies that enable access to a career pathway and are the essential “building blocks” for greater occupational proficiency. Similar to National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship, the Administrator would oversee the development of and updates to industry
Industry skills frameworks can be the foundational component for developing both standards of registered CTE apprenticeship and a work process schedule for greater occupational proficiency if a potential program sponsor endeavors to operate both models of registered apprenticeship under subparts A and B. Industry skills frameworks are not, however, a replacement for a work process schedule in the determination of an occupation suitable for registered apprenticeship under proposed § 29.7 in subpart A or a framework that is a substitute for National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship under proposed § 29.13 in subpart A. The Department notes that creating a broad industry skills and competency foundation as a starting point in program development for registered CTE apprenticeship programs as opposed one that ultimately requires to proficiency in a specific occupation is one of the key departures from the registered apprenticeship model under subpart A. However, the Department envisions the industry skills framework can be complementary in helping students get skills and competencies that can be built into registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A. These proposed industry skills frameworks establish the floor for student skill development, allowing programs to build on top of this foundation to create programmatic opportunities for greater specificity as to the skills and competencies that would lead toward occupational proficiency, including opportunities for alignment to registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A where appropriate. Proposed § 29.24(b)(1) describes the criteria that must be met before the Administrator will approve an industry skills framework for use in a registered CTE apprenticeship program.
Proposed § 29.24(b)(1)(i) would establish the requirement for an industry skills framework to include a structure for the development of professional behaviors, workplace competencies, and academic competencies required by an industry. Examples of professional behaviors include but are not limited to reliability, initiative, interpersonal skills, and adaptability; academic competencies might include the ability to effectively read and write, problem-solve, and think critically; and workplace competencies might include collaboration and teamwork, oral and written communication, and customer service.
Proposed § 29.24(b)(1)(ii) would establish the requirement that industry skills frameworks are validated, widely recognized, and nationally applicable in the industry to which the framework is intended to apply. Industry skills frameworks recognize that many skills and competencies are cross-cutting, across industries and sectors, and provide a strong foundation for greater technical proficiency applied toward learning an occupation or across an occupational cluster. To the extent that industry skills frameworks align with CTE Career Clusters and the process by which State and local advisory councils address workforce needs by providing recommendations on CTE programmatic alignment, the Department is interested in comments that explore this interconnection and alignment to create greater feedback on the development of industry skills frameworks and their required use in standards of registered CTE apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.24(b)(1)(iii) would require that the skills and competencies specified within the on-the-job training outline be obtained by a CTE apprentice through the attainment of at least 900 hours of on-the-job training over the course of the program, as explained below. The 900 hours may be spread across multiple years; however, the Department does consider a minimum requirement of on-the-job training hours to be an important requirement of the registered CTE apprenticeship model to ensure CTE apprentices are obtaining employment in the program, at a sufficient length, in order to obtain industrywide or industry-sector technical competencies.
Proposed § 29.24(b)(1)(iv) would establish the requirement that an industry skills framework align with an approved CTE program so that the employment component of the registered CTE apprenticeship is providing the appropriate practical on-the-job training supported by the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction. In this connection to the National Apprenticeship System, registered CTE apprenticeship programs with approved industry skills frameworks will align with the National Career Clusters® Framework Perkins Career Clusters published by Advance CTE and associated CTE programs. The Department is interested in comments that address potential alignment and implementation to create systematic cohesion and seamless transitions for CTE apprentices to successfully participate, progress through, and complete a registered CTE apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.24(b)(1)(v) would establish the requirement that industry skills frameworks detail the industry-validated methods for ongoing evaluations to assess an apprentice's attainment of a competency to make sure that CTE apprentices are regularly evaluated as they progress through the registered CTE apprenticeship. As explained in the preamble for subpart A's proposed § 29.16, the Department views regular evaluations of apprentices in registered apprenticeship programs as a central element of program design that verifies whether or not programs are meeting apprenticeship's foundational goal of preparing apprentices for their future careers. The Department notes
At proposed § 29.24(b)(1)(v), the Department proposes to include regular evaluations as a required element of registered CTE apprenticeship, and as with the proposed assessment framework for registered apprenticeship in subpart A, would leave all aspects of the design of such assessments up to registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors. The Department expects that industry stakeholders, educational and workforce development experts, and other leaders will be instrumental in developing frameworks for the evaluation of CTE apprentices in registered CTE apprenticeship programs, and that individual programs would tailor such frameworks to the specific elements and needs of their program, course of study, and CTE apprentice population.
For registered CTE apprenticeship, such evaluations will be important, but should take a different form than the more robust evaluation and end-point assessment framework proposed in this rulemaking for registered apprenticeship programs (at proposed § 29.16). In the Department's view, registered CTE apprenticeship programs would not need to confer occupational proficiency for all participants. Registered CTE apprenticeship programs may serve more secondary and postsecondary student apprentices than registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A and would benefit such apprentices by introducing them to career options and ideas, developing professional behaviors, and conferring occupational competencies that will aid them in their efforts to find and retain meaningful careers and pursue higher levels of education. The Department does not view the attainment of occupational proficiency as an appropriate baseline requirement for registered CTE apprenticeship programs, because the unique design of this model focuses more on foundational industry skills than on occupational proficiency, which the Department has determined requires more on-the-job training hours to achieve, as described in subpart A. However, the Department notes that some registered CTE apprenticeship programs and registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A should align to support student learning progression through both programs, and in doing so will blend industry skills frameworks with established occupational work process schedules or National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship under subpart A to support student mastery of both models.
The Department invites public comments on the proposed requirement to regularly assess CTE apprentices' progress at proposed § 29.24(b)(1)(v), including the differences between the minimum requirements for evaluating apprentices across registered apprenticeship and registered CTE apprenticeship. The Department notes that there are already existing assessments being utilized by many high quality CTE programs; however, the Department is seeking comments as to whether an industry-recognized end-point assessment for registered CTE apprenticeship would strengthen the relevance of the skills and competencies attained and maximize the likelihood that students seeking to directly enter high-quality careers will be able to do so. The Department is generally interested in comments regarding ideas and approaches to strengthen the connection between registered CTE apprenticeship programs and the labor market, and specifically whether the inclusion of an end-point assessment requirement would strengthen this connection.
Proposed § 29.24(b)(2) would establish the requirement for the Administrator to solicit public feedback, including from industry in evaluating suitability of industry skills frameworks. The purpose of this proposed provision is to ensure the Administrator would be able to engage the public and industry leaders, such as industry associations, large, medium, and small employers, labor unions and, to the extent feasible, State and local CTE advisory council industry membership, to ensure that industry skills frameworks are continuously updated to reflect the changing needs of industry for which a skills framework has been developed. Such a process, along with the requirement of 30 days of public comment would ensure the opportunity for robust feedback on the applicability of standards to industry and ensure standards are of the highest quality and relevance. Additionally, to ensure transparency OA would maintain a publicly accessible link to the approved industry skills frameworks as well as any that were not approved. Lastly, this provision provides that the Administrator may also use relevant industry data or information to validate the relevance of industry skills frameworks. Such resources may include the O*NET database, industry and occupational data from BLS and other federal agencies, as well as other data and information available to ensure industry skills frameworks are aligned with the needs of their respective industries.
The Department recognizes that for a potential program sponsor looking to develop a registered CTE apprenticeship program, an industry skills framework must first be developed and approved by the Administrator. The Department also recognizes that as a new model of registered apprenticeship, implementation will require a reasonable timeframe to develop processes through subregulatory guidance, a written agreement for the coordination between a Registration Agency and State CTE Agency, registered CTE apprenticeship programs, and approved industry skills frameworks. The Department anticipates a robust process for the development of industry skills frameworks will be required to ensure that industry, across both the National Apprenticeship System stakeholder and Perkins communities, are engaged and invited to participate in such frameworks. State CTE Agencies will be important leaders in these conversations and State CTE standards may provide a foundation for some industry skills frameworks. This process will also help the Department determine in which industries such industry skills frameworks must first be developed, the number of industry skills frameworks, and their alignment and application with other frameworks. Until the frameworks are developed and approved, a registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor will not be able to properly develop and align their on-the-job training outlines with the approved industry skills framework required in this section.
Proposed § 29.24(c) would describe the minimum standards of registered CTE apprenticeship that all registered CTE apprenticeship programs must include to be registered by a Registration Agency. The establishment and implementation of robust standards of registered CTE apprenticeship is essential to ensuring that registered CTE apprenticeship programs deliver consistently high-quality education and training to registered CTE apprentices, while also ensuring that CTE apprentices are trained in a safe and accessible workplace environment where they are protected from exploitation and abuse. Standards of
Registered CTE apprenticeship program standards would differ from the standards set forth in subpart A by incorporating key concepts such as industry skills frameworks that inform the outline for the on-the-job training component, CTE apprenticeship-related instruction that utilize State-approved CTE programs for the curriculum of non-duplicative coursework, the requirement that standards include the awarding of at least 12 postsecondary credit hours leading to a recognized postsecondary credential attainment, and which may include advanced standing in registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A, and how such standards will enable CTE apprentices to enroll in postsecondary educational programs, engage in employment, or both. The Department's intention in creating the Registered CTE apprenticeship model with quality labor standards in conjunction with CTE apprenticeship-related instruction is to enable the foundation for sustained academic success within the program and beyond program completion, provide the opportunity for continuous skill and competency attainment that will enable greater proficiency in a job as students enter the labor market, and ensure the program is able to fulfill the Department's mission to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, which includes CTE apprentices. Similar to proposed § 29.8, proposed § 29.24(c) would ensure program sponsors, participating employers, registered CTE apprentices, and other interested parties understand the minimum standards of registered CTE apprenticeship and seek to provide apprentices the necessary skills and competencies for lifelong labor market success. Given the unique partnerships required at the State level and the incorporation of State-approved CTE programs embedded into the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, the Department is not proposing a National Program Standards for Apprenticeship registration framework for registered CTE apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(1) would establish the requirement for program sponsors to include an on-the-job training outline that aligns with an approved industry skills framework in standards for registered CTE apprenticeship. The Department envisions industry skills frameworks to be the guiding framework for program sponsors to use in determining the appropriate work activities that lead to proficiency of skills and competencies that a CTE apprentice would attain in a paid, on-the-job training work experience. Industry skills frameworks would be inclusive of all the requisite skills and competencies that an industry would both recognize and find valuable for employment in a number of occupations that are predominantly found within a single industry or across an industry sector. Such on-the-job training outlines aligned to industry skills frameworks would provide measurable proficiency in the attainment of industry-recognized skills and competencies. Registration Agencies would have the discretion to determine whether a proposed on-the-job training outline submitted by a sponsor aligns with an approved industry skills framework approved by the Administrator. The Department acknowledges the need for a balance and customization of on-the-job training outlines with the goal of ensuring programs are providing competencies on the job in a way that is industry validated to ensure CTE apprentices have recognized work experience and are set up for career success in occupations throughout the respective industry.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(2) would establish the requirement for program sponsors of a registered CTE apprenticeship to include a description of the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction that must, at a minimum, include a State-approved CTE program and have a duration of at least 540 hours. The Department proposes a minimum of 540 hours of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction to earn a certificate of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship which would allow the CTE apprentice to concentrate in a postsecondary CTE program, as applicable, complete a recognized postsecondary credential and earn and receive at least 12 postsecondary credit hours towards a recognized postsecondary credential or degree, while also providing flexibility for eligible program sponsors to determine the appropriate number of hours above this requirement based on State and local CTE programs and the development of career pathway programs that connect registered CTE apprenticeship programs with additional postsecondary education opportunities.
The Department proposes a minimum of 540 hours of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction to earn a certificate of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship because 540 hours would provide a CTE apprentice the opportunity to complete foundational coursework and more advanced coursework necessary to demonstrate success in postsecondary education, pursue registered apprenticeship under subpart A, and to seek further employment.
Related to the 540 hour minimum requirement for CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, the Department is proposing that CTE apprentices must receive a minimum of 12 postsecondary credit hours as part of their program. The Department intends for the use of the term “credit hour” to align with the definition under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and its implementing regulations, as amended.
The Department notes that the remaining CTE apprenticeship-related instruction hours may be acquired through additional postsecondary credit hours, secondary education, or through other industry or employer designed related instruction, as applicable. This proposal is designed to provide sponsors flexibility of how to attain the 540 hours, in addition to the 12 postsecondary credit hour requirement.
The postsecondary credit hour requirement is proposed so that the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction includes industrywide skills and competencies and the acquisition of college credit to ensure that CTE apprentices make significant progress toward a postsecondary credential or degree such as an associate's degree and/or bachelor's degree. Evidence shows clear economic gains for individuals as they attain higher levels of education after high school, such as the acquisition of postsecondary credit and credentials. According to the Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), earnings increase and unemployment decreases among individuals who have attained postsecondary education and credentials when compared to individuals who have only completed high school.
The Department is proposing a 12 postsecondary credit hour standard because the Department believes that this level of credit has multiple benefits for CTE apprentices, while balancing the ability to design programs under this proposed approach. This includes helping CTE apprentices who are in secondary school to complete high school and transition into higher levels of education and employment, as evidenced by the benefits of dual enrollment, as well as serving adults who may be career changers, and subsequently providing these apprentices with a head start to pursue additional postsecondary education. Evidence suggests that the benefits of dual enrollment increase for secondary students with every postsecondary credit earned, particularly that benefits and educational attainment increase for those students with 12 or more credits than those with less than 12 credits.
The Department is seeking comments on its proposal to require that all registered CTE apprentices earn 12 postsecondary credit hours as part of their participation in a registered CTE program, and is interested in comments that identify: (1) how this proposal supports the broader goal of the program to increase the labor market connectivity for CTE apprentices; (2) the benefits for CTE apprentices of this approach or an alternative standard of postsecondary credit hours should be considered; and (3) the feasibility for secondary school sponsors of registered CTE apprenticeship programs to design programs that include these requirements. Additionally, the Department is interested in comments regarding the impact of the 12 postsecondary credit hour requirement across all industries that would utilize registered CTE apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A or if other factors should be considered on an industry basis.
The Department is particularly interested in comments about how it can a support the growth of secondary educational models that imbed postsecondary credit hours into the program design. The Department is also interested in comments regarding the attainment of a minimum of 12 postsecondary credit hours, including that it leads to a postsecondary credential or degree, evidenced by a postsecondary institution's official transcript(s) for a CTE apprentice, and any other factors that can increase access to the labor market and higher education opportunities for CTE apprentices. Finally, we recognize that many registered CTE sponsors will not be credit awarding institutions, particularly local education agencies. The Department is seeking comment on whether it will be feasible for sponsors to enter into partnerships with institutions of higher education or to make other arrangements for the awarding of the requisite credit hours, and whether the Department should include an affirmative partnership requirement between postsecondary institutions and local education agencies if they seek to sponsor a registered CTE apprenticeship program.
In considering whether to establish a floor for the number of hours required in CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, the Department evaluated a number of factors, such as application of standard credit-bearing unit, State flexibility for establishing credit hours, and Perkins performance accountability. Initially, the Department regarded the Carnegie unit as a universal unit of measurement in credit-bearing hours for a student's ability to successfully complete the necessary credits for attaining a recognized secondary or postsecondary degree.
Perkins-eligible recipients typically calculates contact hours for State accountability purposes. As an example calculation, a P-12 school year is typically 180 days, and if a student attends school every day and has 6 CTE contact hours during a school day, that student would accumulate 540 hours of contact hours. In this example, 540 hours supports the establishment of the required number of hours in CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, provided that these hours include the required postsecondary coursework. Postsecondary Perkins recipients may also choose to calculate instruction time using clock hour and credit hour requirements. In this example, 540 clock hours would equate to 18 credit hours using the guidance provided by Federal Student Aid.
In establishing a floor of 540 hours, the Department is allowing flexibility to accommodate variability in how eligible program sponsors define hours and how they are applied to meet the requirement for the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction component. The inclusion of at least 12 postsecondary credit hours within the 540 hours of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction is designed to ensure that there are strong linkages between secondary and postsecondary programs, and opportunities for students to achieve the desired outcomes of the program. The Department anticipates that there will be a range of applicable credit hours that are counted toward a CTE apprentice's participation in a program as a requirement of a CTE apprenticeship-related instruction component included in the standards. A program sponsor would need to determine the required length of time a student may be enrolled in a corresponding program and as part of the overall CTE apprenticeship-related instruction. The Department recognizes that the requirement for 540 hours for CTE apprenticeship-related instruction may solely occur while students are in high school, may solely occur while students are enrolled in postsecondary education, and may also span students' high school experience and into postsecondary education. To the extent that States have CTE programs that include dual or concurrent enrollment agreements or articulation agreements that facilitate the extension of programs that have similar characteristics to registered CTE apprenticeship programs, the Department is interested in commenters' examples of such programs and the necessary coordination amongst CTE stakeholders to achieve the 540 hours of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction and the inclusion of at least 12 postsecondary credit hours that will be necessary to enable and expand these types of educational pathways. The Department is also interested in comments about the established floor for CTE apprenticeship-related instruction and whether it should be lower or higher to best accommodate the proposed model while providing educational attainment pathways for enrolled students.
This proposal also includes a provision found in subpart A regarding whether apprentices, or CTE apprentices in this instance, would be provided wages and fringe benefits during their participation in CTE apprenticeship-related instruction. The Department acknowledges that under the registered CTE apprenticeship model, where the CTE program is the primary form of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, sponsors and employers may be less likely to provide support wages for the hours in which the CTE apprentices are participating in their CTE program. However, the Department encourages, where possible, registered CTE apprenticeship models in which employers elect to provide wages or fringe benefits during CTE apprenticeship-related instruction. This may also be relevant where employer-specific training is added to the CTE program as part of the total amount of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(3) would establish the requirement that program sponsors of a registered CTE apprenticeship include a description of any recognized postsecondary credentials that would be awarded to a CTE apprentice as a programmatic outcome either during or at the completion of registered CTE apprenticeship. Program sponsors also would be required to include, as applicable, any associate or baccalaureate degree associated with the program and the amount of postsecondary credit hours that students will earn as a result of the registered CTE apprenticeship. Program sponsors must also include the name of any credential or certificate awarding entity, typically an accredited education institution, as part of the description. The Department has proposed a similar requirement in subpart A, requiring the disclosure of credentials provided by the program; however, the requirement to disclose the number of postsecondary credit hours is a proposed requirement for registered CTE apprenticeship. The Department has determined this information is valuable for Registration Agencies to have as part of its desire to build high-quality registered apprenticeship programs in both models.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(4) would establish the requirement that program sponsors of a registered CTE apprenticeship include a description of how the program will result in CTE apprentices' selection into an apprenticeship program registered under subpart A, enrollment in a postsecondary educational program, employment, or some combination thereof. The Department considers a program that accomplishes any one of these three outcomes as key to measuring the success of the registered CTE apprenticeship model, and believes it is important for sponsors to have considered these outcomes and for apprentices to have visibility into the potential outcome of their participation. Registered CTE apprenticeship programs should establish a documented relationship with a registered apprenticeship program established under proposed subpart A, especially in sectors where such programs are well-established, and with an institution of higher education, to maximize educational and employment opportunities for CTE apprentices.
As previously discussed, an industry skills framework is utilized in developing the on-the-job outline that is a core component of a registered CTE apprenticeship. Such outlines must have a minimum duration of 900 hours of paid on-the-job training and lead to proficiency in the skills and competencies described in the industry skills framework. Proposed § 29.24(c)(5) would establish the requirement that program sponsors of a registered CTE apprenticeship include a description of the employment in which CTE apprentices will be employed in on-the-job training with criteria included in the on-the-job training outline. The Department is proposing this requirement because registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A are responsible for training in a specific occupation and, therefore, the specific type of employment is known in that model, under the registered CTE apprenticeship model, the Department is approving broader industry skills frameworks that could lead to attainment of foundational skills in multiple occupations within an industry. The Department considers the
The Department is basing the 900 hours requirement on certain State youth apprenticeship models that require a minimum of 450 hours of on-the-job training per year.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(6) largely follows proposed § 29.8(a)(17) and would require the written standards to include wages that the CTE apprentice will receive during the registered CTE apprenticeship program. The current regulation at 29 CFR 29.5(b)(5) stipulates the payment of a progressively increasing schedule of wages to be paid to the apprentice with the skill required. It further provides that the entry wage may not be less than the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage, where applicable, unless a higher wage is required by other applicable Federal, State, or local law, or respective regulations, or by collective bargaining agreement.
The Department also proposes to retain the requirement of a minimum wage floor at the outset of the apprenticeship and a graduated schedule of progressively increasing wages for apprentices during the remainder of the apprenticeship term. However, similar to proposed § 29.8(a)(17), proposed § 29.24(c)(6) would stipulate that the graduated schedule of wages paid to a CTE apprentice would increase over the balance of the apprenticeship term to reflect the apprentice's progressive acquisition of industry skills and competencies.
The Department invites comments on these provisions to bolster the registered CTE apprenticeship progressive wage requirements. The Department is interested in comments regarding the feasibility of this approach across industries, and whether this requirement effectively balances the goal of providing continuous progressive wages with competency attainment against industry needs for flexibility regarding wage increases.
In addition to these proposed wage progression revisions, the Department reminds sponsors that, consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR part 30, the wages paid by a sponsor or a participating employer to a CTE apprentice must not discriminate against such persons on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age (40 or older), genetic information, or disability. In addition, the Department reminds both registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors and participating employers that CTE apprentices who meet the definition of an employee under either the Internal Revenue Code or the Fair Labor Standards Act—which they will in virtually every instance—must not be misclassified by such sponsors or employers as independent contractors.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(7) would follow proposed § 29.8(a)(19) in subpart A, regarding the ratio of apprentices to journeyworkers, and would apply ratio requirements for registered CTE apprenticeship in this part. The intended purpose of this ratio requirement is to further the Department's goal of ensuring the safety and welfare of CTE apprentices while engaged in on-the-job training. Proposed § 29.24(c)(7)(i) would specify that the sponsor's ratio must be approved by a Registration Agency, consistent with the proper safety, health, supervision, and training of the CTE apprentice. This requirement would center apprentice safety and welfare as the main considerations in the establishment of the specific numeric ratio for a registered CTE apprenticeship program. To ensure that the ratio is consistent
In practice, a ratio of one apprentice to one journeyworker has been the norm for programs under subpart A; however, registered CTE apprenticeship may require greater scrutiny for ratios because there is a greater likelihood that high-school-aged CTE apprentices may participate in settings where they will need more supervision to ensure proper training and safety.
While apprentice safety is the focus of the proposed requirement, there would also be flexibility provided to sponsors in setting the specific numeric ratio. Proposed § 29.8(c)(7)(ii) would specify that sponsors must use a ratio that is consistent with the provisions of any applicable collective bargaining agreements, as well as any applicable Federal and State laws governing ratios of apprentices to journeyworkers, and specific and clearly described as to its application to a particular workforce, workplace, job site, department, or plant. The Department recognizes that a one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible with respect to ratios. Instead, the Department is cognizant that ratios may be different depending upon the specific industry or on-the-job training opportunity in which the registered CTE apprenticeship program is taking place. The Department also recognizes that a specific numeric ratio of an apprenticeship program may be set in an applicable collective bargaining agreement or by applicable Federal and State laws. As described in subpart A at proposed § 29.8, the current practice has been to approve a 1:1 ratio, with some deviations based on safety and other considerations of specific industries. The Department anticipates a similar ratio for registered CTE apprenticeship. Ultimately, each program must have a ratio specific to that program that is designed to protect the safety of its CTE apprentices consistent with the considerations described and discussed above. The Department is seeking comments on these longstanding criteria, particularly to ensure how the ratios are applied in both emerging and traditional industries that provide CTE apprentices with foundational skills and competencies and work experiences. The Department is also interested in comments about setting ratios where there is a blended on-the-job training component with a registered apprenticeship under subpart A. Finally, the Department seeks comments on whether it should require a different CTE apprentice-to-journeyworker ratio because of the nature of this model being designed for students and their related employment.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(8) would establish the requirement for a probationary period that program sponsors of a registered CTE apprenticeship must include in program standards. The probationary period for registered CTE apprenticeship programs may not exceed 30 days. Proposed § 29.24(c)(8) differs from proposed § 29.8(a)(12) by creating a shorter probationary timeframe for registered CTE apprenticeship. The 30-day probation period aligns with customary practices Perkins-eligible recipients and institutions utilize to allow students to change courses at the outset of a semester. For example, a CTE apprentice may choose to change their course schedule or enroll in another program or other coursework unrelated to the registered CTE apprenticeship for which they were admitted. The probationary period is also shortened to recognize that registered CTE apprenticeship programs' on-the-job training hours are shorter in length than those of registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A. The Department is interested in comments about whether the probationary period length is appropriate for CTE students' participation in and program sponsors' operation of CTE programs and registered CTE apprenticeship programs.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(9) follows proposed § 29.8(a)(15) and would require that the standards of registered CTE apprenticeship include an attestation that the program sponsor will provide adequate, safe, and accessible facilities for the training and supervision of apprentices. The attestation must include that the program sponsor will provide accessible facilities (including for individuals with disabilities), aligning with the Department's broader goal that registered CTE apprenticeship programs registered under this part are career pathways available to everyone. The Department adds that the attestation would also require that the facilities be compliant with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, including, but not limited to, disability, occupational safety, and occupational health laws.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(10) follows proposed § 29.8(a)(16) and would require that the standards of registered CTE apprenticeship include an attestation that the program sponsor will provide adequate, industry-recognized safety training for apprentices in both the on-the-job training and CTE apprenticeship-related instruction components of the registered CTE apprenticeship program. Proposed § 29.24(c)(10) would require that safety training provided to CTE apprentices be tailored to mitigate the potential workplace hazards that may be encountered in the covered industry skills framework on-the-job training outline. This proposed requirement would help ensure the safety of apprentices participating in registered CTE apprenticeship programs.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(11) would establish the requirement that program sponsors of a registered CTE apprenticeship include in their standards the minimum qualifications, if any, required by a sponsor and its participating employers for persons entering the CTE apprenticeship program. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that program eligibility and subsequent opportunities for CTE apprentices to participate in the paid on-the-job component of their registered CTE apprenticeship program have inclusive, achievable, and standardized minimum qualifications to ensure fair and equitable opportunities for all students looking to access and enter a registered CTE apprenticeship. This provision would also acknowledge that program sponsors and employers have minimum qualifications for entry, such as a student's responsibility to have completed requisite coursework, and have an appropriate attendance history. The Department requests comment on whether program sponsors and employers should be permitted to establish a certain minimum grade point average for CTE apprentices to obtain entry into, or maintain enrollment in, a registered CTE apprenticeship program.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(12) would follow existing requirements under the current regulations at 29 CFR part 29 and proposed § 29.8(a)(2) under subpart A and would apply to this part. Proposed § 29.24(c)(12) would require program sponsors of registered CTE apprenticeship programs to include a provision in their program standards that describes the program's method for the selection of apprentices. The current regulations specify that program standards for all registered apprenticeship programs must fully comply with the EEO in Apprenticeship regulations at 29 CFR part 30, and current 29 CFR 29.5(b)(21)—which forms the basis for the language proposed at § 29.8(a)(2) in subpart A
The EEO in Apprenticeship regulations at 29 CFR 30.10 reiterate the part 29 requirement that sponsors must submit selection procedures in the written plan for their program standards, which are submitted to and approved by the Registration Agency. The regulations at 29 CFR 30.10 stipulate that sponsors may use any method or combination of methods for the selection of apprentices, as long as the selection method(s) comply with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures found at 41 CFR part 60-3, which require an evaluation of the selection procedures' impact on race, sex, and ethnic groups, as well as a demonstration of the business necessity for procedures that result in an adverse impact across any of these demographic groups. The regulations at 29 CFR 30.10 also stipulate that selection procedures be applied uniformly and consistently across all applicants and apprentices, and that the selection procedures must comply with title I of the ADA and the implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 1630. Finally, the regulations at 29 CFR 30.10 clarify that selection procedures must be facially neutral with respect to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age (40 or older), genetic information, and disability. Per the ruling from
Proposed § 29.24(c)(13) would require program sponsors to provide a list of any supportive services that may be available to the CTE apprentice, including childcare, transportation, equipment, tools, or any other supportive service provided by the sponsor or a partnering organization. This proposal would provide an opportunity for the CTE apprentice to be aware of any supports they may have access to or receive during their participation in the program. Such supports may be arranged through partner organizations or in coordination with the workforce development system.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(14) would largely follow proposed § 29.8(a)(20), which would change an existing requirement concerning the granting of advanced standing, credit, and an increased wage to an apprentice and confers this recognition to CTE apprentices. The proposed provision would require that the program sponsors' standards of registered CTE apprenticeship programs not only grant advanced standing, credit, and an increased wage to a CTE apprentice when appropriate, but explicitly instruct sponsors to include a process by which they will reduce the usual term of on-the-job training or CTE apprenticeship-related instruction. This change would recognize that the reduction of the usual term of on-the-job training or related instruction may be appropriate in two scenarios: (1) where a CTE apprentice comes to a program with prior qualifications that warrant the reduction of the usual term of on-the-job training or related instruction, such as previous enrollment in a program that aligns with the program in CTE apprenticeship-related instruction in a registered CTE apprenticeship program; and (2) where an apprentice demonstrates expedited progress while in a registered CTE apprenticeship program that warrants the reduction of the usual term of on-the-job training or related instruction, such as the attainment of postsecondary credit that may be counted for matriculation purposes.
Further, proposed § 29.24(c)(14) would create two requirements for the process by which sponsors must abide. Proposed § 29.24(c)(14)(i) would require that the established process be fair, transparent, and objective in identifying, assessing, and documenting a registered CTE apprentice's prior learning or experience as well as any accelerated progress made by a CTE apprentice. Proposed § 29.24(c)(14)(ii) would require that the process must result in advanced standing, credit, and an increased wage that is commensurate with any progression granted because of the registered CTE apprentice's prior qualifications or accelerated progress. The Department notes that this feature of accelerating CTE apprentices was a feature of the competency-based model of registered apprenticeship under the current rule, which the Department is proposing to remove as a separate model. The Department recognizes that the utilization of industry skills frameworks for the attainment of industrywide skills and competencies resembles the competency model in some regards but is differentiated by the successful attainment of industrywide skills and competencies and not proficiency in any one occupation suitable for registered apprenticeship. The Department's proposal seeks to embed the benefits of competency attainment from this model with minimum employment duration requirements for on-the-job training. This proposal would allow sponsors the flexibility to advance apprentices, and for CTE apprentices to receive commensurate advancement in wages, based on their prior experience. This proposal would help to ensure sponsors continue to have some of the key flexibility components of the competency-based approach that are well-suited for registered CTE apprentices, with key quality enhancements enabling the Registration Agency, in coordination with a State CTE Agency, to review to ensure CTE apprentices are progressed fairly, and such processes are equitable, objective, and align with educational requirements embedded within a program.
The Department's proposed method of requiring a minimum amount of on-the-job training hours while allowing advanced standing based on existing competency is similar to the current “hybrid” model of registered apprenticeship and would provide the right balance of training participants to an industry standard and duration, while recognizing the unique skill and competency progressions of CTE
Proposed § 29.24(c)(15) would create a requirement that the standards of registered CTE apprenticeship include an attestation to document in writing that the qualifications and experience of the trainers and instructors providing the on-the-job training and CTE apprenticeship-related instruction to CTE apprentices satisfy the requirements in proposed § 29.12 of subpart A. The requirement in this section would be an acknowledgment in the standards that the requirements of proposed § 29.12 are being met. The Department believes it is important that the standards of registered CTE apprenticeship include this requirement so that the Registration Agency can ensure that trainers are qualified and so that apprentices know that they are being trained by qualified individuals.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(16) would require that registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors identify the Registration Agency and State CTE Agency for which the program is being registered. The purpose of this proposed provision is to ensure that both coordinating entities are accurately identified and that such information is available to the CTE apprentices and their parents or guardian, if applicable, as well as the Registration Agency for conducting program reviews and coordinating with a State CTE Agency as applicable in the written agreement.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(17) would address a program's adherence to EEO Requirements and would stipulate that the standards of registered CTE apprenticeship must include the equal opportunity pledge as required in § 30.3(c), as well as a statement that the program must be conducted, operated, and administered in conformity with all applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 30.
Proposed § 29.24(c)(18) would require program sponsors of a registered CTE apprenticeship to include in standards the contact information of the appropriate party to address complaints within the program. In addition to filing complaints with the program, CTE apprentices may make complaints to a Registration Agency consistent with paragraph (g) of this section, and information on how to do so must be included in the apprentice agreement as required by paragraph (e) of this section.
Proposed § 29.24(d) would describe the entities eligible to be a sponsor of a registered CTE apprenticeship program, the process for which a sponsor registers a registered CTE apprenticeship program, additional responsibilities for intermediaries designated to be program sponsors, and the requirement for program sponsors to enter into an adoption agreement.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(1) would establish the types of organizations and entities that may be eligible for registration by a Registration Agency to serve as a sponsor of a registered CTE apprenticeship program. For the registered CTE apprenticeship model, the Department envisions LEAs, institutions of higher education, State CTE Agencies, or another State government agency that shares responsibility for CTE in the State, as the primary organizations and entities that may serve as a program sponsor. Such Perkins-eligible recipients and agencies are embedded within the existing infrastructure of Perkins and are well-positioned to perform many of the programmatic and administrative requirements that program sponsors must perform under this part. The proposed eligible registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor organizations and entities have institutional experience and acumen working with and supporting students who are enrolled in CTE programs. Consistent with statutory Perkins requirements as administered by ED, Perkins-eligible recipients and agencies that provide administrative and programmatic oversight would be required to ensure that rigorous academic standards are developed, implemented, successfully met, and continuously refined to provide CTE students with educational outcomes that prepare them for career pathways in high-demand industries that offer good jobs. In addition, administrators and CTE faculty would be equipped with certified training to perform the requisite administration and execution of recognized programs that registered CTE apprenticeship has included as an integral component for CTE apprenticeship-related instruction. To the extent that any of the aforementioned organizations and entities chose to designate as a program sponsor an intermediary, they may do so by entering into an agreement.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(1)(iv) would allow a State CTE Agency, State Educational Agency, LEA, or institution of higher education to designate an intermediary to act as a program sponsor. To serve as a sponsor, intermediaries should have expertise in organizing and coordinating registered CTE apprenticeship programs or registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A. The following organizations and entities are examples of entities that may qualify to be designated as an intermediary: the local affiliate of a labor organization, such as a joint apprenticeship and training committee; an employer; the local affiliate of a trade or industry organization; a local workforce development board as established under WIOA; an institution of higher education (including community or technical colleges, 4-year degree granting institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Minority Serving Institutions); an LEA; and any other public, private, or not-for-profit entity that has experience coordinating Perkins funding. This broad list of examples shows the potential models that may be developed in coordination and partnership at the State or local level. In practice, a number of potential program sponsors that would be eligible under this part operate consortia and designate responsibility to LEAs, institutions of higher education, or non-profit organizations that specialize in the administration and operation of education programs. The Department understands that States and local education systems may need flexibility in designing registered CTE apprenticeship programs to accommodate nuances in the development and articulation. The Department is most interested in comments about both the feasibility and capacity of the proposed eligible organizations and entities and the types of intermediaries that may be designated through an agreement to develop registered CTE apprenticeship programs within existing CTE programs.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(2) would contain the requirements for a program sponsor to submit an application for registration of a new registered CTE apprenticeship program. The Department anticipates electronic submission of applications, which would lead to increased timely technical assistance. The Department has successfully launched a web-based platform called Standards Builder, which has also been leveraged by SAAs and could be utilized for the registration of registered CTE apprenticeship programs. While there is no requirement that standards must be submitted electronically in the current rule for registered apprenticeship programs, the Department anticipates that requiring submissions electronically would result in better customer service, enable technical assistance to be provided electronically and timely, and could yield more responsive approvals of programs that meet the requirements of this part and part 30. The Department anticipates continuing to expand and refine its development of web-based tools to assist in the registration process, and requiring electronic submissions would allow OA to focus its efforts more on providing sponsors technical assistance than on reviewing and providing feedback through nonelectronic means.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(i) through (v) would require a prospective program sponsor to submit: (1) an on-the-job training outline that aligns with an associated industry skills framework, set forth in proposed § 29.24(b); (2) a registered CTE apprenticeship-related instruction outline, set forth in proposed § 29.24(c)(2); (3) standards of registered CTE apprenticeship for the proposed program, set forth in proposed § 29.24(c); and (4) the CTE apprenticeship agreement for the registered CTE apprenticeship, set forth in proposed § 29.24(e). These requirements would capture the core elements of a registered CTE apprenticeship program and ensure that program sponsors have addressed such core elements in the submission process to register a program.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(v)(A) through (G) would require a registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor to include a written plan with seven components. Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(v)(A) would require a description of how the program will ensure the students who are selected to participate in the registered CTE apprenticeship program reflect a diverse and inclusive cross-section of the current student body enrollment of the participating secondary or postsecondary school(s), consistent with the requirements of 29 CFR part 30. The purpose of this component of the written plan is for the program sponsor to demonstrate to the Registration Agency that the program sponsor is providing equitable opportunities for all students within the educational institution. Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(v)(B) would require a description of how the approved industry skills framework aligns with the existing CTE program. The purpose of this component of the written plan is to ensure that there is alignment between the industrywide skills and competencies detailed within an Administrator-approved industry skills framework with a State-approved CTE program. Standards of registered CTE apprenticeship would not impact, direct, or control Perkins CTE programs, as such are completely within local control as established in 20 U.S.C. 2306a. Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(v)(C) would require a description of recognized postsecondary credentials the program may provide, including how the program confers such credentials, and its usefulness for apprentices' entry into employment, a registered apprenticeship program under subpart A, a postsecondary educational program, or some combination thereof. The purpose of this component of the written plan is to demonstrate the likelihood that the registered CTE apprenticeship would provide corresponding educational credentials and provide a pathway for a CTE apprentice to enter into any one of the aforementioned outcomes.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(v)(D) would require a written description from the registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor of how they will ensure that each employer participating in the program has an established record of maintaining a safe and inclusive workplace that is free from discrimination, violence, harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against employees. The purpose of including this description is to ensure the safety and welfare of CTE apprentices participating in the on-the-job training component of the program.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(v)(E) would require a written description from the registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor of how CTE apprentices will have access to a broad range of career services and supportive services that enable participation in, and successful completion of, the CTE apprenticeship program. The purpose of including this assurance is to provide transparency to potential program participants and their families that such services are available so students can equitably access, participate in, and complete a CTE apprenticeship program regardless of potential socioeconomic barriers that would otherwise provide a financial hardship to the CTE apprentice or their families.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(v)(F) would require a written description from the registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor of how it will conduct routine monitoring and oversight of all aspects of the registered CTE apprenticeship program. The purpose of this written assurance is to ensure a program sponsor is aware of its responsibility to provide timely and accurate monitoring and oversight to maintain the functionality and integrity of the registered CTE apprenticeship program and to allow the Registration Agency to take necessary corrective action if the sponsor fails to abide by this assurance.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(v)(G) would require a written description from the registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor of how the program will take affirmative steps to adhere to the requirements of 29 CFR part 30. This section is the same concept as proposed for registered apprenticeship programs in proposed § 29.10(a)(8) and the Department is including this provision here, with updates to account for registered CTE apprenticeship programs and CTE apprentices in the proposed text to ensure this provision is referencing the terms of subpart B.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(vi) would require a written assurance from the registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor that parties involved with the operation of the registered CTE apprenticeship program, such as employers, partnering educational institutions, and designated intermediaries, agree to the specific commitments, roles, and responsibilities addressed in the program standards. In addition, proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(vii) would require an assurance that such agreements be formalized through memoranda of understanding or other written agreements. This proposed provision would help establish that the prospective sponsor has engaged with these stakeholders and partners and would allow the Registration Agency to hold the sponsor accountable if they have not engaged these stakeholders and partners.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(2)(vii) would require a written assurance from the registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor that, consistent with § 29.18, the sponsor will maintain any required records that the Registration Agency considers necessary to determine
Proposed § 29.24(d)(3) would require an intermediary that has been designated as a program sponsor under proposed § 29.24(d)(1)(iv) to comply with the requirements of this subpart and coordinate with relevant Perkins educational institutions and agencies to ensure program sponsor requirements are met, including the complete electronic submission of written assurances under proposed § 29.24(d)(2) as well as any and all State and local State laws, requirements of a State CTE Agency, and any other agency that administers Perkins CTE programs in the State for which there may be additional requirements that apply. The Department recognizes that intermediaries, depending upon the organization or entity designated, may need to coordinate with partnering educational institutions and agencies to share applicable registered CTE apprenticeship information, in compliance with section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act, as amended, commonly known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), to meet the proposed requirements of this part. The Department is interested in hearing from potential registered CTE apprenticeship intermediaries about the potential challenges and opportunities for meeting requirements of a program sponsor in this part and the role Registration Agencies and State CTE Agencies may play to facilitate an intermediary's participation in this new model.
Proposed § 29.24(d)(4) follows the entirety of proposed § 29.11 in subpart A and would prescribe the content and operational requirements for a written sponsor standards adoption agreement, as defined in proposed § 29.2, between a sponsor and a participating employer that is reached outside of a collective bargaining process. The Department believes this addition would be critical for the registered CTE apprenticeship model because employers are not eligible sponsors of this model. Given the vital role employers play in providing the on-the-job training in both the registered apprenticeship and registered CTE apprenticeship model, it is important that an adoption agreement for employers is developed. The Department notes that the main difference in subpart B is the name of the agreement, so the regulated community can distinguish between the agreements an employer signs for subpart A (a program standards adoption agreement) and the agreement an employer signs for subpart B (a sponsor standards adoption agreement). Agreements between the sponsors of a registered CTE apprenticeship program and an individual employer that participates in that sponsor's program would be required under this proposal for registered CTE apprenticeship. The Department believes that the inclusion of a regulatory provision expressly obligating participating employers to comply with the sponsor's standards of registered CTE apprenticeship and to adhere to the requirements contained in 29 CFR parts 29 and 30 would serve to bolster registered CTE apprenticeship program accountability and integrity and protect the safety and welfare of CTE apprentices. Because a participating employer in a sponsor's group program will typically be the entity that employs and pays wages to CTE apprentices enrolled in a registered CTE apprenticeship program, and that also typically provides close on-the-job direct supervision and training to such individuals, it follows that such employers should be obligated to adhere to the same standards of CTE apprenticeship and regulatory obligations as the sponsor of the program so that apprentices are protected and receive the full benefit of the program.
As with registered apprenticeship, the Department views the formal apprenticeship agreement between a program sponsor and a CTE apprentice as a foundational element of registered CTE apprenticeship that protects the welfare of CTE apprentices by clarifying the terms and conditions of the program in which they intend to participate, and by serving as a verifiable record of such terms and conditions. The Department views the apprenticeship agreement as holding equal value and importance under each model, and accordingly has proposed provisions in subpart B that largely mirror the apprenticeship agreement provisions in subpart A, with some minor adjustments or revisions that reflect the relevant entities and context for registered CTE apprenticeship programs. As with registered apprenticeship, the Department views CTE apprenticeship agreements as a critical tool for protecting CTE apprentices' welfare by establishing transparency and accountability. Further, the Department recognizes that the success of efforts to expand registered apprenticeship, including through the creation of this newly proposed registered CTE apprenticeship model, depends in part on the effective communication of the benefits of CTE apprenticeship and what CTE apprentices can expect to achieve in terms of their career development through participation in a registered CTE apprenticeship program. The Department views the CTE apprenticeship agreement as an important tool not only for holding all parties accountable to a program's agreed-upon terms and conditions, but also as a tool to succinctly explain the purpose, benefits, and intended outcomes of a registered CTE apprenticeship program. For registered CTE apprenticeship, clarifying the shape and value of such outcomes, and the program's training and instruction plan for achieving such outcomes, is critical for explaining the potential value of this new apprenticeship model and encouraging enrollment in any newly created registered CTE apprenticeship programs.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(1) mirrors the proposed regulatory text at proposed § 29.9(a) and would establish that all registered CTE apprenticeship programs must develop an apprenticeship agreement containing the terms and conditions of the training and instruction plan for CTE apprentices. The proposed text at § 29.24(e)(1) differs slightly in that it would require that the agreement include the program's terms and conditions for education of registered CTE apprentices, in addition to the employment and training of apprentices contained at proposed § 29.9(a). This reflects the educational context of registered CTE apprenticeship, including the entities the Department expects would establish and participate in such programs, and the model's increased focus on education and classroom learning.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(1)(i) through (v) would establish the list of parties that must sign the apprenticeship agreement for registered CTE apprenticeship programs. These parties would include the CTE apprentice (proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i)), the CTE apprentice's parent or legal guardian if the CTE apprentice is
Proposed § 29.24(e)(2) would provide that the signed apprenticeship agreement (which includes the program standards for the registered CTE apprenticeship program) must be provided to the CTE apprentice and their parent or legal guardian, as applicable, prior to the apprenticeship's start date. This provision largely reflects the proposed requirement at proposed § 29.9(b), but would intentionally include the CTE apprentice's parent or legal guardian as parties who must receive the agreement prior to the start of the apprenticeship term. This difference between the recipients of the apprenticeship agreement at proposed § 29.9(b) and proposed § 29.24(e)(2) reflects the school-aged population (secondary or postsecondary students) that may participate in registered CTE apprenticeship programs, and the importance of keeping their parents or legal guardians informed of the terms and conditions of this new career development opportunity for their child or dependent, including the hourly demands it will place on the students' schedules, assurances of the safe and welcoming environment the student would encounter through the program, and what their child or dependent can expect to receive through participating in the program to support their professional development.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(i) through (xvi) would list 16 elements that apprenticeship agreements must contain for registered CTE apprenticeship, and this list of elements mirrors the elements that must be contained in apprenticeship agreements for registered apprenticeship at proposed § 29.9(c)(1) through (16). Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(i) and (ii) would provide that apprenticeship agreements for registered CTE apprenticeship programs must include contact and identifying information for CTE apprentices (including date of birth and, on a voluntary basis, their Social Security number) and contact information for the Registration Agency, sponsor, and any participating employers. While the Social Security number is not required to be reported to the Registration Agency, it will need to be provided to the employer. These elements would mirror the required elements for the apprenticeship agreements in registered apprenticeship at proposed § 29.9(c)(1) and (2) and would ensure that the apprenticeship agreement is a reliable source for up-to-date contact information for those individuals participating in registered CTE apprenticeship programs, and those parties involved in registering, overseeing, and operating a program.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(iii) would contain some differences from its companion provision at proposed § 29.9(c)(3). For registered CTE apprenticeship, the Department proposes that the apprenticeship agreement must include the identification of the job or occupation the CTE apprentice will be employed in, as well as the industry skills framework and CTE apprenticeship-related instruction outline that underpin the program's alignment with an established CTE course of study and a career readiness framework (in the context of registered CTE apprenticeship, this is known as the industry skills framework). These elements would mirror the related instruction and work process schedule for registered apprenticeship (the subject of proposed § 29.9(c)(3)) and the Department is including the relevant terminology at proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(iii) for clarity regarding which terminology applies within each model.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(iv) would provide that the apprenticeship agreement includes the program's standards for the registered CTE apprenticeship and would mirror the proposed regulatory text at proposed § 29.9(c)(4) for apprenticeship agreements in registered apprenticeship. Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(v) would mirror the proposed regulatory text at proposed § 29.9(c)(5) and would provide that apprenticeship agreements under the registered CTE apprenticeship model must describe the roles, duties, and responsibilities of CTE apprentices, sponsors, and participating employers. As with proposed § 29.9(c)(5), proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(v) would stipulate that any employers participating in registered CTE apprenticeship programs must provide CTE apprentices with information about their rights and protections under Federal, State, and local labor laws and the process for filing complaints with the relevant Registration Agency. The reasons for these proposed requirements in the CTE apprenticeship agreement are the same as for the apprenticeship agreement under subpart A.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(vi) would provide that the apprenticeship agreement must provide the beginning and expected end date for the term of the CTE apprenticeship, as well as the date when on-the-job training will begin. This differs from the requirement at proposed § 29.9(c)(6), which would require that apprenticeship agreements for registered apprenticeship programs provide the beginning dates for the program overall, the beginning date for on-the-job training, and the duration of the probationary period for the program. Regarding the probationary period, this proposal would provide that apprenticeship agreements for registered CTE apprenticeship programs must include a description of the program's probationary period and would stipulate that such period may not exceed 30 days. The Department is proposing to take a slightly different approach to probationary periods under the registered CTE apprenticeship model and recognizes that allowing a probationary period that lasts longer than 30 days would not serve the best interests of CTE apprentices. Apprentices in registered CTE apprenticeship programs must also enroll in an established CTE program, while job seekers considering participating in a registered apprenticeship program are not so connected to the program or occupation
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(vii) concerns wages paid to CTE apprentices and contains some differences from the apprenticeship agreement section for wages in registered apprenticeship at proposed § 29.9(c)(7). Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(vii) would require the apprenticeship agreement include the entry wage and graduated scale of increasing wages for registered CTE apprentices, as would be required at proposed § 29.9(c)(7), but would not include the “journeyworker wage” nor the “fringe benefits” information that would be required at proposed § 29.9(c)(7). The Department is not proposing any wage requirements tied to journeyworker wages in registered CTE apprenticeship programs. The CTE apprenticeship model's focus is on industry skills frameworks, and thus reflects an inherent flexibility in terms of a program's relation to several occupations, rather than just a single occupation as in registered apprenticeship. Thus, the Department does not view the journeyworker wage in an occupation as relevant to the apprenticeship agreement for registered CTE apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(viii) would provide that the apprenticeship agreement must contain the allocation of hours between a registered CTE apprenticeship program's on-the-job training component and CTE apprenticeship-related instruction component, mirroring proposed § 29.9(c)(8) with the slight adjustment of the term “CTE apprenticeship-related instruction.”
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(ix) would provide that the apprenticeship agreement must explain the methods used over the course of the registered CTE apprenticeship program to measure CTE apprentices' attainment of competencies, which differs slightly from the requirement at proposed § 29.9(c)(9) that would also include measuring the apprentice's progress towards acquiring the competencies necessary for a registered apprenticeship program's end-point assessment. As discussed above, the Department has determined that end-point assessments will be a useful tool for measuring and affirming apprentices' proficiency in registered apprenticeship programs; however, such assessments would not be appropriate for the registered CTE apprenticeship model. The latter model is based on providing training and instruction within a broader scope of career readiness than the registered apprenticeship model, which focuses more acutely on proficiency within a specific occupation and aligns with an end-point assessment measuring such occupational proficiency. As such, the Department's proposed model for registered CTE apprenticeship does not include an end-point assessment and would grant registered CTE apprenticeship programs more flexibility in designing program completion measures that apply to the program's associated career pathways.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(x) would mirror the proposed regulatory language at § 29.9(c)(10) and would provide that, under both models, the apprenticeship agreement should describe any supportive services available to apprentices or CTE apprentices. These may include childcare services, transportation stipends or reimbursement programs, equipment or tools, or other supportive services under both models. This reflects the Department's consideration of advice from apprenticeship stakeholders, including the ACA, that the provision of supportive services is an important factor in addressing barriers to participation, particularly for underserved communities, individuals in rural communities, and individuals who face challenges or bear responsibilities for providing dependent care during typical working hours. The Department requests comment on whether registered CTE apprenticeship programs should be required to provide CTE apprentices with access to supportive services.
Similarly, proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(xi) would mirror the requirement at proposed § 29.9(c)(11) that apprenticeship agreements contain a description of the nature and amount of any unreimbursed costs associated with a program. As discussed above, the Department is concerned about excessive or undue participation costs and the burden they place on job seekers seeking to improve their career readiness through participation in a registered CTE apprenticeship program. The Department therefore proposes that registered CTE apprenticeship programs disclose all participation costs in the apprenticeship agreement so that CTE apprentices are not faced with unexpected costs once they have taken steps to participating in a registered CTE apprenticeship program.
To further its goal of establishing transparency throughout all apprenticeship programs registered for Federal purposes (including registered apprenticeship programs and registered CTE apprenticeship programs), the Department proposes to require that apprenticeship agreements under both models must include a description of any credentials, secondary credits, or postsecondary credit hours conferred upon participants who progress through the program. However, the Department expects that registered CTE apprenticeship programs may not provide the same breadth of credentials as a registered apprenticeship program more closely aligned with a specific occupation. Accordingly, the proposed regulatory text at proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(xii) would differ slightly from the proposed regulatory text at § 29.9(c)(12) in that the former would not refer to “occupational qualifications,” nor would it refer to other conditions or requirements that may be related to attaining an occupational qualification or licensure under Federal, State, or local laws or requirements. The Department expects that registered CTE apprenticeship programs would confer equally valuable credentials to registered CTE apprentices, in particular secondary credits or at least 12 postsecondary educational credit hours that may accelerate their progress through an educational curriculum or career development program. As such, for CTE apprenticeship agreements, the Department proposes that registered CTE apprenticeship programs include descriptions of the “secondary or postsecondary credits or credentials” associated with completing the program.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(xiii) would provide that apprenticeship agreements for the registered CTE apprenticeship model must include an affirmation from all parties that they will adhere to the applicable requirements of parts 29 and 30 governing registered apprenticeship and EEO in registered apprenticeship. This language would mirror the proposed regulatory text at proposed § 29.9(c)(13) and would reflect the Department's reiteration that, except when explicitly stated otherwise, the requirements of parts 29 and 30 would apply to any apprenticeship program registered for Federal purposes.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(xiv) would require a statement addressing whether the CTE apprentice is paid wages and benefits during the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction component of the
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(xv) would mirror the proposed regulatory language at proposed § 29.9(c)(15) and would require that apprenticeship agreements for registered CTE apprenticeship contain the contact information of those individuals or entities designated by the program to receive, review, and address any controversies or complaints that may arise. The Department expects that CTE apprentices would benefit from the clarity of understanding the process for filing, reviewing, and resolving complaints, and as such, is including proposed regulatory language to include contact information related to the program's complaint process for both registered apprenticeship and registered CTE apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(3)(xvi) would require the apprenticeship agreement to include the consent of the CTE apprentice, or their parent or guardian if the CTE apprentice is under 18 and not in attendance at a postsecondary institution, permitting the secondary or postsecondary institution in which the CTE apprentice is enrolled as a student to disclose individual apprentice level information to the program sponsor, to the entity designating any intermediary organization as a sponsor, to participating employers, to the Registration Agency and the Department, if OA is not the Registration Agency, and to and any other institution involved in administering the registered CTE apprenticeship program, as would be required under proposed subpart B of this part. Secondary and postsecondary institutions that receive Federal education funds under a program administered by ED must comply with FERPA. FERPA requires, among other things, that a parent of a student, or an “eligible student” (namely, a student who is 18 years of age or older or in attendance at a postsecondary institution at any age), provide prior written consent before an educational institution discloses personally identifiable information from the student's education records, unless an exception to FERPA's general written consent requirement applies. This provision would ensure that secondary or postsecondary institutions can meet their obligations under FERPA and disclose individual apprentice level information as required under the registered CTE apprenticeship program.
Proposed § 29.24(e)(4) would mirror the proposed regulatory text at proposed § 29.9(d) that would prohibit registered apprenticeship program sponsors from including any non-compete provisions or other provisions that would serve to restrict an apprentice's labor market mobility. The Department views this proposed prohibition of non-compete and other restrictive labor clauses as a key reform in this proposed update to the part 29 regulations and seeks to apply this prohibition to any apprenticeship programs registered for Federal purposes. Given the nature of the registered CTE apprenticeship model's outcomes being designed for placement in employment, a postsecondary educational program, or a registered apprenticeship program under subpart A, the Department does not expect non-compete provisions would be as likely as in registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A. Nevertheless, the Department expects that this important worker protection would maximize the potential benefits of apprenticeship training for all participants, whether they are students, job seekers seeking to receive training in a specific occupation, or experienced workers seeking to change careers. As such, the Department proposes including the prohibition on non-compete and other restrictive labor clauses in the apprenticeship agreements section for registered CTE apprenticeship.
Similarly, at proposed § 29.24(e)(5), the Department proposes to apply the same prohibition against non-disclosure provisions from the proposed § 29.9(e) covering apprenticeship agreements for registered apprenticeship programs. The Department sees no reason to exempt registered CTE apprenticeship programs from these proposed prohibitions on clauses that would serve to restrict an apprentice's labor market mobility and future success finding employment. On the contrary, CTE apprentices who receive training and instruction via an industry skills framework, potentially covering multiple occupations, are potentially more at risk of suffering career consequences via the inclusion of such clauses given that they are at an early stage of their careers and would not be well-served by any restriction on the employers or occupations they may wish to pursue.
Finally, proposed § 29.24(e)(6) would mirror the proposed requirement at proposed § 29.9(f) and would stipulate that registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors must submit a completed copy of the executed apprenticeship agreement for each individual apprentice it registers for participation in its program to the Registration Agency within 30 days of the execution of the agreement. In this NPRM's preamble section-by-section discussion at proposed § 29.9(f), the Department explains that the proposed 30-day timeframe for submitting executed apprenticeship agreements to the Registration Agency would be a reduction from existing policy (from 45 days to 30 days) in the amount of time a sponsor has to submit agreements, and
The Department invites comments from the public on all aspects of the apprenticeship agreement requirements for registered CTE apprenticeship programs, including whether any of the apprenticeship agreement elements from proposed § 29.9 (applying to registered apprenticeship programs) should not apply to registered CTE apprenticeship, or whether the Department should apply different parameters based on the differences between these two models of registered apprenticeship, or whether additional elements should be added.
Proposed § 29.24(f) provides that Registration Agencies would issue certificates of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship to CTE apprentices who complete all of the requirements of the program. This proposal is similar to the Certificate of Completion Registration Agencies would issue to apprentices in registered apprenticeship programs in subpart A. These Certificates of Completion are important milestones for all apprentices and help to signify their value in the job market and opportunities for advancement in their career. The Department envisions registered apprenticeship programs in subpart A would consider providing advanced standing as described in § 29.8 to CTE apprentices who complete a registered CTE apprenticeship program and can demonstrate their completion with a certificate of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship.
Proposed § 29.24(g) contains the provisions related to the administrative requirements for Registration Agencies operating Registered CTE apprenticeship programs. This section is designed to address the core duties of Registration Agencies and their roles and responsibilities in the registered CTE apprenticeship model. Included in this are key provisions related to technical assistance and registration of programs, establishment of a compliant process for CTE apprentices, the operation of program reviews, deregistration processes, the recognition of Registration Agencies, data collection and metrics from programs, and program exemptions.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(1) would provide the process that the Registration Agency uses when it receives an application from a prospective program sponsor. Similar to subpart A, the Registration Agency must make a determination within 90 days of the receipt of a complete application as to whether the program has met the requirements of this subpart and is eligible for program registration. The Registration Agency would be responsible for informing applicants in writing of all decisions regarding the program registration. Additionally, if programs are denied approval for registration, the reasons for the denial must be explained in writing. These provisions would help to ensure a transparent process for sponsors and Registration Agencies for the review and approval of programs.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(2) is a provision on the role of Registration Agencies in providing technical assistance and other support, including outreach, technical assistance, and other assistance such as referrals to registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A to sponsors or other potential partners to support the adoption and expansion of registered CTE apprenticeship programs in a State.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(3) would provide a provision for CTE apprentice complaints similar to what the Department has proposed for registered apprenticeship programs in subpart A at proposed § 29.17. The Department anticipates that complaints arising under the registered CTE apprenticeship model would undergo a similar process to complaints submitted by apprentices under subpart A, and the discussion of that process is described in § 29.17. Though this section cites to § 29.17 for this process, the Department is proposing one difference, which would provide that the Registration Agency may refer complaints to the State CTE Agency as appropriate. Due to the close coordination with the State CTE Agencies envisioned under this proposed subpart, the Department anticipates that some complaints filed with the Registration Agency may be better addressed through a referral to the State CTE Agency. For example, a CTE apprentice who has a concern about their CTE program may submit a complaint to the Registration Agency. In those instances, and depending on the nature of the complaint, the Department believes that the CTE apprentice's issue may be best addressed by the State CTE Agency. The Department envisions that the process for such referrals may be addressed in the written agreement between the Registration Agency and the State CTE Agency proposed in paragraph (a). The Department welcomes any comments on the value of a proposed alignment of complaint provisions with subpart A, or if any other processes or deviations other than the one discussed above should be considered.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(4) would provide for the conduct of program reviews to confirm the Registration Agency can ensure the program is operating in compliance with this subpart. The Department, under paragraph (g)(4)(i), is proposing to utilize the process described in proposed § 29.19 in subpart A for the process and conduct of program reviews by a Registration Agency. Proposed paragraph (g)(4)(ii) would provide that the reviews should be coordinated between the Registration Agency and the State CTE Agency, the process for which would be addressed in the written agreement described in paragraph (a). The Department envisions that examples of quality program reviews may include the State CTE Agency reviewing the CTE portions of the program while the Registration Agency reviews the labor standards. The Department is allowing flexibility on how this is coordinated but does expect a strategy or agreement to be included in the written agreement described in paragraph (a). Proposed paragraph (g)(4)(iii) provides clarity that program reviews under this subpart would not impact an entity's eligibility under, or compliance with, the Perkins programs. This provision is to make clear that the Registration Agency's authority is limited to the registration of the program and would not extend to determining eligibility for CTE funding. Perkins CTE programs would not be governed by this subpart, but rather must meet the requirements of the Perkins statute as administered by ED. The Department welcomes comments on the alignment of program review provisions, including about the goal of a joint review process with the State CTE Agency. The current proposal encourages the idea of concurrent reviews but is proposing to provide flexibility to Registration Agencies and State CTE Agencies to address that process or alternatives as part of the written agreement in paragraph (a).
Proposed § 29.24(g)(5) would provide for the deregistration of programs that fail to meet the requirements of this subpart. The ability to deregister
Proposed § 29.24(g)(6) would provide the same hearings process as described in proposed § 29.21 in subpart A. Given that both models of registered apprenticeship under subparts A and B have similar processes for registration, review, and deregistration, the Department is proposing to align this process for hearings. The Department welcomes any comments on the proposed alignment of this process with subpart A, particularly regarding if any deviations would provide administrative efficiencies.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(7) would provide the same hearings on deregistration process proposed in § 29.21 of subpart A. As described throughout this paragraph, the Department is proposing to align administrative processes as much as possible to minimize parallel processes for the registration, review, data collection, and oversight of registered CTE apprenticeship programs with registered apprenticeship programs in subpart A.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(8) would provide for the process of recognizing Registration Agencies for registered CTE apprenticeship. Registration Agencies would be responsible for the registration of CTE apprenticeship programs, which would provide opportunities to build alignment between registered apprenticeship programs in subpart A and registered CTE apprenticeship programs. Registration Agencies may be OA or a recognized SAA. Given the proposed requirement in paragraph (a) that there be a written agreement between the State CTE Agency and the Registration Agency, the Department does not anticipate considering National Program Standards for Apprenticeship, as proposed in subpart A, as an option for this model. One of the primary goals of this rulemaking is to bring greater alignment between registered apprenticeship models with State and local education systems. The Department envisions this localized alignment would result in quality program design tailored to local economies. As such, OA is only considering local registration by the State's respective Registration Agency. The Department is open to comments on national program registration models, and whether that could ensure alignment with State and local educational systems.
The Department clarifies that adopting the requirements of subpart B would not be a requirement for an SAA to obtain or maintain recognition as a Registration Agency and SAA. The Department acknowledges the unique requirements and partnerships needed at the State and local level to develop quality registered CTE apprenticeship programs and would not condition an SAA's recognition to register apprenticeship programs under subpart A of this part on a requirement that they must also register programs described in this subpart.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(8)(i) would identify the circumstances in which OA may serve as the Registration Agency in a particular State. OA may serve as the Registration Agency in States where the OA Administrator has not recognized an SAA in the State, and there is a written agreement between OA and the State CTE Agency, as described in paragraph (a), for the registration of CTE apprenticeship programs in the State. Under this proposal, OA would not serve as a Registration Agency in States that have a recognized SAA or if there is not a written agreement with the State CTE Agency. Given the importance of aligning the State's education system with this model, the Department does not anticipate the registration of programs in States that do not develop written agreements with OA or do not have a recognized SAA.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(8)(ii)(A) through (D) would provide the process by which SAAs may seek recognition for the registration of CTE apprenticeship programs. The Department is proposing to limit the ability to be a Registration Agency to those entities that are Registration Agencies for the purposes of registering apprenticeship programs under subpart A. This would ensure alignment at the State level by providing that entities approving registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A are the same entities approving registered CTE apprenticeship programs under subpart B. This would help ensure greater alignment in program design, technical assistance, and administrative procedures and minimize redundancies at the State level for the registration of programs. SAAs recognized or seeking recognition under subpart C of this proposed rule would be recognized as Registration Agencies for CTE apprenticeship if they meet the criteria described in proposed paragraphs (g)(8)(ii)(A) through (D).
Proposed § 29.24(g)(8)(ii)(A) would provide that the State's proposed or current apprenticeship laws for registered CTE apprenticeship meet or exceed the requirements for protecting the safety and welfare of CTE apprentices set forth in subpart B. This is the same standard that is being proposed for SAAs seeking recognition under subpart C. The proposed regulations are designed to set the minimum standards for registration, and SAAs may adopt requirements that include more protections for CTE apprentices in their laws.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(8)(ii)(B) would provide that the SAA must have entered into a written agreement with the respective State CTE Agency as described in paragraph (a), which outlines the required coordination between the respective agencies, including roles and responsibilities. This requirement would allow the Administrator to be sure that necessary coordination is occurring at the State level.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(8)(ii)(C) would provide that the State has submitted its relevant apprenticeship laws and CTE engagement strategies as part of its State Apprenticeship Plan submitted according to proposed § 29.27 in subpart C. This may be done concurrently as the State government agency is seeking recognition under subpart C for the purposes of registering apprenticeship programs under subpart A, or may be submitted as a modification to a State Apprenticeship Plan according to the criteria for modifications outlined in proposed § 29.27(a)(2).
Proposed § 29.24(g)(8)(ii)(D) would provide that the Administrator must approve concurrently, or have previously approved, the State government agency for recognition as an SAA under proposed § 29.27. This is designed to ensure that State government agencies would not be recognized for registering apprenticeship programs under subpart B without being approved to register programs for subpart A. The Department discussed previously that it believes it is critical that the Registration Agency for a particular State must be approved to register apprenticeship programs for subpart A purposes in order to be able
Proposed § 29.24(g)(9) is a provision related to the collection of data and quality metrics concerning registered CTE apprenticeship programs. The Department is largely proposing to align the data collection from sponsors and SAAs consistent with the requirements described in proposed § 29.25 of subpart C. The Department anticipates utilizing RAPIDS as the primary database and case management system for the collection and reporting of data on registered CTE apprenticeship programs and apprentices. The Department welcomes comments on the data collection for registered CTE apprenticeship, the proposed alignment with proposed § 29.25, and the key differences discussed below in data collection. Collectively, the Department envisions that a comprehensive data set and the alignment of reporting across both models of registered apprenticeship in this proposed rule will enable the Department to provide robust technical assistance to support stakeholders' compliance with these regulations.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(9)(i) is a provision for the collection of CTE apprentice information. The information being proposed to be collected is largely consistent with apprentice information that would be collected for apprentices under subpart A as described in proposed § 29.25(a). The discussion of those provisions is discussed in the preamble for § 29.25(a). The Department is proposing a consistent collection here with a few exceptions. For registered CTE apprenticeship under paragraph (g)(9)(i)(A), the Department would collect an associated industry skills framework with the program rather than the occupation associated with a registered apprenticeship under proposed § 29.25(a). This difference is based on the unique requirements in subpart B regarding associated industry skills frameworks as the basis for training in registered CTE apprenticeship rather than occupations suitable for registered apprenticeship. Separately, the Department is not proposing to collect pre-apprenticeship participation information as a regulatory requirement in this section because the Department anticipates pre-apprenticeship models to be more closely associated with registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A.
Proposed paragraph (g)(9)(i)(B) would provide for sponsors to report status updates based on similar changes as discussed in proposed § 29.25(a), with the exception that the updates would be made on an academic semester basis rather than within 30 days. This is to account for the unique nature of this model, and requirement that sponsors be largely from the education system.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(9)(1)(ii) is a provision for the collection of program sponsor information and quality metrics that would be generally consistent with the proposed program sponsor information proposed for collection under § 29.25 for registered apprenticeship programs under subpart A. The primary differences are that the program sponsor information would be collected for each industry skills framework in this section rather than by occupation under proposed § 29.25. Additionally, this paragraph proposes collecting information on the outcomes of registered CTE apprenticeship, which are placement in a registered apprenticeship under subpart A, a postsecondary educational program, or employment at the time of program completion. Employment for this purpose would mean employment outside of the employment associated with a registered apprenticeship program under subpart A.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(9)(iii) is a provision for information and reports based on the information collected in paragraph (g)(9)(ii) to be made publicly available by the Registration Agency, which would align with proposed § 29.25(c). This section also would include similar language to proposed § 29.28 regarding the reporting of information from SAAs. These provisions would help support a comprehensive system data on both models of registered apprenticeship envisioned under these proposed regulations.
Proposed § 29.24(g)(10) would provide for exemptions from the subpart B requirements similar to the proposal in § 29.23 of subpart A for registered apprenticeship. As described in the preamble to proposed § 29.23, such requests would be required to be made in writing and transmitted to the Administrator and would also be required to contain a statement of the reasons supporting the request. The Administrator would only grant an exemption for good cause. Examples of good cause can be found in the preamble to proposed § 29.23. The Department has added proposed language regarding exemptions that cannot be made because they are outside of this subpart, including exemptions to requirements provided for in other applicable Federal, State, or local laws. For instance, the Administrator cannot consider exemption requests from any CTE participation requirements related to a CTE program or provisions governing the Perkins programs.
In the 15 years since the registered apprenticeship regulations were last updated, advancements in technology and data functionality have transformed daily life in the United States and throughout the world. These developments include a major expansion of the ability to capture, collect, store, and use data. Institutions, businesses, governments, and organizations have prioritized the collection, application, and analysis of data to capitalize on opportunities to improve programs, policies, and outcomes. Within the world of registered apprenticeship, significant developments have been made since 2008 to keep pace with the increasing significance of data, including OA's efforts to develop and refine RAPIDS as a case management platform, with the goal of aligning with the growing role of data in the daily operations of employers and program sponsors within the National Apprenticeship System.
As part of the Department's effort to modernize data collection and reporting capabilities through RAPIDS, significant investments have been made to improve functionality and provide access and interoperability to SAAs for their data collection and reporting needs. The enhanced collection of quality data by Federal agencies is supported by the provisions of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-435), as well as President Biden's January 27, 2021 memorandum on restoring trust in government through evidence-based policymaking.
Proposed § 29.25 would formalize the requirements for sponsors to report apprentice and sponsor information to their Registration Agency and establish a requirement for the Department to make this information publicly available in the form of sponsor level and national summary reports. In practice, the Department has made available related information, but this proposal would provide stakeholders with more robust and consistent information about the National Apprenticeship System. The Department is interested in comments about the benefits of making public more information about the performance of registered apprenticeship programs and their benefits to apprentices or career seekers while balancing expectations for sponsors and apprentices with respect to program burden and privacy. While some of this type of reporting currently occurs through approved ICRs (
Proposed § 29.25(a) would establish the requirements for what information about individual apprentices must be collected and reported by sponsors to the Registration Agency. Under the current approach, this is done primarily through sponsors entering data into the RAPIDS system, and the Department anticipates this approach will continue. Sponsors in States that do not use the system provided by the Department, whether RAPIDS or another system, would use the case management system provided by their Registration Agency to collect this information. SAA States and their sponsors may voluntarily opt to use the Department's case management system as a cost-effective approach to enable and support the data collection and reporting process described in proposed § 29.28(d). The Department is exploring approaches that would allow for apprentices to self-report and update demographic information through the mechanisms provided by the Department, which would help to meet this requirement. Such mechanisms would allow individual apprentices to report to the Department sensitive information that they might be hesitant to provide to their employer.
The collection of individual information included in this proposed section would enable substantive program analyses, including cross-sectional analyses and improved data disaggregation that would serve to identify strengths and weaknesses of the National Apprenticeship System when it comes to crucial goals like DEIA, identifying best practices, increasing economic mobility, and improving performance outcomes. Collecting data in this manner in a more uniform way and utilizing a system provided by the Department would also reduce the burden of data collection on employers and would enable the Department to ensure the questions being posed to apprentices are asked in a consistent manner during data collection. The Department will follow all applicable laws and procedures to ensure data security.
Improved collection of demographic information would enable the Department to better disaggregate demographic data, in addition to leveraging such data to develop and track indices relating to equity in program access, exit, and completion, which can serve to inform and drive improvements towards greater equity in the National Apprenticeship System. These goals are not only important to the Department, but they are also aligned to the recommendations from the ACA on this subject. The Department is interested in comments about the Department's and SAAs' ability to collect individualized data and its benefits, particularly with regard to the ability to use cross-sectional analysis of demographic information to ensure that programs are operating equitably. The Department is also interested in comments discussing information or strategies that would help the Department assess the performance of programs in a more standardized manner.
Additionally, this section would establish that within 30 days of a change, in addition to a change of apprentice's status, sponsors must also report on the start date of on-the-job training for apprentices, changes to credentials attained, employment retention, and wage progression. This requirement would enable the Department to more fully track an apprentice's progress throughout the program including the issuance of licenses, degrees, and the full scope of credentials earned through registered apprenticeship programs, as recommended by the ACA. This additional information obtained through more regular updates would enable better analyses and more complete understanding of programs, particularly when it comes to assessments of program quality and informing potential apprentices' understanding of what to expect during their participation in a program.
Another benefit of these proposed requirements is that they would result in closer alignment between the National Apprenticeship System and WIOA, as these updates would ensure that reporting timeframes, processes, and many of the definitions are brought into closer alignment with the requirements for WIOA programs. By aligning the reporting requirements, reporting definitions, and reporting processes more closely, States would benefit from efficiency improvements
Proposed § 29.25(b) would establish the requirements for what information about sponsors and their programs must regularly be collected and reported by sponsors to the Registration Agency. Currently, this information is provided to the Department primarily by Registration Agencies entering data into the RAPIDS system, and the Department is anticipating that approach will continue. This information would include data about the sponsor and any participating employers. This section is divided into two paragraphs. Paragraph (b)(1) focuses on what type of information sponsors must update within 30 days of a status change, and paragraph (b)(2) describes items that must be updated and certified by sponsors on an annual basis. For sponsors using the system provided by the Department, whether RAPIDS or another system capable of collecting this data should updates be made in the future to the Department's IT and reporting systems, the Department anticipates that this process would involve sponsors ensuring that their data and information in the system are up to date and then certifying in that system that the records are current and accurate. The Department anticipates that sponsors that are not using the system provided by the Department would need to submit and certify a report in the system provided by the Department.
Under proposed § 29.25(b)(2) the Department anticipates the annual information being made available to the public to assist job seekers in being able to make informed choices about programs, and stakeholders would have a greater understanding of the scope, scale, and effectiveness of registered apprenticeship programs. This proposal would significantly enhance the amount of public information made available about registered apprenticeship programs and their outcomes. The Department is interested in comments on the appropriate amount of information collected and reported for public purposes, taking into account any burdens and privacy protections afforded to apprentices or programs. In balancing this, the Department is proposing to largely use measures that a Registration Agency would be able to calculate on behalf of a sponsor, rather than requiring unique measures that may require manual tracking.
One new measure would assist Registration Agencies in seeing if programs are exiting significant numbers of apprentices and not graduating them, which they can use as the basis for technical assistance. This measure, unlike the proposed cohort completion rate, would not exclude exiters during the probationary period of the program. However, the Department does consider this measure as being useful for considering any impacts in program design that lead to apprentices not completing their programs once they are apprentices. This measure would also align with the Department's ETP reporting under WIOA for program completion rates. This measure would be calculated as part of the data requirements of proposed § 29.25 and be subject to program reviews under proposed § 29.19. The Department is interested in any comments on this approach, including whether exits during the probationary period should be included and any other potential measures.
Another new measure, proposed § 29.25(b)(2)(viii), would assist Registration Agencies in determining the percentage of exiters that enter a postsecondary educational program or a career pathway program at the time of exit. The purpose of this new measure is to identify the extent to which apprentices who have either left a program prior to completion or completed a program enter into a postsecondary educational program or a career pathway program.
Proposed § 29.25(c) would establish annual reporting requirements for Registration Agencies, including OA, based on the information collected in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. This would include State and sponsor-level reporting and a national summary report. These requirements would serve to further enhance equity in the National Apprenticeship System; improve the overall quality of registered apprenticeship programs through improved transparency and accountability; and allow for disaggregating registered apprenticeship data for more informative publicly available and accessible products, as is recommended by the ACA. The Department is proposing in § 29.25(c)(3) that Registration Agencies use a series of supplemental information sources, in IC efforts. Registration Agencies should provide the necessary sources of information, such as surveys, wage records, or other valid support and technical assistance to sponsors to ensure that supplemental sources are valid and meet the criteria for ensuring effective reporting requirements. These supplemental sources would enable the calculation of quality metrics on a system level, such as post-apprenticeship employment retention rates calculated 6 and 12 months after program exit; annualized median earnings of exited apprentices; percentage of all completers of a registered apprenticeship program that are earning an income that allows them to support themselves and their
The registered apprenticeship system is intended to secure apprenticeship-related pathways that lead to occupations providing income that allow individuals to support themselves and their families. Accordingly, the Department seeks to establish a system-level performance reporting measure that would quantify income outcomes for apprentices registered under subpart A and CTE apprentices registered under subpart B. The Department is considering setting the income performance reporting measure at 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. (The Federal poverty level is a measure of income calculated annually by the Department of Health and Human Services and often used to determine Federal benefit eligibility.) If an individual receives at least 200 percent of the Federal poverty level (
The Department in proposed paragraph (c)(5) may decide to withhold certain information described above from publication for good cause (for example, if the publication of data may result in personally identifiable information becoming attributable to individuals, or if the data collected has been documented to be inaccurate). The Department is interested in any other comments regarding potentially withholding information from publication.
To support operability and implementation of proposed system level metrics the Department would conduct additional research, such as researching the effective mechanisms needed for training through a registered apprenticeship model that leads to sustainable careers, how supportive services may increase the annual completion rate, the cohort completion rate, and the subsequent earnings potential of apprentices. Utilizing this framework, as noted in proposed paragraph (c)(4), the Administrator plans to conduct evaluations and longitudinal studies to assess the impact and improve the effectiveness of registered apprenticeship programs. To the extent that information is collected in this process for the development, calculation, and implementation of publicly facing products, such as program and Registration Agency reports or dashboards, the Department may omit or suppress data or data elements necessary to protect apprentice personally identifiable data. The Department also may omit or suppress other information provided by sponsors that is collected through standards or requisite agreements that sponsors request to not be disclosed. The Department will provide guidance on this process and operational protocol through subregulatory guidance.
The Department is interested in any comments regarding these proposed measures, including additional or alternative measures. The Department is also interested in comments about the proposed measurement and IC framework as a means to make more programmatic information available to the public, particularly balancing the business needs of employers and sponsors, the privacy of apprentices, and the overarching goal of providing more information to the public, particularly to job seekers to assist in their career decisions.
The concept of SAAs serving as extensions of the Department in the registration of apprenticeship programs for Federal purposes has been and can continue to be an effective model to expand capacity, expertise, and local partnerships. SAAs can also serve as laboratories to promote innovative models of apprenticeship. SAAs have been innovative in moving into more formal roles in pre-apprenticeship programs and in youth apprenticeship models, even if those efforts to date are not officially recognized for Federal purposes. The Department supports these innovations at the State level that are designed to make more apprenticeship models and quality standards available to career seekers and youth.
However, ambiguity about the roles and responsibilities of SAAs relative to the roles and responsibilities of State Apprenticeship Councils, and inconsistent alignment with the Department's current apprenticeship regulations, has created a highly fragmented, inconsistent system that has deviated from the model envisioned by the current regulation and that has, in some instances, created a challenging market for sponsors and employers seeking to enhance and invest in their worker training through the registered apprenticeship training model.
Proposed § 29.26 would substantially revise the content of the provisions in existing § 29.13 concerning the duties and responsibilities of SAAs that are recognized by OA for Federal purposes. Among other things, this updated regulatory provision would describe the duties and responsibilities of recognized SAAs, as well as the proper allocation of responsibilities between such SAAs and the State Apprenticeship Councils that they are responsible for establishing and overseeing. The Department is concerned that the current version of the regulation has not been effective in delineating the respective duties and powers of the foregoing administrative and advisory bodies, which has seriously impeded the fair, efficient, consistent, and transparent operation of the National Apprenticeship System.
The Department has long taken the view that SAAs—acting as impartial and disinterested governmental bodies that are accountable to the elected executive authority within their respective States—are best suited to fairly and equitably discharge the administrative and oversight duties with respect to apprenticeships that have been entrusted to such SAAs by the Administrator. While the Department notes that many SAAs have admirably fulfilled these administrative responsibilities in accordance with the current regulatory requirements established at 29 CFR 29.13, the Department has also observed that other States have not operated in accordance with the current regulation. Specifically, while the current regulation (at 29 CFR 29.13(a)(2)) stipulates that a State Apprenticeship Council, which functions in a regulatory or advisory capacity, must be established by an SAA
The Department has received disturbing complaints from potential program sponsors—particularly those operating within the skilled trades—that have unsuccessfully sought to register apprenticeship programs in certain States where State Apprenticeship Councils have impermissibly exercised the authority to approve or deny applications for program registration. These complaints have often cited the infrequency of State Apprenticeship Council hearings to consider applications for registration (as these bodies typically meet only on a quarterly basis), repeated postponements of decisions by a State Apprenticeship Council on whether to approve or deny program standards or registration, and the absence of procedural due process, appeal rights, and a written record in those instances where a Council has improperly issued a negative final determination on a potential program's registration. Such conduct by State Apprenticeship Councils may help to explain why the speed of program registration in SAA States lags behind the pace of registrations in those States administered by OA.
Accordingly, this revised provision would clarify that an SAA that has received recognition (under proposed § 29.27) from the Administrator possesses the exclusive, non-delegable authority to evaluate, approve, register, monitor, oversee, suspend, and deregister apprenticeship programs operating within that State. The only exception would be when the Administrator—taking into account the interests of the National Apprenticeship System as a whole—chooses to exercise its residual authority to register an apprenticeship program on either a State-by-State or a nationwide basis.
Specifically, as a prerequisite for the recognition or continued recognition of an SAA by the Department, the proposed rule (at § 29.26(b)) would expressly prohibit a State—either in law or in practice—from delegating, assigning, or relinquishing any of the discretionary authority conferred by the Department upon an SAA, including with respect to registration determinations and the oversight of apprenticeship programs and standards within that State, to any external third-party entity, including a State Apprenticeship Council.
In a related vein, the proposed rule (at § 29.26(b)) would reiterate the requirement contained in the current rule (at 29 CFR 29.13(a)(2)) that State Apprenticeship Councils must operate under the direction and control of the SAAs that have established them, and would also expressly prohibit State Apprenticeship Councils from assuming or exercising any of the discretionary and inherently governmental regulatory and oversight duties with respect to apprenticeship that are properly vested in an SAA. The proposed rule would also eliminate the somewhat inchoate distinction posited under the current version of the regulation (at 29 CFR 29.2 and 29.13(a)(2)) between those State Apprenticeship Councils whose purposes and functions are “advisory” in nature from those that are “regulatory” in nature. The proposed rule instead would stipulate that all State Apprenticeship Councils must serve an exclusively advisory function. Specifically, the proposed rule (at § 29.26(c)) would limit the duties and powers of State Apprenticeship Councils to providing their respective SAAs with written, non-binding advice, recommendations, research, and reports concerning apprenticeship-related matters, and to providing advice in connection with the State's submission of the State Apprenticeship Plan that is required under § 29.27 of the proposed rule.
However, the Department wishes to note that the foregoing prohibition would not prohibit an SAA from using contractors or other third parties to perform tasks that do not involve or relate to duties described in proposed § 29.26(a), such as providing assistance to the SAA with promotional and public outreach activities. The SAA must retain the ultimate decision-making authority regarding whether an apprenticeship program qualifies for registration. In addition, the proposed regulation (at § 29.26(a)(5)) would require SAAs, as a precondition for receiving either initial or continued recognition, to provide OA with data relating to apprentices and registered apprenticeship programs in that State. This regulatory data-sharing requirement described in proposed § 29.28, if adopted, would enhance registered apprenticeship program transparency, and provide the public with a truly national picture of the performance of the National Apprenticeship System.
SAAs are defined, both under current regulations and under proposed § 29.2, as the agency of a State government that has responsibility and accountability for apprenticeships within the State. An approved SAA steps into the role of OA in that State, administering registered apprenticeship in lieu of OA and in a manner consistent with OA's role as outlined in these proposed regulations. In furtherance of a unified National Apprenticeship System, an SAA can only exercise this responsibility once it has established, among other things, that its laws, statutes, and regulations are consistent with Federal regulations, as discussed below. This serves to promote uniformity and consistency of experience, particularly for sponsors of registered apprenticeship programs and apprentices, among not only SAAs, but also those States where apprenticeship is regulated and overseen by OA. In short, it facilitates the establishment of a more unified National Apprenticeship System. Currently, there are 30 SAAs serving as Registration Agencies, a number that has increased over the last several years. This section would provide an explanation of the roles and responsibilities of SAAs and the general requirements to obtain recognition from the Administrator.
Proposed paragraph (a) is new and explains, upon recognition, what actions an SAA would be allowed to conduct for Federal purposes.
Proposed § 29.26(a)(1) and (7) would detail the SAA's role and responsibilities with respect to establishing and implementing apprenticeship-related regulations, policies, and procedures to meet the requirements of proposed parts 29 and 30. Proposed § 29.26(a)(2) through (6) and (8) through (10) would describe the SAA's role and responsibilities over the day-to-day establishment, operation, and oversight of registered apprenticeship programs. Efforts to expand and modernize the apprenticeship system must be inclusive of industries that are well-established within the apprenticeship system as well as industries seeking to begin or expand their participation. In furtherance of this goal, the SAA would
The Department proposed paragraph (a) to clarify the expected role and responsibilities of the SAA. The requirements in current § 29.13 have some description of the expected roles and responsibilities of the SAA, but that section is not clear, and the relevant roles and responsibilities are spread throughout the section. This proposed paragraph would make those roles and responsibilities clear and include them in one location for ease of use. Further, the Department is adding proposed paragraph (a) to establish the key responsibilities of SAAs, which also applies to Registration Agencies generally and supports establishing the key roles and responsibilities in the system. The activities listed in proposed paragraph (a) are those that OA would ordinarily perform if a State did not have a recognized SAA. The Department anticipates that proposed paragraph (a) would reduce confusion about the expectations of the SAA and ensure that the SAA is fulfilling the needs of apprentices, sponsors, and employers in the State for which it has been recognized to be the Registration Agency for Federal purposes.
Proposed paragraph (b) is new and explains that SAA functions in proposed § 29.26(a) cannot be delegated, assigned, devolved, or relinquished to any other entity. Proposed paragraph (c), which describes the role of the State Apprenticeship Council, would further clarify that the functions described in (a) cannot be performed by the State Apprenticeship Council. In the preamble to the 2008 final rule that last updated the apprenticeship regulations in 29 CFR part 29, the Department confirmed that it would only recognize SAAs and would not recognize State Apprenticeship Councils in the discussion of public comments received on 29 CFR 29.13.
Despite the 2008 final rule's clarification that the Department would not recognize State Apprenticeship Councils, in some States, such entities have overtaken regulatory and oversight functions from SAAs. Commenters responding to the 2007 NPRM that preceded the 2008 final rule confirmed that this practice was ongoing before the 2008 update to the regulations and remarked that some State laws granting State Apprenticeship Councils oversight of the State's apprenticeship system or granting State Apprenticeship Councils the authority to promulgate regulations dictating the role and functions of SAAs, would need to be overturned. Such delegation of critical apprenticeship system oversight has continued in the intervening years, and in some States, State Apprenticeship Councils continue to perform key apprenticeship oversight functions, including making determinations on an occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training and making registration determinations. The Department is concerned that the State Apprenticeship Councils continue to play this role in some States, and maintains the view expressed in the preamble to the 2008 final rule that administration and oversight functions are the responsibility of government entities comprising Federal or State officials. State officials are accountable to the interests of an entire State and that State's population, while State Apprenticeship Council members are not. State Apprenticeship Council members appropriately comprise equal numbers of representatives from different sectors and bring diverse perspectives on apprenticeship to the table, but they are ultimately not accountable to the public in the same manner as State officials working in SAAs.
The regulatory and oversight functions of an SAA are foundational in ensuring the establishment and maintenance of high-quality and safe apprenticeship training. For the reasons discussed above, the Department has determined that these functions should remain as responsibilities of the SAA, which it has recognized for the purpose of discharging these responsibilities for Federal purposes and which the Department monitors and oversees for compliance with the requirements in proposed parts 29 and 30.
Proposed paragraph (c) is new and would consolidate requirements around the establishment and duties of State Apprenticeship Councils into one provision. Proposed paragraph (c) explains SAAs would be required to establish a State Apprenticeship Council. The Department emphasizes that proposed paragraph (c) would envision the creation of a single State Apprenticeship Council. While existing requirements may have been unclear as
In order to address the many issue areas and topics related to registered apprenticeship, and to more closely align the advisory work of a State Apprenticeship Council with the specific expertise and professional backgrounds of the individuals who comprise a State Apprenticeship Council, it may be useful for such Councils to establish subcommittees, appoint chairs, cochairs, or other leadership roles, and otherwise divide responsibilities within the Council. Aside from stipulating that State Apprenticeship Councils contain equal representation from employers, organized labor, and members of the public, and limiting the number of State Apprenticeship Councils in a State to one, the Department is not proposing any limitations or restrictions on the composition, division of responsibilities, or internal functions of State Apprenticeship Councils in this proposed regulation, provided the Council exercises only those functions that it is authorized to exercise under this proposed regulation.
Proposed paragraph (c) would explain that State Apprenticeship Councils are strictly advisory bodies that are created by, and with the purpose to serve, the SAA by providing non-binding advice. State Apprenticeship Councils have historically provided valuable advice and insights for consideration by SAAs, and the Department recognizes the value such entities add to the National Apprenticeship System through the provision of non-binding advice and recommendations at the State level. State Apprenticeship Councils have provided, and will continue to provide, useful advice on sector-specific strategies to inform efforts to expand registered apprenticeship, considerations on how best to align different workforce development programs (such as WIOA), LEA initiatives, or public-private sector partnerships with registered apprenticeship, and other issues where an SAA benefits from the synthesis of diverse industry perspectives that may not exist among State employees working at an SAA. As this proposed rule would explicitly clarify the advisory role of State Apprenticeship Councils, the Department expects that State Apprenticeship Councils would be more effective and timelier in executing their pivotal role of providing advice on apprenticeship matters based on the input from diverse stakeholders from different sectors. This is especially true in cases where a State Apprenticeship Council has been performing functions that should have been reserved for SAAs, such as reviewing and adjudicating applications for an occupation's suitability for registered apprenticeship training or program registration. In such cases, these responsibilities would be appropriately retained by the SAA, and the State Apprenticeship Councils formerly acting in such capacity would be free to focus on deliberations on challenging issues and the provision of useful, consensus advice reflecting input from multiple sectors and industry stakeholders.
The Department is also interested in hearing from stakeholders on the Department's proposal to transition State Apprenticeship Councils to a more strategic role and away from reviewing applications from prospective sponsors to allow for greater focus on expansion, quality improvements, equity, and system alignment initiatives within the State.
Proposed § 29.26(c)(1) concerns the composition of State Apprenticeship Councils and would expand upon the language in the existing regulation at 29 CFR 29.13(a)(2)(i) and (ii). The existing regulation provides that State Apprenticeship Councils must comprise individuals who are knowledgeable in matters pertaining to “apprenticeable occupations” and must include equal numbers of representatives from employer and employee organizations, as well as public members “who shall not number in excess of the number named to represent either employer or employee organizations.”
For example, at proposed 29 CFR 29.26(c)(1)(i), the Department explains that representatives from the employer sector (either employers or employer
At proposed 29 CFR 29.26(c)(1)(iii), the Department proposes to require that State Apprenticeship Councils' representatives from the general public include at least one representative from the State's workforce development system, and at least one representative from the secondary or postsecondary education system in the State who is familiar with registered apprenticeship. The Department expects that improved alignment between the National Apprenticeship System and State-level workforce development programs and educational networks would be another area where State Apprenticeship Councils can provide valuable insight, advice, and recommendations to guide the ongoing integration of these related job strategies. Apprenticeship, workforce training, and education all share the common goal of preparing participants—whether apprentices, job seekers, or students—for success in the labor market, for stable careers, and for achieving financial security. Successful outcomes for such participants also benefit U.S. employers by helping them address their talent needs. Ultimately, successful outcomes for job seekers and employers make U.S. businesses more competitive in the global marketplace and provide a meaningful boost to the U.S. economy; achieving optimal alignment among apprenticeship, workforce development, and education is a critically important national interest. Accordingly, the Department proposes to require that State Apprenticeship Councils would recruit and retain members who represent workforce development and education to facilitate connections and provide insight for the mutual benefit of their respective systems and the National Apprenticeship System.
Proposed § 29.26(c)(2) is a new provision that, for the reasons discussed above, would prohibit State Apprenticeship Councils from assuming or carrying out any of the responsibilities and functions of the SAA listed in proposed § 29.26(a).
Proposed paragraph (d) would require that an SAA must establish a reciprocity process for providing approval in the SAA's State to apprentices, registered apprenticeship programs, and standards of apprenticeship that are registered by other Registration Agencies for Federal purposes. Proposed paragraph (d) would expand upon an existing requirement that an SAA must accord reciprocal approval for Federal purposes. The existing requirement does not specify how, or on what basis, an SAA must provide reciprocal approval which has led to uncertainty by sponsors on the process for being granted such reciprocity across SAAs. To address this gap, proposed paragraph (d) would specify that the process must provide for a determination on a program sponsor's application for reciprocity no later than 45 calendar days after receipt of the request. Further, proposed paragraph (e) would specify a reciprocity process established by an SAA provide reciprocal approval only when certain conditions are met.
Proposed § 29.26(d)(1) would require that the reciprocity process must ensure reciprocal approval only be provided where the program sponsor meets the statutory and regulatory wage and hour requirements and apprentice-to-journeyworker ratios of the State in which reciprocal approval is sought.
Proposed § 29.26(d)(2) would require that the reciprocity process ensures that the program and apprentices to which reciprocal approval is accorded are registered by the SAA.
Proposed § 29.26(d)(3) would require that the reciprocity process must account for the development of standards that meet or exceed the requirements of State or local licensure, if licensure is required for the occupation that is the subject of the program that is being accorded reciprocal approval. This proposed change from requiring reciprocity is a recognition of an evolution in the Department's understanding of how reciprocity works with regard to SAAs, State labor laws, licensing laws, and the expansion of State benefits associated with registration by an SAA. The Department believes the current regulatory text at § 29.13(b)(7), which essentially requires SAAs to provide reciprocal approval, is overly simplistic and, if read literally, could jeopardize the ability of apprentices to legally work in a State. The current effect has been a barrier to registration status access and a failure to properly account for all the State issues related to apprenticeship programs. However, the Department does believe that reciprocity is a vital tool in assisting sponsors that have already met the registration requirements in a State but that have operations in another to more easily acquire registration status in that State. The Department, in acknowledging these two needs, is proposing to require that States develop a process in which they would provide reciprocity and articulate that process as part of their State Apprenticeship Plan submission in proposed § 29.27(b)(3). The Department anticipates that expansion of this requirement and further elaboration upon the criteria that a reciprocity process must address would further its goal of driving alignment in the National Apprenticeship System and is interested in comments about this approach in terms of providing transparency to potential sponsors while balancing the complex State needs.
Proposed § 29.27 would provide the framework for OA to confer recognition to States that seek to obtain recognition or renewal of recognition as an SAA State. In the process of obtaining recognition, States would undergo a strategic planning process that seeks to establish a broad vision of registered apprenticeship expansion, modernization, diversification, and equitable opportunities for all learners and workers. The strategic planning process would be an opportunity for States to convene stakeholders at the State level that find value and opportunity in bolstering the system of registered apprenticeship in the State. Through this process, States can build consensus around a shared strategic vision and goals; promote program quality and good jobs; leverage and align with an existing workforce and education infrastructure; meet the skilled workforce needs of employers in existing and emerging high-growth industries and occupations; galvanize commitments for increasing access to and support within registered apprenticeship for individuals from
The Department envisions that the State Apprenticeship Plan would be a blueprint for how a State will prioritize Federal and State investments in registered apprenticeship and align administrative, operational, and governance principles for more effective and efficient implementation of expansion and equity strategies and goals. To the extent this process for recognition and State apprenticeship planning is currently underway in States, either through executive order,
Through the State planning process for SAA recognition, States would have an opportunity to incorporate new and existing investments, innovations, and strategies into their plans. States can incorporate recent investments in the transportation, clean energy, and manufacturing sectors, and in more resilient infrastructure, for example, through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, IRA, and CHIPS Act. These laws aim to encourage the use of registered apprenticeship and would offer an opportunity to engage and convene stakeholders in new and emergent industries that may not have traditionally been participating in the National Apprenticeship System. Furthermore, investments that have been made by the Department under AAI, Apprenticeship Building America, and State Apprenticeship Expansion, Equity, and Innovation grants have been and continue to be a catalyst for encouraging States to make strategic investments through coordinated partnership with regional and local program sponsors and employers and to build a dynamic system of registered apprenticeship in their States. States also would have the opportunity to create and join an interconnected network of industry intermediaries at the national and State level to facilitate effective industry engagement and support efforts for program sponsors to better integrate equity into programs. To the extent that States choose to better align cross-system planning with WIOA or Perkins or both, States can use the State Apprenticeship Plan process for coordination at the State and local level to leverage resources for related instruction and on-the-job training. Additionally, this would enable the leveraging of Federal- and State-funded workforce and education infrastructure and provide necessary supportive services for shared priority populations, underserved communities, and individuals who face barriers to economic mobility. This approach would also enable equitable access to career exploration, pre-apprenticeship, and Job Corps that lead to registered apprenticeship career pathways for job seekers. Lastly, this approach would enable SAAs to engage in employer-driven, innovative sector strategies and State economic development initiatives, as well as align measurable outcomes and disaggregated demographic data through data sharing and reporting strategies.
Finally, proposed § 29.27 would modify the existing regulatory requirement (found at 29 CFR 29.13(a)(1)) that an SAA, to be eligible for recognition by OA, must submit a State apprenticeship law that conforms to the requirements contained in 29 CFR parts 29 and 30. The proposed rule would instead require that a State's apprenticeship laws either meet or exceed the minimum requirements set forth in 29 CFR parts 29 and 30 for protecting the safety and welfare of apprentices, as discussed further below. Over time, the Department has observed that the existing State law conformity standard has greatly impeded the efficient and reasonable consideration of applications for recognition by many SAAs. The Department believes that this revision would ensure that all SAAs satisfy the minimum Federal labor standards and EEO in apprenticeship requirements established by the foregoing regulations, while also providing States with the regulatory flexibility to innovate and expand the scope of protections available to apprentices who are enrolled in, or seeking admission into, registered apprenticeship programs. This provision would also harmonize with the State law flexibilities that would be preserved under the proposed regulatory provision concerning “Relation to Other Laws” at proposed § 29.5.
The process proposed in this section would further promote consistency within the National Apprenticeship System as it is intended to establish a process that would be uniform and transparent for States seeking recognition or continued recognition as an SAA State. The implementation of a 4-year State planning process would satisfy each of those goals by simultaneously creating a consistent cadence by which all States would have their suitability for recognition assessed, and a basis to be used by the Administrator to approve or deny submitted State Apprenticeship Plans. This augmentation to the current process would leave in place integral components of systemic consistency such as demonstrated compliance with Federal regulations and submission of a State EEO plan. The addition of components such as the operationalization of requirements outlined in proposed § 29.26, and clear communication of a strategic vision for the continued expansion and modernization of apprenticeship are needed to strengthen the existing recognition process. The Department intends to make the contents of such plans publicly available to promote greater transparency in the National Apprenticeship System.
Proposed § 29.27 would set forth new requirements for State government agencies to obtain or maintain recognition as an SAA. Specifically, this section describes the process by which a State government agency would submit a State Apprenticeship Plan to the Administrator for review and approval. As discussed below, this process would require a State government agency to submit, as part of the State Apprenticeship Plan, strategic planning elements that address the
Proposed paragraph (a) would outline the application process for the submission, review, approval, or disapproval of the State Apprenticeship Plan. Current § 29.13(d) prescribes that the State's apprenticeship law will be reviewed for Federal conformity every 5 years based on their last approval from OA. To address the lack of consistency, proposed § 29.27(a)(1) would establish a clear process and a regular cadence for all States to submit a State Apprenticeship Plan for review and approval by the Administrator. Proposed § 29.27(a)(1) would set forth that State Apprenticeship Plans are due every 4 years, beginning for a State seeking recognition for a 4-year period after December 31, 2026, a departure from the current SAA recognition period of 5 years. This change is precipitated by ETA's desire to better align apprenticeship with the greater workforce development system, including WIOA and the Perkins program, which also utilizes a State planning process on a 4-year cycle. The selection of December 31, 2026, would provide at least 2 full calendar years for States to make the necessary changes to their laws and develop plans consistent with the requirements in this proposed rule. The timing of 2026 generally aligns with the next WIOA State planning process that States undergo as required by title I of that Act as well as the Perkins program. While there is some inconsistency with the WIOA State planning process, which is for the period beginning July 1, 2026, the Department believes that States do need sufficient time to make changes, particularly in instances where State apprenticeship laws may need to be updated. While the cycles do not completely overlap, they do occur during the same calendar year and the Department considers this alignment in timing as a strategic opportunity to build greater cohesion and strategic State operations and coordination with the State's workforce system, CTE system, and system of registered apprenticeship, all of which are engaged in planning around the same time period. This alignment could lead to increased system cohesion and coordination. To address this gap in time, the Department is proposing the first State Apprenticeship Plan cycle to be slightly less than 4 years. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii) would provide that the first State apprenticeship planning cycle would cover SAA recognition from January 1, 2027, through June 30, 2030. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iii) would provide that the second State apprenticeship planning period would cover the 4-year period beginning on July 1, 2030. The goal of this proposal is to align with WIOA's State planning process in the future. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv) would provide that while a State can seek SAA recognition at any time, consistent with it being at least 120 days prior to when a State is requesting such recognition, the approved SAA must also submit a State Apprenticeship Plan to align with the next State apprenticeship planning cycle. For instance, if a State that has not been previously recognized as an SAA State applies for and receives SAA recognition from the Administrator in July 2028, they must still submit a State Apprenticeship Plan for recognition for the 4-year period spanning July 1, 2030, to June 30, 2034. The goal of this proposal is to ensure that all SAAs are on a consistent and aligned State planning cycle. In addition to ensuring consistency with other programs such as WIOA and Perkins to enhance synergies between the systems, it also may lead to benefits from SAAs sharing their planning experiences with each other to strengthen State coordination and alignment. Under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(i), SAAs seeking recognition from the Administrator must submit their plans for the Administrator's review at least 120 days prior to the proposed effective date of their recognition. This would mean that State government agencies seeking recognition for a period after December 31, 2026, must submit on approximately September 1, 2026, to meet the 120-day criteria. The Department is interested in comments about this approach, the ability of States to successfully transition, and any potential flexibilities the Administrator may need to provide under this approach. Commenters requesting flexibility are encouraged to describe a standard by which this could be accomplished so as to not perpetuate longstanding misalignment with these proposed regulations.
Proposed § 29.27(a)(2) would specify the circumstances that would lead to an SAA seeking a modification to their State Apprenticeship Plan. Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) outlines when a modification would be required. These circumstances would include changes in Federal or State law, changes to labor market conditions, or changes to State vision, strategies, policies, operational procedures, or organizational structure of the SAA that would materially impact the ability of the SAA to fulfill its plan as written and approved. For example, modifications would be necessary when a new State apprenticeship law adds further requirements not called for under these proposed regulations, or a State may restructure its oversight of its workforce training programs by shifting oversight to a different State government agency. However, a determination would need to be made that the modified submission meets the requirements for approval.
Proposed § 29.27(a)(2)(ii) would describe that an SAA also has the discretion to modify its State Apprenticeship Plan. This may include an SAA seeking a change in its recognition status from provisional to full under proposed paragraph (c) of this section. While regulatory in nature for the compliance of the SAA, the Department believes Plans are also strategic documents that can lead to greater institutionalizing of State-based systems of registered apprenticeship into not just a regulatory or passive role in reviewing programs but in proactive approaches and strategies to expanding high-quality registered apprenticeship programs. Another example of when an SAA may seek a modification to its State Apprenticeship Plan is if the SAA is seeking recognition for the purposes of registering CTE apprenticeship programs under subpart B. The Department envisions that SAAs may seek this recognition at a different time period than the initial SAA recognition process, and a State Apprenticeship Plan modification would be an appropriate method to seek recognition for the purposes of subpart B.
Proposed § 29.27(a)(2)(iii) would specify that modifications to an approved State Apprenticeship Plan must be submitted to the Administrator at least 120 days prior to the requested effective date of the modification. The Department is including this requirement to allow the Administrator sufficient time to review and confirm that any proposed modifications meet the requirements for approval.
Proposed § 29.27(a)(2)(iv) would provide that, if the modifications are approved by the Administrator, modified State Apprenticeship Plans remain approved until the end of the original cycle of the Plan.
Proposed paragraph (b) describes the contents of the State Apprenticeship Plan. Proposed paragraph (b) begins by setting forth the minimum requirements by which a recognized SAA must abide. Then, proposed paragraph (b) goes on to describe the full contents of what a State Apprenticeship Plan must include.
Proposed § 29.27(b)(1) would establish what the Department has determined to be the core requirements of the registered apprenticeship model that a recognized SAA must meet or exceed. As part of this process the State must submit its proposed or current apprenticeship laws governing the standards of apprenticeship, apprenticeship agreements, registration requirements, program standards adoption agreements, qualifications of apprentice trainers and providers of related instruction, end-point assessments, complaints, recordkeeping, processes by which a program will be reviewed and if necessary deregistered, the roles and responsibilities of SAAs, and the reporting requirements for an SAA. This provision also would require that the SAA coordinate with the State's education system, including institutions of higher education, LEAs, State CTE and Educational Agencies, and other educational entities that support CTE programs and career pathways, and mandate that the SAA provide a description of any efforts to align and leverage apprenticeship-related data with education system and workforce development system data. The Department believes that these are core requirements of Registration Agencies and, as such, must govern the roles of SAAs. Instead of the current standard of conformity with 29 CFR part 29, the Department is proposing a standard that the State laws meet or exceed these requirements for protecting the safety and welfare of apprentices. The Department is proposing this more flexible approach for States to innovate beyond the current conformity standard, which essentially requires that the State laws mirror 29 CFR part 29 with few exceptions. This standard is designed to set the minimum quality requirements and would provide States the flexibility to innovate if they can demonstrate that it advances the goal of protecting the safety and welfare of apprentices. This standard is at the heart of the Department's mission under the NAA. The Department welcomes comments on this proposed standard including ideas by which the Department may apply it. Under the proposed standard, State laws that, for example, provide higher or more frequent wage progressions than the proposed rule, would require more frequent program reviews, or require more training for instructors or protections for apprentices may all be acceptable deviations.
Proposed § 29.27(b)(2) would identify the Strategic Planning Elements to be submitted as part of the State Apprenticeship Plan. Strategic planning elements provide an opportunity for the SAA to develop a vision for expanding and improving the registered apprenticeship model in its respective State, something that is integral to the robust cooperation between OA and SAAs. The absence of strategic alignment in the current recognition process limits OA's ability to promote and embed high-quality apprenticeship as a talent development strategy within States. Increased Federal benefits and strategies tied to the leveraging of registered apprenticeship programs have created a need to ensure further cooperation by SAAs to perform a strategic role in the State's strategic workforce initiatives. Examples of this increased need include the passage of WIOA and the strategic role registered apprenticeship programs are designed to play in fostering registered apprenticeship strategies, and the need to ensure an active role in promoting equity in apprenticeship in light of both the 29 CFR part 30 regulation and the Department's priorities. By mapping out both short-term and long-term strategies through utilization of available individual and cross-sectional labor market data that speaks to the past, present, and future potential of registered apprenticeship as a workforce development strategy, a State would be better positioned to work with OA and ETA to grow and modernize apprenticeship within the State. The strategic planning elements would allow OA to ascertain how an SAA will align with the Department's goal of, and initiatives around, driving ongoing modernization and system alignment across stakeholders. Components of the strategic planning elements would include goals for expanding the registered apprenticeship model in the State; goals for promoting registered apprenticeship programs for underserved communities in the State; goals for aligning a State's registered apprenticeship activities with broader education and workforce development activities; activities to coordinate with economic development entities within the State; and strategies for engaging and leveraging industry intermediaries as part of the State's strategy for expanding registered apprenticeship programs.
Proposed § 29.27(b)(3) would identify the Operational Planning Elements to be submitted as part of the State Apprenticeship Plan. Operational planning elements would identify key items that are necessary to the implementation of the vision developed in the strategic planning elements and that generally describe how the State government agency would perform the roles and responsibilities of an SAA described in proposed § 29.26. Proposed § 29.27(b)(3) would specify the required operational planning elements when a State is submitting its State Apprenticeship Plan for recognition as an SAA State every 4 years. The operational planning elements required in an initial State Apprenticeship Plan would be: the State's EEO plan, in conformity with part 30; the State's technical assistance plan; the State's process by which it will meet performance reporting requirements of proposed § 29.28 including utilizations details of data management tools and data management procedures; the plan for conducting program reviews; the State's plans to operationalize registration standards; the State's reciprocity policy, in accordance with proposed § 29.26(f); and the structure of how the State Apprenticeship Council is or will be structured consistent with the requirements of proposed § 29.26.
Proposed § 29.27(b)(4) would identify the assurances to be provided to the Administrator as part of the State Apprenticeship Plan. The assurances would provide a simplified method for OA to ensure that an SAA is meeting other requirements of proposed parts 29 and 30, not already identified in the other subsections of proposed § 29.27(b)(4). The assurances identified would be: that the State will provide a process for local registration of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards; that the State has the resources necessary to operate the SAA and is capable of carrying out all of the responsibilities of the SAA; that the State will have a publicly available website describing its apprenticeship-related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures; and that the State will require from sponsors a written assurance that they are complying with the requirements of the Support for Veterans in Effective Apprenticeships Act of 2019. The Department has determined that these assurances would be necessary to align the operations of recognized SAAs with that of OA. The Department anticipates that these assurances would help drive system alignment and deliver high-quality apprenticeship training to all apprentices by all Registration Agencies. The Department has proposed these provisions as assurances as a balance of prioritizing the most important elements where a narrative is needed for a State Apprenticeship Plan versus the need to have an SAA provide a more streamlined process for meeting these
Proposed § 29.27(b)(5) would provide for the process by which a State government agency operating or seeking to operate as an SAA may apply for and receive recognition to register CTE apprenticeship programs in their State. States would not be required to seek recognition for registering CTE apprenticeship programs under subpart B to receive recognition for registering apprenticeship programs under subpart A. States that do seek this recognition would be required to submit their proposed or current registered CTE apprenticeship laws as described in proposed § 29.24(g)(8) as part of their State Apprenticeship Plan or modification. Additionally, this section would include the requirement that the written agreement between the Registration Agency in proposed § 29.24(a)(2) would be submitted with the State Apprenticeship Plan so that OA can ascertain that this requirement has been met prior to granting recognition. Lastly, the State Apprenticeship Plan must include a narrative description of how the State would seek to develop and expand registered CTE apprenticeship programs in the State. The Department is requiring this to ensure strategic alignment for the SAA in their strategies for expanding both registered apprenticeship under subpart A as well as registered CTE apprenticeship under subpart B.
Proposed paragraph (c) explains the designations that OA would convey upon review of a State Apprenticeship Plan submitted by a State. The Department anticipates that this approach would better ensure that it can both further its goal of driving system alignment and high-quality apprenticeship training across the National Apprenticeship System and provide flexibility to States in transitioning to the State planning process.
Proposed § 29.27(c)(1) would describe the conditions that must be met for OA to convey full recognition. The Department has determined that the State Apprenticeship Plan must demonstrate all conditions in proposed § 29.27(c)(1) for full recognition because they would be necessary to ensure the State has addressed all of the requirements in the proposed rule regarding the increased role that the Department envisions for SAAs. Those requirements would include, but are not limited to, minimum labor standards, a comprehensive State Apprenticeship Plan that addresses all of the strategic and operational elements necessary to drive the expansion of quality registered apprenticeship programs, clear commitments and progress in promoting equity throughout the system, and strategies that integrate workforce development and educational activities.
Proposed § 29.27(c)(2) describes when OA would convey provisional recognition. Provisionally approved SAAs have provided a minimally sufficient State Apprenticeship Plan that has met the minimum requirements and standards set forth in proposed parts 29 and 30. However, these are plans that the Department has determined have one or more deficiencies regarding the State's planning that prevent the plan from obtaining full recognition. Proposed § 29.27(c)(2)(i) describes the deficiencies that may result in provisional recognition, including strategic planning or operational elements that are not complete or responsive, such as not having a technical assistance strategy for the period covering the State Apprenticeship Plan.
Proposed § 29.27(c)(2)(ii) explains that OA would provide technical assistance to States as they develop, and prior to the submission of, any subsequent State Apprenticeship Plan, either a modification of the initially submitted plan or a new 4-year plan. OA would require the submission and approval of a corrective action plan for the purpose of obtaining full recognition. A corrective action plan would detail a set of actionable steps the SAA will undertake to address areas of concern in the State Apprenticeship Plan, including a timeline for the implementation of such activities. This provision also would contain the requirement that a State may not be provisionally recognized for more than one full planning cycle. This would allow provisionally recognized States the time needed to make the necessary adjustments to be fully recognized.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would describe denial of recognition. Proposed § 29.27(c)(3)(i) specifies that denial of recognition would mean that the Administrator has determined that the State's apprenticeship laws do not meet the minimum standards described in proposed § 29.27(b)(1). Proposed § 29.27(c)(3)(ii) would specify that denial of recognition would also be conveyed when the Administrator is unable to fully approve a State Apprenticeship Plan after the State was provisionally recognized for one full planning cycle as described in proposed § 29.27(c)(2). Proposed § 29.27(c)(3)(iii) goes on to explain that the processes and procedures applicable to such denial of recognition would be described in proposed § 29.29.
Proposed paragraph (d) continues the concept in the current regulation at 29 CFR 29.13(i) that OA would also retain its existing authority to register an apprenticeship program on either a local registration or (with respect to National Program Standards for Apprenticeship) nationwide basis in instances where such an action would serve the interests of the National Apprenticeship System.
Proposed paragraph (e) provides that OA would monitor and review SAAs to ensure they are operating consistent with their approved State Apprenticeship Plans. While the State Apprenticeship Plan would provide a regular 4-year cycle for the review of SAAs through their plan submissions, certain instances may warrant more frequent reviews. For example, if a State is provisionally granted recognition, OA may schedule a review to go over the corrective action plan and provide technical assistance to ensure the agreed upon benchmarks in the plan are being met or conclude that a revision is needed. The Department is interested in any comments about when periodic reviews could or should happen outside of the 4-year State apprenticeship planning cycle.
Proposed paragraph (f) would provide for the derecognition of an SAA, whether fully or provisionally approved, when the Administrator determines that an SAA is not operating consistent with its approved State Apprenticeship Plan, and references the procedures described in proposed § 29.29 below.
Proposed paragraph (g) explains that OA may suspend an SAA's authority to register new apprenticeship programs where a corrective action plan is not submitted for review and approval, as contemplated by proposed paragraph (c)(2). Proposed paragraph (g) goes on to describe the process by which the suspension would take effect and the duration of the suspension. The Administrator would provide written notice to the State of the suspension, which would take effect 30 calendar days after the date of the written notice. The suspension would end upon the State's submission of a corrective action plan, as described in proposed paragraph (c)(2). The Department has determined that this provision is necessary to ensure that States submit corrective action plans to OA to address their provisional status and a plan to
Proposed paragraph (h) explains that where a State Apprenticeship Plan is denied or where the Administrator derecognizes an SAA, a State would not be permitted to have a State government agency function as an SAA. Specifically, a State would not be authorized to conduct operations and activities, for Federal purposes, in connection with those responsibilities enumerated in proposed § 29.26(a). Further, proposed paragraph (h) explains that this prohibition would continue until OA conveys full or provisional recognition to a State Apprenticeship Plan. States that have been denied recognition or derecognized may always submit an updated or new State Apprenticeship Plan to address the recognition requirements.
One of the key goals of the Department's proposed rule is the collection of accurate and complete registered apprenticeship data. A key goal for the Department to fully and accurately oversee the National Apprenticeship System, is to have comprehensive and complete data from the entire system, including SAAs. While the existing regulations do not impose a specific requirement regarding data collection from SAAs, OA and SAAs have made great strides to enhance and increase SAA data reporting to OA. While those voluntary submissions have greatly increased OA's ability to oversee the system and report its successes to stakeholders, the lack of a consistent reporting requirement leaves significant gaps in the quality of data. Data collection requirements that fail to mandate a central repository for program data and the data of individual apprentices do not give sufficient credence to the importance of data to the continued growth and modernization of apprenticeship. Data collection and data integrity are not optional tools to optimize the National Apprenticeship System, but rather compulsory elements. Replacing voluntary recommendations with mandatory requirements impresses upon SAAs the Department's commitment to the creation and sustainment of a transparent, unified data system.
Proposed § 29.28 would establish requirements for SAAs to collect and report apprentice and sponsor data and information to the Department. These requirements would include at least quarterly submission of individual apprentice records and annual submission of sponsor records, as defined in proposed § 29.25. This requirement could be met by using the Department-provided case management system, such as many SAAs currently do with RAPIDS, or creating interoperable mechanisms in which the required information is reported accurately, timely, and with validity in the format determined by the Administrator on a quarterly and annual basis. Utilizing a central information and case management system provided by the Department would defer costs for States related to the development and ongoing maintenance of such systems and make available technical assistance to States to enable the technological expertise and capacity to reliably and validly enter accurate information to manage registered apprenticeship program participants while also fulfilling reporting requirements.
The purpose of this proposed provision is to facilitate modernization of the National Apprenticeship System, as recommended in the ACA's 2022 Interim Report,
• Analyze how to encourage more State participation in RAPIDS and consider withholding OA State-level funding for States that do not fully participate in the RAPIDS system. Encourage States that do not participate in the RAPIDS system, or participate only partially, to take part in the collection and sharing of apprenticeship data for the benefit of the national dataset (RAPIDS).
• Encourage sponsors and apprentices to provide requested data for the benefit of a robust, national apprenticeship dataset.
• To assist stakeholders, including States and sponsors, with improved data collection and usage, OA should consider investments or other financial support to incentivize complete and accurate data collection.
ACA, “Interim Report to the Secretary of Labor,” May 16, 2022,
States would also be able to have a framework for disaggregating demographic data to support planning requirements and align State planning goals with State strategic planning efforts under WIOA and Perkins. Increased data collection and reporting can facilitate opportunities for States to rigorously evaluate and assess apprenticeship pathways. Understanding that many States have their own case management systems for sponsor and apprentice data, this modernization effort would support flexibility and create mechanisms for increased interoperability.
Proposed § 29.28(a) would establish the requirement that information about individual apprentices and sponsors must be collected by the Registration Agency, which is described in proposed § 29.25(a) and (b). This requirement makes clear that SAAs would be responsible for reporting to the Department the information that sponsors report to the Registration Agency under proposed § 29.25(a) and (b). These requirements are key to improving collection of demographic information that would enable the Department to better disaggregate and leverage such data to develop and track indices relating to equity. This data analysis can serve to inform and drive improvements towards greater equity in the apprenticeship system. These goals are not only important to the Department, they are also aligned to the recommendations from the ACA to
These changes not only serve the goals of greater transparency and equity, but would also enable the Department to modernize its systems to capture more fully an apprentice's progress throughout the program, including the capture of licenses, degrees, and the full scope of credentials earned through registered apprenticeship programs, as recommended by the ACA.
Proposed § 29.28(b) would establish the requirement that information collected under proposed § 29.25(a) must be reported by the Registration Agency to the Department on at least a quarterly basis. Under the current approach, this type of reporting is done primarily through sponsors and Registration Agencies entering data into the RAPIDS system, and the Department anticipates that approach would continue. This would ensure that Registration Agencies are responsible for reporting quarterly to the Department the information that sponsors report to the Registration Agency under proposed § 29.25(a). Reporting on a quarterly basis would align the reporting cadence with WIOA and most other workforce programs, and enable more timely availability of information as well as more timely identification of any reporting difficulties and deficiencies so that those issues can be resolved in advance of the submission of annual reports. Quarterly reporting also would enable the identification of patterns that occur within the year, such as seasonal changes in employment patterns.
Proposed § 29.28 (c) would establish the requirement that information collected under proposed § 29.25(b) must be reported by the Registration Agency to the Department on an annual basis. Under the current approach, this type of reporting is done primarily through sponsors and Registration Agencies entering data into the RAPIDS system, and the Department anticipates that approach would continue. This would ensure that Registration Agencies are responsible for reporting annually to the Department the information that sponsors report to the Registration Agency under proposed § 29.25(b).
Proposed § 29.28(d) would establish that the Department will make the information collected under proposed § 29.28(c) publicly available. The Department anticipates utilizing a public-facing website on
Proposed § 29.28(e) would establish that to meet the requirements in proposed § 29.28(a) through (c), SAAs must either utilize a case management system provided by the Department, such as RAPIDS, or maintain a State system that is capable of reporting individual apprentice record level information to the Department in a manner that meets requirements prescribed by the Administrator and minimum security requirements consistent with FERPA. This would be a vital component to ensure that the data reported to OA is consistent nationally and across State lines. The Department is not proposing to mandate the use of RAPIDS or a future system; however, as of the end of fiscal year 2023, 19 States do utilize RAPIDS as their primary system and it is a service available to them to assist in meeting these requirements and 11 States use an external case management system, uploading results into RAPIDS on a quarterly basis. Separately, the Department acknowledges that some SAAs have their own systems and may collect additional information that is important for their stakeholders. This proposal would not require them to no longer use that system but would require that they report in a consistent format.
The current regulations at § 29.13 include a paragraph regarding the denial of an application for a State to become an SAA as well as a paragraph regarding procedures when an SAA voluntarily withdraws from recognition. The current regulations also feature a separate section describing the derecognition process at § 29.14. Proposed § 29.29 is new and would consolidate the processes and procedures concerning the denial of a State Apprenticeship Plan and the derecognition of an existing SAA into one section. Proposed § 29.29 would update the existing language and align these existing processes with the new State apprenticeship planning process in proposed § 29.27. The procedures concerning requests for a hearing after a final determination denying recognition or derecognizing an existing SAA would largely be the same as the current regulation but have been updated to align with the deregistration hearing procedures in proposed § 29.21. Further, State obligations after derecognition of an existing SAA would largely retain the language in the current regulation.
Proposed paragraph (a) would outline the processes and procedures when OA denies a State Apprenticeship Plan or derecognizes an existing SAA.
Proposed § 29.29(a)(1) explains that a written notice would be provided to a State when OA denies a State Apprenticeship Plan, pursuant to proposed § 29.27(c)(3), or derecognizes an existing SAA, pursuant to proposed § 29.27(f). The notice would include the reason, or reasons, for the denial or derecognition. The notice would also identify what remedial measures the State will need to take to address the denial or derecognition. Finally, the notice would set a timeline for addressing those measures, which must be no longer than 12 months after the date of the written notice. Corrective action plans would be required in the case of a provisionally recognized SAA. Here, in the case of derecognition, corrective action plans would not exist. Instead, upon issuance of the written notice that is provided to an SAA that it will be derecognized including the reasons leading to the derecognition, the State would be given a timeline to complete necessary remedial measures to address the reasons leading to derecognition. The inclusion of a timeline is necessary so that a State can make the necessary changes or take the necessary actions to ensure compliance. If a State does not make the necessary changes or take the necessary actions, the Department would proceed with the denial or derecognition procedures described in proposed § 29.29. The Department acknowledges that the reason for the denial or derecognition will vary based on the facts specific to the scenario, and, as a result, the time needed to address those measures will vary. However, the Department believes that a specific timeframe is necessary to ensure that the reason for denial or derecognition would be addressed in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, the Department determined that proposed § 29.29(a)(1) should include a provision specifying that a State would be given no longer than 12 months after the date of the written notice to address identified remedial measures. The Department determined that 12 months would be an appropriate timeframe to allow a State to make potential changes to their State laws, which may require a significant amount of State legislative session scheduling. However, the Department does not want this timeframe to remain open-ended, and
Proposed § 29.29(a)(2) is based on the existing regulation and would explain that if a State does not address or fails to remedy the reason(s) for the denial or derecognition in the timeframe identified in the written notice, the Administrator may issue a final determination. In the final determination, the Administrator would include the reason(s) for the denial or derecognition and the State would be provided an opportunity to request a hearing within 30 calendar days of the date of the final determination. The Department would provide notice to the public if a State has been derecognized by the Department.
Proposed § 29.29(a)(3) is based on existing provisions at § 29.13(g) and § 29.14(c)(3). This section would describe the procedural requirements when a State requests a hearing upon receiving the Administrator's final determination. Proposed § 29.29(a)(3) would provide that a request for a hearing must be sent to the OALJ and the Administrator, who, in turn, transmits the request to the Office of the Solicitor. The Administrator would also promptly provide the OALJ with the administrative file containing all relevant documents relied upon by the Administrator in making the final determination.
Proposed § 29.29(a)(4) and (5) are based on the existing provisions at § 29.13(g)(1) through (4), respectively. Both proposed § 29.29(a)(4) and (5) have been updated to align with the procedures for hearings on deregistration, described in proposed § 29.21.
Proposed § 29.26(a)(6) would describe the procedures applicable when an SAA voluntarily seeks withdrawal from recognition. This section would recognize that States have the discretion to voluntarily relinquish recognition of recognized SAAs.
Proposed paragraph (b) is based on existing provisions at § 29.14(d) and (e) and would describe what actions the Administrator must take when an existing SAA is denied recognition, derecognized, or voluntarily seeks withdrawal of derecognition. Proposed § 29.29(b)(1) would be the same as existing § 29.14(d)(1). Proposed § 29.29(b)(2) would combine existing § 29.14(d)(2) and (e) into a single provision and also update the procedures described therein. Specifically, proposed § 29.29(b)(2) would set forth a requirement that the Administrator must notify sponsors, in the State where the SAA is derecognized, that the Department will cease to recognize their programs that were previously registered unless the sponsor submits an application for registration with OA within 45 calendar days after the date of the final agency determination to derecognize the SAA. Proposed § 29.29(b)(2) goes on to describe that the sponsor's application for registration would be reviewed in accordance with the requirements and procedures described in proposed § 29.10. Within 90 calendar days of receiving the application for registration, OA would review the application to determine if it meets the requirements for registration described in proposed § 29.10(a) and would approve any applications for registration in accordance with the procedures and requirements described in proposed § 29.10(b). OA would deny any applications for registration if the application does not meet the requirements in proposed § 29.10(b). The procedures described in proposed § 29.10(c) would apply to any applications for registration that are declined.
Proposed paragraph (c) is based on a requirement at existing § 29.14(h) and would explain what a State must do when its existing SAA has been denied recognition or derecognized by OA or has voluntarily withdrawn from recognition. Proposed § 29.29(c)(1) would describe the transfer of apprenticeship-related records and information to the Department after derecognition. Proposed § 29.29(c)(2) would update language from the current regulation to align with proposed paragraph (b), adding an additional requirement that the State must notify sponsors that their programs will no longer be registered for Federal purposes as of 45 calendar days after the date of the Administrator's final determination. Sponsors interested in registration with OA must submit an application for registration to OA, pursuant to proposed paragraph (b). Finally, proposed § 29.29(c)(3) would require that States must cooperate fully with the Administrator during a transition period. For example, the Department, during such a transition, envisions that the State would maintain open lines of communication with the Department and would facilitate the transfer of pertinent records and information in a timely manner. The Department includes this proposed provision to ensure smooth, seamless continuity of operations in the National Apprenticeship System, and to further support the Department in fulfilling its obligations and responsibilities to apprentices and program sponsors.
Proposed § 29.30 is designed to help the National Apprenticeship System integrate with other Federal or State laws that have been designed to support the expansion of registered apprenticeship programs by providing a Certificate of Participation to stakeholders, which provides information on apprentice participation that may be required by other Federal or State laws. This provision would seek to address situations where information on apprentices in registered apprenticeship programs is necessary to document compliance with Federal and State laws separate from the NAA. For example, the Department has a long history of providing information on apprentice participation to satisfy the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon and related Acts and 29 CFR part 5. Additionally, with the expansion of registered apprenticeship as an allowable activity under WIOA, the apprenticeship requirements of the IRA, and other Federal and State laws that provide Federal and State benefits associated with utilizing registered apprenticeship, there is, and will continue to be, a need for OA or SAAs to provide information to Federal and State officials responsible for implementing Federal and State laws, sponsors or participating employers seeking Federal or State benefits for participation in registered apprenticeship programs, workforce development system partners funding individual training accounts or on-the-job training contracts under WIOA with registered apprenticeship programs, and potentially future stakeholders as Federal and State policymakers continue to embrace the registered apprenticeship model. The Department is adding this provision to make it clear that provision of this information would be permissible to allow other, related laws to be effectively implemented provided that it would be done so consistent with the requirement of any applicable Federal or State privacy law or other relevant law.
As part of this proposed rule for 29 CFR part 29, the Department is proposing technical and conforming edits to 29 CFR part 30, which would address EEO in apprenticeship. The Department invites commenters to opine on the proposed technical and conforming edits to part 30; however, the scope of these changes is narrow and primarily confined to necessary adjustments to align with proposed
The Department proposes a technical change to replace all cross-references in part 30 that currently cite to specific sections of part 29 with citations that simply cite to “part 29.” The Department proposes this change to remove what will now be outdated references and to avoid the need to update these cross-references again following any future reorganization of part 29. This change would affect the following sections: 29 CFR 30.3(b)(2)(i), 30.10(a), and 30.12(a)(3); the introductory language of 29 CFR 30.18(a)(1); 29 CFR 30.18(a)(3) and (4); the introductory language of 29 CFR 30.18(c); and 29 CFR 30.18(c)(3) and (d).
The Department also proposes a conforming change to replace the terms “EEO compliance review” and “compliance review” with “program review” throughout part 30. This would be consistent with the terminology being proposed in part 29 and more accurately reflects the scope of OA's reviews, which include both parts 29 and 30 components. This change is strictly one of terminology and the Department is not proposing to change anything about the nature of the reviews as they are described in part 30. This terminology change would affect the following sections: 29 CFR 30.5(b)(2) and (c)(6), 30.7(d)(2)(ii), 30.12(f), and 30.13(a), (b), and (c); the introductory language to 29 CFR 30.15; and 29 CFR 30.17(a)(3) and 30.18(b) and (c)(1).
Proposed 29 CFR 30.2 would revise the definition section to cite to the definitions of 29 CFR 29.2. The Department is proposing this change to place all definitions related to the National Apprenticeship System in one section. The Department considers this technical change an important one for the regulated community to be able to navigate and access all the required definitions in one section of regulatory text more easily. The Department is proposing all the definitions that were in part 30, but not in part 29, to be inserted into § 29.2, with these changes discussed in that section.
In addition to the proposed terminology change to “program reviews,” discussed above, the Department proposes to amend § 30.13 by replacing references to “business days” with simply “days.” Days would be defined in 29 CFR 29.2 to mean calendar days, and not business days or workdays. The Department is proposing to use calendar days instead of business days for consistency with part 29 and to improve clarity for the regulated community. In situations where sponsors currently have 30 business days to comply or respond to a review finding, under this proposed rule they would have 45 calendar days to do so. The Department views these timeframes as roughly equivalent and would not intend to alter the substantive amount of working time within which sponsors would need to act. The Department is including a reference to the EEO requirements contained in this part to ensure that as the Department is proposing the term program reviews to address compliance with both parts 29 and 30, this edit would ensure the regulatory text of part 30 is in alignment with this provision.
The Department proposes to add a new subordinate paragraph (c)(1)(vi) to § 30.14(c), which would require the Registration Agency to protect the identity of the complainant to the extent practicable. This addition would maintain consistency with the complaint process being proposed under part 29. The Department invites comments on the substance of this provision under § 29.17(e)(2), where the rationale is more fully laid out.
The Department proposes to amend § 30.15(b) by deleting “or if the Registration Agency does not institute such proceedings within 45 days of the start of the suspension, the suspension is lifted” at the end of the paragraph. This alteration would maintain consistency between the suspension and enforcement procedures under both parts 29 and 30. This change would also permit the Registration Agency to impose a suspension for a set period of time without being required to proceed to deregistration proceedings within 45 days of the imposition of the suspension, thus providing sponsors and Registration Agencies more time to resolve any deficiencies.
The Department proposes to include a severability provision, identical to that proposed in 29 CFR 29.5, as part of the conforming edits being proposed for part 30 to maintain consistency between the two parts.
Under E.O. 12866, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the executive order and review by OMB.
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
The Department anticipates that the proposed rule would result in benefits, costs, cost savings, and transfers for sponsors, participating employers, apprentices, and society. The benefits of the proposed rule are described qualitatively in section V.A.2 (Benefits). The estimated costs are explained in sections V.A.3 (Quantitative Analysis Considerations), V.A.4 (Subject-by-Subject Analysis), and V.A.5 (Summary of Costs). The nonquantifiable costs and cost savings are described qualitatively in section V.A.6 (Nonquantifiable Costs and Cost Savings). The nonquantifiable transfer payments are described qualitatively in section V.A.7 (Nonquantifiable Transfer Payments). An analysis of distributional impacts of the proposed rule is in section V.A.8 (Distributional Impact Analysis). Finally, the regulatory alternatives are explained in section V.A.9 (Regulatory Alternatives).
The quantified costs of the proposed rule for participating employers are rule familiarization and recordkeeping. The quantified costs of the proposed rule for sponsors include rule familiarization, on-the-job training documentation, wage analysis and career development, data collection and reporting, program registration, program standards and adoption agreement, administration of end-point assessments to apprentices and program reviews. The quantified costs of the proposed rule for apprentices include data collection and reporting and end-point assessments. The quantified costs of the proposed rule for SAAs are associated with rule familiarization, data collection and reporting, program registration, program reviews, data sharing, reciprocity of registration, and submission of State Apprenticeship Plans. The quantified costs of the proposed rule for the Federal Government are associated with the occupation suitability determination process, program registration, National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship, National Program Standards for Apprenticeship, National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards, end-point assessments, and program reviews. The quantified costs of the proposed rule for apprentices are the requirement to take an end-point assessment.
Exhibit 1 shows the total estimated costs of the proposed rule over 10 years (2025-2034) at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. The proposed rule is expected to have first-year costs of $147.9 million in 2022 dollars. Over the 10-year analysis period, the annualized costs are estimated at $151.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent in 2022 dollars. In total, over the first 10 years, the proposed rule is estimated to result in costs of $1.066 billion at a discount rate of 7 percent in 2022 dollars. The majority of these costs are from changes to registered apprenticeship that would result in an estimated annualized cost of $145.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent and total 10-year costs of $1.024 billion at a discount rate of 7 percent. The creation of registered CTE apprenticeship is expected to result in lower costs than the changes to registered apprenticeship as the Department anticipates that it would be a smaller program. The Department estimates annualized costs from registered CTE apprenticeship at $6.0 million at a 7-percent discount rate and total 10-year costs of $42.1 million at a 7-percent discount rate.
This section provides a qualitative description of the anticipated benefits associated with the proposed rule. The Department is unable to quantify the anticipated benefits due to data limitations and therefore is providing a qualitative description of those benefits. The Department seeks public comments and inputs to allow for quantification of the benefits in the final rule.
There are numerous benefits that are expected to result from the updates to registered apprenticeship programs, including greater worker protections, advancements in equity, higher quality apprenticeship training, and enhanced program transparency. The addition of program reviews would increase worker protections and program transparency through reviews of registered apprenticeship programs to ensure compliance and identify any deficiencies that require remedy. In addition, program reviews must be conducted if the Registration Agency receives credible information or allegations that the program is not being operated in accordance with program standards and requirements. This requirement would offer greater
The proposed updates to registered apprenticeship would also yield additional benefits to apprentices through changes to the process for determining occupations suitable for apprenticeship. The Department's proposal would create a more objective, proactive, and transparent process for determining occupations suitable for apprenticeship, which would allow occupations in non-traditional apprenticeship industries to grow while providing protections against the splintering of existing occupations, which could have a negative impact on workers' wages and job quality. These modifications also would reinforce that new occupations suitable for apprenticeship must meet industry-recognized criteria that place workers on a pathway to earning an income that allows them to support themselves and their families, with a fair opportunity for career advancement and economic mobility.
The proposed registered CTE apprenticeship model would offer multiple benefits to individuals who are seeking career opportunities and looking to develop the skills necessary to be successful in a certain field. Apprenticeships help workers to master both hard skills that are relevant to occupations, and soft skills such as communication, problem-solving, respectful workplace behavior, and teamwork, all while being paid for their work.
For businesses sponsoring a program, registration provides a structure and framework for developing a diverse pool of skilled workers critical to a company's success and a positive net benefit through value creation and an ROI. One report shows that utilizing apprenticeships can contribute to the financial success of a business by reducing employee turnover; promoting a diverse, inclusive, and accessible talent pipeline; and contributing to a more positive company culture.
The proposed registered CTE apprenticeship model would have numerous benefits for students who are enrolled in high school or in community and technical colleges. This new model would allow students to continue their education while participating in the labor market, provide students with opportunities to attain a recognized postsecondary credential, complete college coursework and a registered apprenticeship program, and participate in paid on-the-job learning. These opportunities would allow students to earn and learn, accelerate their completion of postsecondary credentials through dual enrollment, and put students on a career path. Earn and learn programs provide students with an opportunity to gain access to good jobs and stable careers without debt or substantial financial burden.
While the proposed prohibitions on non-compete and non-disclosure provisions in apprenticeship agreements may impose cost burdens on those program sponsors and participating employers that might otherwise elect to use them (
The Department acknowledges that prohibiting non-compete provisions may lead to the unintended consequence of disincentivizing investment in apprenticeship training. However, the Department has determined that this risk would be outweighed by the benefit of prohibiting anticompetitive practices during the term of the registered apprenticeship program. The Department is seeking to encourage the growth of high-quality apprenticeship and the increased use of registered apprenticeship as a training tool. Encouraging competition in the market would serve these goals by incentivizing employers to seek to retain their apprentices through high-quality training and employment rather than through limiting apprentices' ability to seek employment opportunities elsewhere during the term of the apprenticeship. In other words, providing high-quality registered apprenticeship would be a more effective and fair method of retaining apprentices in a registered apprenticeship program rather than through a prohibition on labor movement, which the Department views as harmful to both employers as a restraint on a free and competitive market and to apprentices as a restraint on their mobility.
In addition, there are several benefits that would accrue to apprentices by prohibiting non-disclosure and non-compete provisions. The proposed rule would increase apprentice mobility and labor market competition by removing certain restrictions such as non-compete provisions, thus allowing them to move freely between jobs. The absence of these restrictions would provide apprentices with the opportunity to seek higher paying positions, which would result in an overall increase in wages and offer greater opportunities for growth. Increased mobility is particularly beneficial to younger apprentices, as job changes account for approximately one-third of early career wage growth.
In addition to earnings increases, the proposed rule could provide greater opportunities for completed apprentices to potentially engage in entrepreneurial activities.
Under the proposed rule, the Department seeks to facilitate the use of registered apprenticeship models currently available by defining “National Program Standards for Apprenticeship” and “National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards.” This would promote innovation of and enable ease of access to industry-recognized, standardized products that are intended to facilitate the expansion of new quality programs to be registered expeditiously and efficiently. This would create a more efficient process for National Program Standards for Apprenticeship approval and for local registration of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards. The proposed rule also defines “National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship.” This new product would build, and continuously reinforce and improve with validated industry feedback, a national system of occupational frameworks that incentivize quality in registered apprenticeship programs and feature industry-validated training standards and curricula. The National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship would provide a template for national occupations, programs, and guidelines that would
The proposed rule would extend the amount of time for apprentices to file complaints against sponsors as well as provide requirements that Registration Agencies better protect the identity of apprentices who file complaints. These changes would result in apprentices having more time and feeling more comfortable in filing complaints against sponsors, which could result in better work conditions, improved apprenticeships, and more apprentices completing their programs.
Currently, deregistration of an apprenticeship program occurs when a sponsor fails to demonstrate compliance with 29 CFR part 29. The proposed rule would add a suspension step allowing sponsors an adequate span of time to update their practices and come into compliance without having to be deregistered and then reregistered at a later date. Under this procedure, a Registration Agency would suspend a registration of new apprentices until the sponsor has achieved compliance with part 29 through the completion of a voluntary compliance action plan or until a final order is issued in formal deregistration proceedings initiated by the Registration Agency.
The intermediary step of suspension represents a benefit because it would allow sponsors to become compliant without having to be deregistered and then reregister or abandon their program. The benefits of this provision are difficult to quantify because of a lack of data on how many suspensions might occur as well as the fact that some programs eligible for deregistration may seek deregistration voluntarily. Voluntary deregistration, however, can occur for several reasons and it would be incorrect to assume that all voluntary deregistrations directly correlate with sponsors that have been deregistered.
The Department expects that fewer programs would be required to deregister or voluntarily deactivate as a result of the suspension procedure, enabling more active total sponsors and the associated apprenticeship opportunities.
The Department estimated the costs of the proposed rule relative to the existing baseline (
The proposed rule would impact SAAs through new regulatory requirements that result in new burdens to or transfer payments. The Department currently works with 31 SAAs, and these are used as the affected population through the period of analysis.
The proposed rule would affect registered apprenticeship programs and their sponsors. A sponsor can have more than one program but, due to data availability, this analysis assumes the number of registered apprenticeship programs is the same as the estimated number of sponsors. The Department used historical data from the Energy Document Portal (EDP) on the number of registered apprenticeship programs from 2017 to 2022 to calculate the annual average growth in the number of programs. To project the number of registered apprenticeship programs and sponsors from 2025 to 2034 the Department calculated the average annual increase in programs (942), presented in Exhibit 2. This increment was applied to project the population of programs from 2025 to 2034.
The proposed rule would add requirements for new registered apprenticeship program registrations. New program registrations differ from the average annual increase in sponsors because the increase in program registrations is partially offset by deregistrations. The Department used historical data from EDP on the number of new program registrations from 2017 to 2022 to calculate an average annual increase in the number of new programs (73) based on the average difference in programs from year to year and applied to project the population of new programs from 2025 to 2034. Data on new program registrations are presented in Exhibit 2.
The Department derived subpopulations of registered apprenticeship programs to estimate the effect of the proposed rule on programs with certain characteristics. The number of programs that were not solely time-based (
Exhibit 2 above presents the historical data on the above five program populations across available years of data as well as average annual increase used to derive the projected number of entities or, in the case of programs reviewed, the average population assumed constant across years. The projected number of each entity from 2025 through 2034, based on either the average annual increase or the average annual value from Exhibit 2, are provided in Exhibit 3 below.
The number of programs reviewed by either OA or SAAs would also be affected by the proposed rule. The Department used a percentage-based approach to estimate the number of programs reviewed by either Registration Agency. The Department reviews each program every 5 years, meaning that 20 percent of programs are reviewed every year. Of the programs reviewed, the Department estimates that 58.2 percent are reviewed by SAAs and 41.8 percent are reviewed by OA, based on an average of 12,946 programs registered by SAAs yearly and 9,288 registered by OA yearly. Therefore, the Department calculates that 8.4 percent of all programs are reviewed by OA yearly and 11.6 percent of all programs are reviewed by SAAs yearly.
The proposed rule would increase requirements for participating employers in each registered apprenticeship program. The Department used RAPIDS to gather data on the number of participating employers in 2022 and derive the ratio of employers to programs. By dividing the number of participating employers in 2022 by the number of programs in 2022, it was calculated that there are roughly 1.53 employers per program.
The proposed rule would affect apprentices. The Department used historical data on the number of apprentices from 2017 to 2022 to project the population of apprentices from 2025 to 2034 by calculating the average annual increase in the number of apprentices (32,512).
The average annual increase in apprentices is used to project the number of apprentices in 2025-2034, presented in Exhibit 6 below.
The proposed rule would impose new requirements in the occupation determination application process and introduce new administrative burdens to sponsors, SAAs, and OA, based on the number of occupation determination applications. The Department used historical data from RAPIDS to calculate the average annual number of occupation determination applications. Data on the number of new and revised occupation determination applications were available from 2019 to 2022. The Department calculated the average annual number of new occupation applications (15) and used this to project new applications for a suitability determination from 2025 to 2034. However, for revised occupations, the proposed rule at § 29.7(h) envisions that OA would review existing approved occupations for revisions every 5 years. There are currently approximately 1,100 approved occupations, so the Department estimates approximately 220 revised occupations per year (1100 ÷ 5 years = 220). The proposed rule would allow the establishment of national occupations, so the Department also estimates that there would be 15 new national occupations yearly based on the bulletin list of national occupations from
The creation of registered CTE apprenticeship would result in CTE SAAs entering into agreements with OA to run CTE programs. The Department expects that over the 10-year analysis period that States running their CTE programs would be a proportion of the States with recognized SAAs for registered apprenticeship. The Department estimates that half of the States that are registered apprenticeship SAAs would become CTE SAAs by 2034. Therefore, the Department estimates a steady increase to 16 CTE SAAs by 2035 by assuming 3 percent enter each year (1 SAA per year). Those projected number of CTE SAAs are presented in Exhibit 8. The Department seeks public comment on the assumption that half of States that are registered apprenticeship SAAs would become CTE SAAs by 2034. The Department thinks this estimate is reasonable since it is a voluntary model that States may or may not subscribe to, but the public's input is still requested.
Secondary schools and postsecondary institutions would be eligible to be registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors. The Department estimated the population based on the number of school districts that receive Perkins Federal Grant Program funds and the number of postsecondary institutions offering approved CTE programs. The Institute of Education Services estimates that 65 percent of LEAs receive Perkins funds. Based on National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data, there were 19,359 LEAs in 2021-2022, resulting in an estimate of 12,583 receiving Perkins funds. Data collected by NCES through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System indicate that the number of public 2-year and less than 2-year institutions with CTE programs is 1,134 institutions. This results in a total potential population of 13,717 sponsors. However, because of requirements to register, maintain 540 hours of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction over the program, and expectations for registered CTE apprenticeship to slowly ramp up, the Department estimates a small percent of these would become sponsors in the first year (1 percent or 137 sponsors), second year (3 percent or 412 sponsors), and in each subsequent year (3 percent or 412 sponsors).
To estimate the number of participating employers and apprentices associated with registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors, the Department used data from registered apprenticeship. As discussed in the population estimates for registered apprenticeship, there are approximately 1.53 participating employers per sponsor and 23.4 apprentices per sponsor. The Department expects similar ratios under CTE and used these with the projected number of sponsors to project participating employers and apprentices.
The Department's projections of registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors, participating employers, and apprentices are presented in Exhibit 9.
The Department estimated the costs of the proposed CTE program based on the number of new apprentices who are projected to enter registered CTE apprenticeship programs. Accordingly, the Department developed projections for the number of new CTE apprentices entering each year of the program based on the number of projected CTE apprentices in Exhibit 10. Given that 540 hours of CTE apprenticeship-related instruction would be required for apprentices in registered CTE apprenticeship programs, the Department expects that it would take 1 to 2 years to complete a registered CTE apprenticeship. To develop its projections, the Department assumed the value of 2 years and estimated the cohorts that would enter each year and exit after 2 years based on the projected CTE apprenticeship population. The projected number of new CTE apprentices and the cohorts those numbers are derived from are presented in Exhibit 10.
Exhibits 11a through 11c present the hourly compensation rates for the occupational categories that are expected to experience a change in level of effort (workload) due to the proposed rule. We used BLS's mean hourly wage rate for private sector and State employees.
The Department's subject-by-subject analysis covers the estimated costs and cost savings of the proposed rule. The hourly time burdens and other estimates used to quantify the costs are largely based on the Department's experience with registered apprenticeship.
When the proposed rule becomes final and takes effect, sponsors, employers, and SAAs would need to familiarize themselves with the new regulation, thereby incurring a one-time cost. To estimate the cost of rule familiarization to sponsors, the Department estimates that each sponsor would have a Training and Development Manager (private sector) spend 4 hours reading and reviewing the new rule. The estimate is based on the length and complexity of this rule, and the Department's program experience with previous apprenticeship regulations. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the 2016 DOL Apprenticeship Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) RIA for the time required to read and review the rule. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. In subsequent years, this cost is only applied to new sponsors. The estimated cost in year 1 is $10,924,835 (= 26,492 sponsors in year 1 × 4 hours × $103.10 per hour). In years 2-10, only new sponsors would incur this cost. In year 2, for example, new sponsors would face a cost of $1,169,764 (= 2,837 new sponsors × 4 hours × $103.10 per hour).
To estimate the cost of rule familiarization to participating employers, the Department estimates that each participating employer would have a Training and Development Manager (private sector) spend 2 hours reading and reviewing the new rule. This estimate was made by dividing the time estimate of 4 hours to read and review the rule from the 2016 DOL Apprenticeship EEO RIA in half. The Department anticipates it will take participating employers less time to read and review the rule since only certain provisions will be relevant to them. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate with the goal of providing refined estimates in the final rule. In subsequent years, this cost is only applied to new participating employers. The estimated cost in year 1 is $8,357,498 (= 40,533 participating employers in year 1 × 2 hours × $103.10 per hour). In years 2-10, only new participating employers would incur this cost. In year 2, for example, new employers would face a cost of $297,175
To estimate the cost of rule familiarization to SAAs, the Department estimates that each SAA would have a Training and Development Manager (State level) spend 4 hours reading and reviewing the new rule. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the 2016 DOL Apprenticeship EEO RIA for the time required to read and review the rule. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate with the goal of providing refined estimates in the final rule. This would result in a first-year cost to SAAs of $9,207 (= 31 SAAs × 4 hours × $74.25 per hour). The Department estimates that SAAs would only incur costs from rule familiarization in the first year.
In total, rule familiarization would have annualized costs over the 10-year analysis period of $3.6 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $3.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $30.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $27.6 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require sponsors to submit documentation of the industry standard of minimum hours needed to obtain proficiency in the occupation under consideration, and that the minimum hours are not less than 2,000 hours. Programs that do not meet the 2,000-hour minimum requirement would need to update their on-the-job training requirements and submit documentation. There are currently an average of 3,459 programs that have occupations that are competency-based and 2,794 registered apprenticeship programs that have occupations that are hybrid (time-based and competency-based). It is assumed that these programs would not meet the minimum 2,000-hour requirement of on-the-job training and would incur one-time costs to update their requirements. The Department estimates that sponsors would have a Training and Development Manager (private sector) spend 8 hours updating their on-the-job training requirements and spend 2 hours submitting documentation. These estimates are based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on these estimates. In year 1, the Department estimates the cost to be $6,446,568 (= 6,253 occupations with programs with <2,000 hours on-the-job training × 10 hours × $103.10 per hour). In years 2-10, only sponsors with new occupations would need to submit the documentation of training requirements and incur costs.
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of new requirements for on-the-job training documentation is estimated at $733,723 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $857,800 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $6.3 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $6.0 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require sponsors to submit documentation of the typical compensation and career advancement profile for each occupation that places workers in an occupation that leads to a sustainable career. The Department estimates that this new requirement would impose costs on sponsors to submit documentation of the wage analysis and career advancement profile for existing occupations and new and revised occupation determinations. The Department estimates that sponsors would have a Training and Development Manager (private sector) spend 2 hours to develop and submit the documentation for each existing, new, and revised occupation. This estimate aligns with the time estimates for similar activities in the 2019 DOL Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAP) RIA for the time required to prepare and submit the wage analysis and career development profile. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate with the goal of providing refined estimates in the final rule. This would result in an annual cost to sponsors of $48,455 (= 235 new and revised occupation determinations × 2 hours × $103.10 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of documenting the wage analysis and career development profile is estimated at $48,455 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $48,455 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $413,330 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $340,327 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would update the process by which OA evaluates occupation determinations by providing more clarity and being more precise on what is being evaluated including all the new documentation submissions under proposed § 29.7(b). In addition, the proposed rule formalizes the process by which OA solicits feedback from industry leaders on the suitability of an occupation for registered apprenticeship.
The Department estimates that OA would incur costs for a GS-13 manager to spend an additional 4 hours reviewing the new documentation under proposed § 29.7(b) for each occupation application. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to OA for new and revised occupation determinations, with a cost in year 1 of $74,617 (= 235 new and revised occupation determinations × 4 hours × $79.38).
In addition, the Department estimates that industry leaders would spend a total of 2 hours providing feedback on the suitability of an occupation for registered apprenticeship. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to private industry for new and revised occupation determinations, with a cost in year 1 of $47,939 (= 235 new and revised occupation determinations × 2 hours × $102.00).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of the new OA occupation determination evaluation process is estimated at $122,556 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $122,556 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $1.0 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $860,786 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would create new data collection and reporting requirements for apprentices, participating employers, sponsors, and SAAs. Proposed § 29.25(a) would create new apprentice level data collections, including information on pre-apprenticeship services, occupations, and wage schedules. Proposed § 29.25(b) would create new data collections on program sponsors including information such as participating employers, copies of program standards adoption agreements, participation with credentialing agencies, numbers of new and active apprentices, completed apprentices, out-of-pocket costs by apprentices, earnings from completed apprentices. Proposed § 29.8(a) on standards of apprenticeship would update requirements for the written set of standards of apprenticeship including information on term of the apprenticeship program, and related instruction. Proposed § 29.9 would
The Department estimates that complying with these additional data collections and transmitting them to OA would impose additional time burdens on apprentices, sponsors, and SAAs. The majority of these data collections are simple drop down or choice answers similar to the existing form ETA-671 covered under existing ICR 1205-0223.
The Department estimates that apprentices would spend an additional 5 minutes (0.083 hours) providing information to sponsors (proposed § 29.25(a)). This estimate aligns with the time estimate in the supporting statement for Registration and Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship Programs (OMB Control Number 1205-0223, hereafter referred to as the EEO Supporting Statement), Table 1 for the time apprentices spend on apprenticeship agreements and program registration additions. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to apprentices, with a cost in year 1 of $1,455,873 (= 675,557 apprentices × 0.083 hour × $25.96 per hour).
The Department estimates that sponsors would require a Training and Development Manager (private sector) to spend 0.33 hour to provide information on standards of apprenticeship (proposed § 29.8(a)). This estimate aligns with the time estimate in the EEO Supporting Statement, Table 1 for the time sponsors spend updating standards of apprenticeship. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. The Department estimates that sponsors would also have an office and administrative support staff (private sector) spend 5 minutes (0.083 hour) per apprentice providing additional data on apprentices (proposed § 29.25(a)) and providing the apprenticeship agreement (proposed § 29.9). This estimate aligns with the time estimate in the EEO Supporting Statement, Table 1 for the time sponsors spend providing additional data on apprentices and providing the apprenticeship agreement. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. Finally, the Department estimates that sponsors would also have an office and administrative support staff (private sector) spend 5 minutes (0.083 hour) per participating employer providing additional data on employers in their programs (proposed § 29.25(b)). This estimate aligns with the time estimate in the EEO Supporting Statement, Table 1 for the time sponsors spend providing additional data on employers in their programs. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to sponsors, with a cost in year 1 of $2,944,441 (= 26,492 programs × 0.33 hour × $103.10 per hour + 675,557 apprentices × 0.083 hour × $34.38 per hour + 40,533 participating employers × 0.083 hour × $34.38 per hour).
The Department estimates that SAAs would have a Training and Development Manager (State level) spend an additional 1.5 hours per sponsor providing additional data to OA (proposed § 29.25(a) and (b), as required by proposed § 29.28). This estimate is made by multiplying the time estimate in the EEO Supporting Statement, Table 1 by 1.5 to account for the added length of the form. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to SAAs, with a cost in year 1 of $2,950,515 (= 26,492 sponsors × 1.5 hours × $74.25 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of the new data collection and reporting requirements is estimated at $8.64 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $8.55 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $73.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $60.0 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require sponsors that submit new applications to include additional information in their applications including a narrative on how they are working with the workforce system, information on their financial capacity and other resources to operate the proposed program, and any history of violations. OA and SAAs would need to review this new information when making a registration determination.
The Department estimates that sponsors would have a Training and Development Manager (private sector) spend 1 hour submitting the additional information with applications for new programs. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to sponsors submitting new program applications, with a cost in year 1 of $284,874 (2,763 new programs × 1 hour × $103.10 per hour).
Each Registration Agency would spend additional time reviewing the added information to registration applications. The Department estimates that SAAs would have a Training and Development Manager (State level) spend 0.5 hour reviewing the additional information. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to SAAs based on the number of new registration applications they would review. The Department assumes they would review the same proportion of new registration applications as there are programs registered with SAAs (58.2 percent, on average between 2019 and 2022), with a cost in year 1 of $59,730 (= 2,763 new program registrations × 58.2% × 0.5 hour × $74.25 per hour).
The Department estimates that OA would have a GS-13 level employee spend 0.5 hour reviewing the additional information. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to OA based on the number of new registration applications they would review (41.8 percent), with a cost in year 1 of $45,814 (= 2,763 new program registrations × 41.8% × 0.5 hour × $79.38 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of the new program registration requirements is estimated at $434,561 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $431,342 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $3.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $3.0 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require non-collectively bargained programs to include requirements that participating employers would adopt and comply with the sponsor's standards of apprenticeships as well as applicable requirements under 29 CFR part 30. This primarily formalizes existing arrangements between employers and sponsors. In addition to formalizing these agreements, they must be transmitted by the sponsor to OA, thereby imposing a new burden on sponsors.
The Department estimates that sponsors that have non-collectively bargained programs would have a Training and Development Manager (private sector) spend 1 hour transmitting the adoption agreements with employers to OA. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of the program standards adoption agreement provision is estimated at $217,738 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $217,738 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $1.9 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1.5 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would allow OA to create National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship that would be suitable for adoption by program sponsors. This would extend existing work to identify and characterize competency-based occupational frameworks and ensure they meet the new standards of proposed § 29.7. The Department estimates that a GS-13 level employee would require 40 hours to commission each new national occupational standard. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost of $47,628 (= 15 annual new national occupation determinations × 40 hours × $79.38 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of commissioning National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship is estimated at $47,628 at both a discount rate of 3 percent and 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $406,277 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $334,519 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require sponsors to conduct an end-point assessment with the apprentice after their completion of the registered apprenticeship program. The end-point assessment would objectively measure the apprentice's acquisition of the relevant knowledge, skills, and competencies necessary to demonstrate proficiency in the occupation covered by the program. The Department understands that many sponsors already perform end-point assessments but does not have data on how many do so. Therefore, the Department estimates the costs based on all sponsors conducting end-point assessments as a result of the proposed rule. The Registration Agency would award a Certificate of Completion to the apprentice after successful completion of the end-point assessment.
The Department estimates that apprentices would spend 1 hour working with the sponsor answering questions and completing the end-point assessment. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to apprentices, with a cost in year 1 of $17,540,640 (= 675,557 apprentices × 1 hour × $25.96 per hour). The Department estimates that sponsors would also have a Training and Development Manager (private sector) spend 1 hour working with the apprentices to assess their proficiency in the occupation covered by the program. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to sponsors, with a cost in year 1 of $69,646,975 (= 675,557 apprentices × 1 hour × $103.10). The Department estimates the Registration Agency would have a GS-7 staff spend 15 minutes (0.25 hour) per program awarding a Certificate of Completion to each apprentice after successful completion of the end-point assessment. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost, with a cost in year 1 of $249,276 (= 26,492 × 0.25 hour × $37.64 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of the end-point assessment requirements is estimated at $105.3 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $104.0 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $898.5 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $730.7 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require participating employers to record and maintain additional information on end-point assessments and safety records. The Department estimates that office and administrative support staff (private sector) would spend 4 hours recording and maintaining the additional information. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to participating employers, with a cost in year 1 of $5,573,384 (= 40,533 participating employers × 4 hours × $34.38 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of this recordkeeping requirement is estimated at $6.42 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $6.36 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $54.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $44.6 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require Registration Agencies to conduct periodic program reviews at least every 5 years. Program reviews can consist of off-site reviews such as desk audits of submitted records or on-site reviews at the workplace of the sponsor or participating employer, and could involve examination and copying of relevant documents or interviews. The Registration Agency must also present a Notice of Program Review Findings to the sponsor. If a sponsor receives a Notice of Program Review Findings that indicates a failure of compliance, the sponsor must develop a compliance action plan that details a commitment to remediate the areas of noncompliance, precise actions to be taken, the time period over which the deficiency would be remedied, and identification of individuals responsible for corrections of deficiencies.
The Department assumes that 20 percent of program sponsors would be subject to program reviews annually, such that in a 5-year period all program sponsors would be reviewed. The Department estimates that OA would conduct annual program reviews for 8.4 percent of sponsors based on the proportion of programs registered by OA and that a GS-13 level employee would spend 40 hours conducting each program review. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the 2016 Apprenticeship EEO RIA for the time required to conduct compliance reviews. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to OA, with a cost in year 1 of $7,027,755 (= 26,492 sponsors in year 1 × 8.4% × 40 hours × $79.38 per hour).
The Department estimates that SAAs would conduct annual program reviews for the remaining 11.6 percent of sponsors and that a Training and Development Manager (State level) would spend 40 hours conducting each program review. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the 2016 Apprenticeship EEO RIA for the time required to conduct compliance reviews. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to SAAs, with
The Department estimates that 20 percent of sponsors would be found noncompliant and need to develop a compliance action plan. The Department thinks this estimate is reasonable due to the number of new program requirements that sponsors would need to implement but seeks public comment on this estimate. The Department estimates that a Training and Development Manager (private sector) would require 8 hours to develop and write the compliance action plan and 0.17 hour to submit it electronically. These estimates are based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on these estimates. This would result in an annual cost to sponsors, with a cost in year 1 of $892,559 (= 26,492 sponsors in year 1 × 20% undergoing program reviews × 20% found noncompliant × 8.17 hours × $103.10 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of program reviews is estimated at $19.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $19.5 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $167.8 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $136.8 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require SAAs to furnish OA with apprenticeship-related data applicable to proposed §§ 29.25 and 29.28. Most SAAs already use RAPIDS and therefore would not face costs to develop software or IT infrastructure as a result of this provision. For the three SAAs that do not currently use RAPIDS, the Department assumes that they would face costs associated with developing the software and IT infrastructure as well as new costs for compiling and submitting their apprenticeship data. The Department assumes that all SAAs would face new costs for compiling and submitting their apprenticeship data.
The Department estimates that the three SAAs not using RAPIDS would face a one-time cost associated with software and IT systems infrastructure of $100,000 and $50,000 in licensing costs. The Department also assumes that they would face annual costs associated with consulting costs and system maintenance of $75,000. This would result in costs to SAAs not using RAPIDS of $2,475,000 in the first year (= 11 SAAs not using RAPIDS × $225,000 for system infrastructure, licensing, and consulting and maintenance costs) and annual costs in years 2-10 of $825,000 (= 11 SAAs not using RAPIDS × $75,000 for annual consulting and system maintenance costs).
The Department estimates that all SAAs would have a Training and Development Manager (State level) spend 32 hours compiling and submitting apprenticeship data. This estimate aligns with time estimates for similar activities in the 2016 WIOA RIA. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. The Department further estimates that all SAAs would have 3 computer systems analysts (State level) spend 80 hours each working to help compile and submit apprenticeship data. This estimate aligns with time estimates for similar activities in the 2016 WIOA RIA for the time required to compile and submit apprenticeship data. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. Finally, the Department estimates that all SAAs would have an office and administrative support staff (State level) spend 72 hours to assist with compiling and submitting apprenticeship data. This estimate aligns with time estimates for similar activities in the 2016 WIOA RIA. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to SAAs of $685,359 (= 31 SAAs × 32 hours × $74.25 per hour + 31 SAAs × 240 hours × $70.01 per hour + 31 SAAs × 72 hours × $40.70 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period for data sharing is estimated at $1.70 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1.73 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $14.5 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $12.1 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
In order to obtain or maintain full or provisional recognition status, SAAs would be required to establish a process and criteria for providing approval to apprentices, apprenticeship programs, and standards of apprenticeship. Under this requirement, SAAs would face a burden to develop and write a reciprocity statement. The Department estimates that each SAA would have a Training and Development Manager (State level) spend 4 hours to develop and write the reciprocity statement. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would be a one-time cost resulting in a first-year cost of $9,207 (= 31 SAAs × 4 hours × $74.25 per hour). In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $1,048 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1,225 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $8,939 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $8,605 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
In order to maintain recognition as an SAA, each SAA would be required to submit a State Apprenticeship Plan every 4 years, beginning in 2026. The State Apprenticeship Plan would contain strategic planning elements such as goals for expansion; promotion of DEIA; a narrative describing workforce development activities; and a description of its strategy and initiatives for ensuring its registered apprenticeship programs feature high-quality apprenticeships. The State Apprenticeship Plan also would include operational planning elements such as regulatory documentation, State EEO plan, complaint investigation plan, technical assistance plan, performance reporting process, program review plan, registration standards, reciprocity policy, and data sharing policy. Finally, the State Apprenticeship Plan would include a variety of assurances that the State would abide by relevant regulatory requirements, registration requirements, resource availability, and information availability. Under this requirement, SAAs would face a burden to write and document these requirements, and then submit their State Apprenticeship Plan.
The Department estimates that each SAA would have a Training and Development Manager (State level) spend 86 hours to develop, write, review, and submit the State Apprenticeship Plan. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the 1205-0522 Supporting Statement for WIOA State Plans for the time required to write state plans. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This periodic cost would occur every 4 years, beginning in 2026. Therefore, SAAs would face costs in years 2, 6, and 10 of $197,948 (= 31 SAAs × 86 hours × $74.25 per hour). In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $58,575 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $57,723 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $499,656 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $405,424 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
When the proposed rule becomes final and takes effect, registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors, participating employers, and SAAs would need to familiarize themselves with the new regulation, thereby incurring a one-time cost. To estimate the cost of rule familiarization to sponsors, the Department estimates that each registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor would have a Training and Development Manager (private sector) spend 4 hours reading and reviewing the new rule. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the 2016 DOL EEO Apprenticeship RIA for the time required to read and review the rule. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. In subsequent years, this cost is only applied to new registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors. The estimated cost in year 1 is $56,566 (= 137 sponsors in year 1 × 4 hours × $103.10 per hour). In years 2-10, only new sponsors would incur this cost. In years 2-10, new sponsors would face a cost of $169,699 (= 412 new sponsors × 4 hours × $103.10 per hour).
To estimate the cost of rule familiarization to participating employers, the Department estimates that each participating employer would have a Training and Development Manager (private sector) spend 2 hours reading and reviewing the new rule. This estimate was made by dividing the time estimate of 4 hours to read and review the rule from the 2016 DOL EEO Apprenticeship RIA in half. The Department anticipates it will take participating employers less time to read and review the rule since only certain provisions will be relevant to them. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. In subsequent years, this cost is only applied to new CTE participating employers. The estimated cost in year 1 is $43,273 (= 210 participating employers in year 1 × 2 hours × $103.10 per hour). In years 2-10, only new participating employers would incur this cost. In year 2, for example, new employers would face a cost of $129,820 (= 630 new participating employers × 2 hours × $103.10 per hour).
To estimate the cost of rule familiarization to SAAs, the Department estimates that each CTE SAA would have a Training and Development Manager (State level) spend 4 hours reading and reviewing the new rule. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the 2016 DOL EEO Apprenticeship RIA for the time required to read and review the rule. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to new CTE SAAs, with an estimated year 1 cost of $297 (= 1 CTE SAAs × 4 hours × $74.25 per hour).
In total, rule familiarization would have annualized costs over the 10-year analysis period of $278,274 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $274,349 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $2.4 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require OA to develop industry skills frameworks. OA would be required to develop training outlines that provide a structure for developing the personal effectiveness, academic, and workplace competencies required by an industry. The proposed rule would require the industry skills frameworks to describe the core competencies to be developed across an industry and must specify an on-the-job training outline detailing the minimum number of on-the-job training hours apprentices must attain in order to meet the specific benchmarks required by an industry.
The Department assumes that OA would develop a specific industry skills framework for 16 industries
To estimate the costs to OA associated with developing industry skills frameworks, the Department multiplied the anticipated number of industry skills frameworks developed per year by the hour burden to develop the Skills Frameworks and by the GS-13 (Federal) loaded hourly wage. In years 1-2, the Department estimates costs to OA associated with developing industry skills frameworks to be $50,803 per year (= 8 industry skills frameworks × 80 hours × $79.38 per hour).
To estimate the costs to industry leaders associated with supporting the development of the industry skills frameworks, the Department multiplied the anticipated number of industry skills frameworks developed per year by the hour burden to develop the Skills Frameworks and by the industry leader's loaded hourly wage. In years 1-2, the Department estimates costs to industry leaders associated with supporting the development of the industry skills frameworks to be $1,632 per year (= 8 industry skills frameworks × 2 hours × $102 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period for program sponsors to develop industry skills frameworks is estimated at $11,762 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $13,498 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $100,333 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $94,804 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require a prospective program sponsor to electronically submit to a Registration Agency an application that includes written plans and assurances. The Department anticipates the program sponsor's Training and Development Manager (private sector) would spend 10 hours carrying out the duties associated with CTE apprenticeship registration applications. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate.
To estimate the costs associated with CTE apprenticeship program registration applications, the Department multiplied the number of anticipated program sponsors in each year by the hour burden to compile application information and by the Training and Development Manager (private sector) loaded hourly wage. In year 1, the Department estimates costs associated with compiling and submitting program applications to be $141,416 (= 137 program sponsors × 10 hours × $103.10 per hour). In year 2, the Department estimates costs associated with compiling and submitting program applications to be $424,249 (= 412 new program sponsors × 10 hours × $103.10 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period for program sponsors to compile and submit program applications is estimated at $392,058 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $386,614 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $3.3 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $2.7 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require program sponsors to ensure a diverse and inclusive cross-section of students is selected for participation. The Department assumes that in order to be compliant with the proposed rule, program sponsors would ensure that information is distributed regularly to underserved communities. The Department anticipates the program sponsor's human resources (HR) manager and administrative assistant would spend 0.5 hours, respectively, carrying out the duties associated with distributing information. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the 2016 EEO Apprenticeship RIA for the time spent on outreach to students from underserved communities. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate.
To estimate the costs associated with ensuring a diverse and include cross-sections of students are selected, the Department multiplied the anticipated number of program sponsors per year by the hour burden to distribute information to underserved communities and by the HR manager as well as the administrative assistant loaded hourly wage (private sector), respectively. In year 1, the Department estimates costs associated with distributing information to underserved communities to be $10,086 (= 137 program sponsors × 0.5 hours × $32.93 per hour + 137 program sponsors × 0.5 hours × $114.13 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period for program sponsors to ensure a diverse and inclusive cross-section of students is selected is estimated at $138,880 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $129,487 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $1.2 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $909,461 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would impose costs on sponsors to ensure that each of the employers that participate in the program adheres to all requirements of the proposed rule. The Department anticipates the program sponsor's HR manager would spend 8 hours performing the duties associated with overseeing the participating employers. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate.
To estimate the costs associated with sponsor oversight of participating employers, the Department multiplied the number of program sponsors anticipated each year by the hour burden to ensure participating employers adhere to all the requirements of the proposed rule and by the HR manager hourly wage (private sector). In year 1, the Department estimates the costs associated with the oversight of participating employers to be $125,424 (= 137 program sponsors × 8 hours × $114.13 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period for program sponsors to oversee participating employers is estimated at $1.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1.6 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $14.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $11.3 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require all program sponsors registered by a Registration Agency to develop and establish a written CTE apprenticeship agreement that contains the terms and conditions of the employment, education, and training of the CTE apprentice. The Department anticipates the program sponsor's Training and Development Manager (private sector) would spend 0.167 hours performing the duties associated with the CTE apprenticeship agreements. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the 2020 DOL IRAP rule for the time required to prepare and sign the apprenticeship agreement. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate.
To estimate the costs associated with the CTE apprenticeship agreement, the Department multiplied the number of CTE apprentices anticipated to participate each year by the hour burden for program sponsors to prepare and sign the CTE apprenticeship agreement and by the Training and Development Manager wage (private sector). In year 1, the Department estimates the costs associated with preparing and signing CTE apprenticeship agreements to be $55,263 (= 3,210 CTE apprentices × 0.167 hours × $103.10 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period for program sponsors to develop written CTE apprenticeship agreements is estimated at $421,712 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $395,717 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $3.6 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $2.8 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would impose costs on the Registration Agency to provide a nationally recognized certificate of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship and any other industry-recognized credential to students who meet the graduation requirements for the registered CTE apprenticeship program. The Department estimates that OA would issue 41.8 percent of the total credentials based on the proportion of certificates issued by SAAs (58.2 percent). The Department anticipates that the duties associated with issuing completion credentials would be performed by a GS-13 level employee who would spend 0.25 hour providing a certificate of completion of registered CTE apprenticeship and other credentials to students. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the RAP section of this RIA for the time required to provide a certificate of compliance to each sponsor. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. To estimate the costs associated with OA providing completion credentials to students, the Department multiplied the number of CTE apprentices anticipated to receive certificates each year by the hour burden for OA to prepare and issue the certificates and by the GS-13 wage (public sector). The Department assumes that the first cohort of students to receive completion credentials would be eligible beginning in year 2, and estimates the costs to OA associated with providing completion credentials to be $26,609 (= 3,210 CTE apprentices × 41.8% × 0.25 hour × $79.38 per hour).
The Department estimates that SAAs would issue 58.2 percent of the total credentials based on the anticipated total number of CTE apprentices per year. The Department anticipates that the duties associated with issuing completion credentials would be performed by a Training and Development Manager (public sector) who would spend 0.25 hour providing a certificate of completion of registered
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period for OA and SAAs to issue completion credentials is estimated at $376,291 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $348,039 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $3.2 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $2.4 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require Registration Agencies to review CTE apprenticeship program registration applications and determine whether the program is eligible for registration within 90 days of receipt. Additionally, Registration Agencies would have to inform applicants in writing of decisions regarding program registration.
The Department estimates that OA would register 41.8 percent of programs based on the proportion of programs that are typically registered by SAAs (58.2 percent). The Department anticipates that the duties of reviewing applications and making a determination would be performed by a GS-13 level employee who would spend 2 hours reviewing program registration applications and informing applicants of their decision. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. To estimate the costs associated with OA reviewing CTE apprenticeship program registration applications and informing applicants of their decision, the Department multiplied the number of programs typically registered by OA by the hour burden for OA to review program registration applications and by the GS-13 hourly wage. This would result in an annual cost to OA, with a cost in year 1 of $9,097 (= 137 program sponsors × 41.8% × 2 hours × $79.38 per hour).
The Department estimates that SAAs would register 58.2 percent of programs, and the time required for a Training and Development Manager to review program registration applications and inform applicants of their decision would be consistent with that of OA's at 2 hours. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. To estimate the costs associated with SAAs reviewing CTE apprenticeship program registration applications and informing applicants of their decision, the Department multiplied the number of programs typically registered by SAAs by the hour burden for SAAs to review program registration applications and by the Training and Development Manager (State level) hourly wage. This would result in an annual cost to SAAs, with a cost in year 1 of $11,860 (= 137 program sponsors × 58.2% × 2 hours × $74.25 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period for Registration Agencies to review CTE apprenticeship program registration applications and inform applicants of their decision is estimated at $58,102 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $57,295 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $495,622 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $402,418 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require Registration Agencies to provide outreach, technical assistance, and other support to potential sponsors to support the adoption of registered CTE apprenticeship.
The Department estimates that OA would provide technical assistance to 41.8 percent of program sponsors based on the proportion of programs that are typically registered by OA. The Department anticipates that the time required for a GS-13 level employee to provide technical assistance and other support to sponsors would be 3 hours. This estimate aligns with time estimates for similar activities in the 2016 WIOA RIA. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. To estimate the costs associated with OA providing technical assistance, the Department multiplied the number of programs typically registered by OA, and thus receiving technical assistance from OA, by the hour burden for OA to provide technical assistance and by the GS-13 hourly wage. This would result in an annual cost to OA, with a cost in year 1 of $13,646 (= 137 program sponsors × 41.8% × 3 hours × $79.38 per hour).
The Department estimates that SAAs would provide technical assistance to 58.2 percent of program sponsors based on the proportion of programs that are typically registered by SAAs. The Department anticipates that the time required for a Training and Development Manager to provide technical assistance and other support to sponsors would be 3 hours. This estimate aligns with time estimates for similar activities in the 2016 WIOA RIA. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. To estimate costs associated with SAAs providing technical assistance, the Department multiplied the number of programs typically registered by SAAs, and thus receiving technical assistance from SAAs, by the hour burden for SAAs to provide technical assistance and by the Training and Development Manager (State level) hourly wage. This would result in an annual cost to SAAs, with a cost in year 1 of $17,791 (= 137 program sponsors × 58.2% × 3 hours × $74.25 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period for Registration Agencies to provide outreach, technical assistance, and other support to potential sponsors is estimated at $432,862 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $403,586 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $3.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $2.8 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require Registration Agencies to conduct reviews of registered CTE apprenticeship programs at least every 5 years. Program reviews can consist of off-site reviews such as desk audits of submitted records or on-site reviews at the workplace of the sponsor. On-site reviews could involve copying of relevant documents and interviews with employees, CTE apprentices, journeyworkers, supervisors, managers, and hiring officials. The Registration Agency must also provide a written Notice of Program Review Findings to the sponsor. If a sponsor receives a Notice of Program Review Findings that indicates a failure of compliance, the sponsor must develop a compliance action plan or submit a written rebuttal to the Registration Agency.
The Department assumes that 20 percent of program sponsors would be subject to program reviews annually, such that in a 5-year period all program
The Department estimates that SAAs would conduct annual program reviews for the remaining 11.6 percent of sponsors and that a Training and Development Manager (State level) would spend 40 hours conducting each program review. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the RAP section of this RIA for the time required to conduct program reviews. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. This would result in an annual cost to SAAs, with a cost in year 1 of $47,442 (= 137 sponsors in year 1 × 11.6% × 40 hours × $74.25 per hour).
The Department estimates that 20 percent of sponsors would be found noncompliant and need to develop a compliance action plan. The Department estimates that a Training and Development Manager (private sector) would require 8 hours to develop the compliance action plan and 0.17 hour to submit it electronically. These estimates align with the time estimates made in the RAP section of this RIA for the time required to develop and submit the compliance action plan. The Department seeks public comment on these estimates. This would result in an annual cost to sponsors, with a cost in year 1 of $4,621 (= 137 sponsors in year 1 × 20% undergoing program reviews × 20% found noncompliant × 8.17 hours × $103.10 per hour).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period of program reviews is estimated at $1.2 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1.1 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $10.4 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $8.0 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would allow sponsors to file a request for reconsideration if their initial application is denied, renewal of the registration of a program is denied, or the program is deregistered. It would also require Registration Agencies to review the request and issue a written explanation of their final decision.
The Department assumes that 25 percent of program sponsors would submit a request for reconsideration annually but seeks public comment on this assumption. The Department thinks this estimate is reasonable due to the level of coordination required for this model and since the program is new. The estimate is also based on the Department's experience with registered apprenticeship. The Department also assumes that the duties associated with preparing and submitting requests for reconsideration for program sponsors would be performed by a Training and Development Manager (private sector) who would spend 6 hours preparing requests. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. In year 1, the Department estimates the costs for program sponsors associated with requests for reconsideration to be $21,212 (= 137 sponsors × 25% requesting consideration × 6 hours × $103.10 per hour). In year 2, the Department estimates the costs for new program sponsors associated with new requests for reconsideration to be $63,637 (= 412 new sponsors × 25% requesting consideration × 6 hours × $103.10 per hour).
The Department assumes that 41.8 percent of programs will be registered by OA. The Department also assumes that the duties associated with Registration Agencies reviewing requests for reconsideration for OA will be performed by a GS-13 level employee who will spend 2 hours reviewing requests. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. In year 1, the Department estimates the costs for OA associated with requests for reconsideration to be $2,274 (= 137 sponsors × 41.8% registered by OA × 25% requesting consideration × 2 hours × $79.38 per hour). In year 2, the Department estimates costs for OA associated with new request for reconsideration to be $6,823 (= 412 new sponsors × 41.8% registered by OA × 25% requesting consideration × 2 hours × $79.38 per hour).
The Department assumes that 58.2 percent of program sponsors will be registered by SAAs. The Department also assumes that the duties associated with Registration Agencies reviewing requests for reconsideration for SAAs will be performed by a Training and Development Manager (private sector) who will spend 2 hours reviewing requests. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. In year 1, the Department estimates costs for SAAs associated with request for reconsideration to be $2,965 (= 137 sponsors × 58.2% registered by SAAs × 25% requesting consideration × 2 hours × $74.25 per hour). In year 2, the Department estimates costs for SAAs associated with new request for reconsideration to be $8,895 (= 412 new sponsors × 58.2% registered by SAAs × 25% requesting consideration × 2 hours × $74.25).
In total, the annualized cost over the 10-year analysis period associated with requests for reconsideration of program status is estimated at $73,334 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $72,316 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $625,555 at a discount rate of 3 percent and $507,917 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The proposed rule would require CTE apprentices to provide their information to program sponsors. The Department assumes that CTE apprentices would spend 0.16 hour providing their information to program sponsors. This estimate aligns with the time estimate made in the RAP section of this RIA for the time apprentices spend providing their information to program sponsors. The Department seeks public comment on this estimate. To calculate the costs for CTE apprentices associated with providing information to program sponsors, the Department multiplied the number of anticipated CTE apprentices each year by the hour burden to provide information and by the CTE apprentice hourly wage (private sector). In year 1, the Department estimates the costs for CTE apprentices to provide their information to program sponsors to be $13,835 (= 3,210 CTE apprentices × 0.16 hour × $25.96 per hour).
The proposed rule would require program sponsors to spend time compiling and sending to OA data on CTE apprentices, participating employers, and themselves. The Department assumes program sponsors would spend 0.167 hour (10 minutes) compiling and sending data on CTE apprentices, 0.167 hour on participating employers, and 0.67 hour on themselves. These estimates align with the time estimates made in the RAP section of this RIA for the time required to compile and send data. The Department seeks public comment on
The Department assumes that the duties associated with compiling and developing reports to be made publicly available would be performed by a GS-13 level employee who would spend 60 hours compiling and developing reports. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. To calculate the costs for OA associated with compiling and developing reports, the Department multiplied the hour burden to compile and develop reports by the GS-13 wage. In year 1, the Department estimates the costs to OA associated with compiling and developing reports to be $4,763 (= 60 hours × $79.38 per hour).
The proposed rule would require CTE SAAs to compile and submit all CTE apprenticeship-related data. The Department assumes that the duties associated with compiling and submitting CTE apprenticeship-related data would be performed by management, computer systems, and administrative staff who would spend 32 hours, 240 hours, and 72 hours, respectively, compiling and submitting data. These assumptions are consistent with the assumptions in registered apprenticeship for similar activities. Additionally, the Department assumes that CTE SAAs would spend 40 hours compiling and developing reports to be made publicly available. This estimate is based on program experience, and the Department seeks public comment on this estimate. In year 1, the Department estimates the costs to CTE SAAs associated with compiling and developing reports to be $25,078 (= 1 CTE SAA × 32 hours × $74.25 per hour + 1 SAA × 240 hours × $70.01 per hour + 1 SAA × 72 hours × $40.70 per hour + 1 SAA × 40 hours × $74.25 per hour).
In total, the annualized costs over the 10-year analysis period associated with data quality and metrics are estimated at $1.3 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $1.2 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. The total cost over the 10-year analysis period is estimated at $10.7 million at a discount rate of 3 percent and $8.2 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
This proposed rule would result in costs from changes to the registered apprenticeship regulations and creation of the registered CTE apprenticeship model. Exhibit 12 presents a summary of the estimated costs for each quantified provision for the registered apprenticeship and registered CTE apprenticeship, respectively.
The proposed rule would result in quantified costs to registered apprenticeship SAAs, sponsors, participating employers, and apprentices. The proposed rule would also result in quantified costs to CTE program SAAs, sponsors, participating employers, and apprentices. Exhibit 13 presents a summary of the quantifiable costs to each type of entity associated with the proposed rule.
Exhibit 14 presents a summary of the quantifiable costs associated with this proposed rule.
This section addresses the nonquantifiable costs and cost savings of the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would give the authority to determine occupations suitable for registered apprenticeship only to OA. Currently, some occupations are determined to be suitable for registered apprenticeship only by SAAs. Those occupations determined only by SAAs, and not OA, to be suitable for registered apprenticeship would need to submit new requests for the occupations to be approved by OA for them to continue to be suitable for registered apprenticeship. The Department assumes that sponsors would submit new requests for all occupations only approved by SAAs to be determined suitable for registered apprenticeship therefore incurring a one-time cost. The Department does not have data on the number of occupations that are only determined to be suitable for registered apprenticeship by SAAs and therefore is unable to quantify the cost of submitting the new requests for occupation suitability. The Department seeks public comments on data supporting costs of occupation suitability determinations to SAAs and sponsors.
The proposed rule would require sponsors to submit documentation of the curriculum and number of off-the-job training hours, which cannot be less than 144 hours. Programs that do not meet the 144-hour minimum requirement would need to update their off-the-job training requirements and submit documentation. The Department does not have data on the number of programs that do not meet the minimum 144-hour requirements of off-the-job training and is therefore unable to quantify this cost.
As discussed under the benefits section, the proposed rule would add a suspension step prior to deregistration allowing sponsors an adequate span of time to update their practices and be in compliance without having to be deregistered and then reregistered at a later date. Both SAAs and OA would need to develop a process for suspension procedures and offer technical assistance to sponsors to promote compliance with the suspension process. The Department is unable to quantify this cost due to uncertainty with procedures that would be developed and a lack of data on how many suspensions would be expected to occur. In addition, the addition of the suspension step could reduce the number of costly deregistrations, potentially even leading to cost savings for Registration Agencies.
The proposed rule would increase and clarify the requirements for State
The proposed rule would provide relief to certain sponsors that can justify being exempt from certain requirements of subpart A of 29 CFR part 29. This would result in cost savings for sponsors and potentially participating employers. The Department is unable to project how many exemptions would be requested and granted, as well as what provisions the exemptions would be for. Therefore, the Department is unable to estimate the potential cost savings resulting from exemptions. The Department seeks public comment on how sponsors may use the exemption provision.
The proposed rule would require a graduated schedule of increasing wages from entry wage to the journeyworker wage that includes at least one incremental wage step during the first 2,000 hours of on-the-job training and a final wage that is at least 75 percent of the journeyworker wage paid by the employer for that occupation. These changes would result in transfer payments from participating employers to apprentices. Participating employers that, in the baseline, do not increase wages during the first 2,000 hours or do not pay an end-point wage of 75 percent of the journeyworker wage, would need to pay higher total wages over the apprenticeship term. The Department lacks data on the number of participating employers that do not offer at least one wage increase for every 2,000 hours or the number of participating employers that do not pay an end-point wage of 75 percent of the journeyworker wage. Therefore, the Department is unable to quantify the transfer payments associated with either change. The Department seeks public comment on how progressive wage increases from this provision would impact apprentices and employers, specifically data that would indicate how many apprentices are currently not receiving progressive wage increases.
The proposed rule would limit the unreimbursed costs, expenses, and fees that an apprentice may incur during the registered apprenticeship program to those that are necessary and reasonable and do not impose financial barriers. The Department believes that there are currently some instances in which apprentices are required to pay costs, expenses, or fees that are excessive and unreasonably burden the apprentice. The Department expects that this provision would reduce the instances of these and as a result, be a transfer payment from sponsors or participating employers to apprentices. The Department does not have data on the prevalence of excessive costs to apprentices, and therefore is unable to quantify this transfer payment.
E.O. 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” seeks to advance equity in agency actions and programs. The term
To assess the impact of the proposed rule on equity, the Department analyzed Census data from the 2020 American Community Survey with data on the demographic distribution of registered apprenticeship programs. As shown in Exhibit 15 below, certain underserved communities are well represented in registered apprenticeship programs and are approximately equal to or exceed the distribution of these groups in the Census Workforce Population.
The advancement of worker rights and pay through changes in registered apprenticeship from removal of non-compete provisions, improvements to the complaint process, progressive wage increases, and other quality improvements to registered apprenticeship would have the potential to have two distributional impacts: (1) for the existing distribution of registered apprenticeship, which serves underserved communities at a rate equal to or higher than the population, improve their economic outcomes; and (2) have the potential to make registered apprenticeship more attractive and increase further the representation of underserved communities.
For the apprentices in the current distribution of registered apprenticeship, as shown in Exhibit 15, improvements in registered apprenticeship would improve their economic outcomes as described by the benefits of the proposed rule. Workers could potentially receive higher wages by improving their labor mobility, would participate in higher quality registered apprenticeship programs, and would face fewer financial barriers affecting their economic future.
The reduction in financial barriers would potentially increase participation by underserved communities. Many of the underserved communities are economically disadvantaged or face other workplace-related barriers. Reducing financial barriers and improving economic outcomes from registered apprenticeship could incentivize greater participation by those underserved communities. Changes to the registered apprenticeship model, combined with prior updated EEO regulations for registered apprenticeship programs, which were released in 2016, would help businesses to reach a larger and more diverse pool of workers, while also protecting apprentices and applicants from discrimination.
Although the participation of nearly all underserved communities has become more closely aligned with the makeup of the overall U.S. workforce, women's representation in registered apprenticeship programs still falls well below this metric. Although women comprise 43.15 percent of the American workforce in 2020,
OMB Circular A-4, which outlines best practices in regulatory analysis, directs agencies to analyze alternatives if such alternatives best satisfy the philosophy and principles of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the Department considered four regulatory alternatives for changes to registered apprenticeship, two less burdensome and two more burdensome than the proposed rule. Under the first alternative, end-point assessments (proposed § 29.16) would not be required under the proposed rule. Under the second alternative, program reviews (proposed § 29.19) would only be conducted for cause. Under the third alternative, program reviews (proposed § 29.19) would be conducted for all sponsors every 2 years rather than every 5 years. Finally, under the fourth alternative, end-point assessments (proposed § 29.16) would be conducted by an independent third party. The Department seeks comment on these four regulatory alternatives as well as additional regulatory alternatives for the Department to consider.
For the first alternative the Department considered removing the requirement for end-point assessments. To estimate the reduction in costs under this alternative, the Department subtracted the estimated costs of end-point assessments from the total costs estimated of the proposed rule. Over the 10-year analysis period, the annualized costs are estimated at $41.8 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. In total, this alternative is estimated to result in costs of $293.8 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The Department decided not to pursue this alternative because end-point assessments are a key method for sponsors to assess the skills and knowledge acquired by the apprentice. They help to measure and ensure the quality of registered apprenticeship programs.
For the second alternative the Department considered conducting program reviews only for cause, rather than for all sponsors every 5 years. To estimate the reduction in costs under this alternative, the Department adjusted the calculations described in the subject-by-subject analysis for program reviews (proposed § 29.19). The Department estimated that instead of all sponsors undergoing a program review every 5 years, only 320 sponsors would receive program reviews in each year. The Department maintained the assumption that 20 percent of those program reviews would find noncompliance and require a subsequent compliance action plan. The Department maintained the cost estimates for all other provisions. Over the 10-year analysis period, the annualized costs are estimated at $127.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. In total, this alternative is estimated to result in costs of $898.2 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The Department decided not to pursue this alternative because conducting program reviews only for cause would miss a large number of programs that may need reviews. To ensure high-quality registered apprenticeship programs, and that all programs abide by the regulatory requirements of registered apprenticeship, the Department believes that all registered apprenticeship programs should be reviewed over a 5-year period as specified in the proposed rule. This 5-year period ensures that the Department has the resources available to conduct reviews and that the review is not overly burdensome on programs undergoing the review.
For the third alternative, the Department considered conducting program reviews for all registered apprenticeship programs every 2 years, rather than for all programs every 5 years. This would increase the frequency at which the Department could identify noncompliance and potentially improve the quality of registered apprenticeship programs by ensuring closer compliance with the regulatory requirements. To estimate the increase in costs under this alternative, the Department adjusted the calculations described in the subject-by-subject analysis for program reviews (proposed § 29.19). The Department estimated that instead of all sponsors undergoing a program review every 5 years, they would receive a program review every 2 years. This would increase the annual number of program reviews conducted by SAAs (from 3,085 in year 1 to 7,713) and by OA (from 2,213 in year 1 to 5,533). The Department maintained the cost estimates for all other provisions. Over the 10-year analysis period, the annualized costs are estimated at $196.9 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. In total, this alternative is estimated to result in costs of $1,383.1 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The Department decided not to pursue this alternative because conducting program reviews every 2 years would increase costs by more than the benefit of more frequent program reviews. In addition, OA, and potentially SAAs, would lack the resources to conduct the large number of annual program reviews required. The Department welcomes comments with recommendations for how OA could use its resources most effectively to identify and review more frequently programs that need improvement.
For the fourth and final alternative the Department considered requiring end-point assessments to be conducted by an independent third party. An independent third party would remove any potential for conflicts of interest related to the perceived effectiveness of the sponsor's registered apprenticeship program that could occur by having sponsors conduct end-point assessments themselves. Requiring the end-point assessment to be conducted by an independent third party would have the potential to increase the quality of registered apprenticeship programs and ensure apprentices complete the program with the tools and skills needed to succeed. To estimate the increase in costs under this alternative, the Department adjusted the calculations described in the subject-by-subject analysis for end-point assessments (proposed § 29.16). The Department increased the time required for a Training and Development Manager (private sector) from 1 hour to 4 hours to account for additional preparation, synthesis of findings, and reporting of findings by the independent third party. The Department maintained the estimated cost of all other provisions of the proposed rule. Over the 10-year analysis period, the annualized costs are estimated at $646.3 million at a discount rate of 7 percent. In total, this alternative is estimated to result in costs of $4,539.5 million at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The Department decided not to pursue this alternative because the burden placed on registered apprenticeship programs is estimated to be too high for the resulting benefits of independent third-party end-point assessments.
The Department presents a comparison of the costs of each of the four alternatives and the proposed rule in Exhibit 16 below.
In addition to the four regulatory alternatives discussed above, the Department also considered maintaining the status quo. E.O. 12866 states, “In deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” Accordingly, the Department considered not implementing any of the provisions in this proposed rule. Under the status quo alternative, the Department would retain current program standards, apprenticeship agreements, and state governance requirements, and would not develop a registered CTE apprenticeship model. Doing so would incur no new costs or benefits. The Department decided against maintaining the status quo because the Department believes the proposed rule would improve the capacity of the National Apprenticeship System to respond to evolving employer needs, provide workers equitable pathways to good jobs, and increase the system's long-term resilience.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The Department believes that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and is therefore publishing this IRFA as required. It should be noted, however, that participation in registered apprenticeship programs and registered CTE apprenticeship programs is voluntary; therefore, only small entities that choose to continue participate would experience an economic impact—significant or otherwise. The Department anticipates that small businesses would continue to participate only if they believe the benefits will outweigh the costs. Because participation is voluntary, the increased burdens associated with this proposed rule may result in certain entities choosing to discontinue participation in the National Apprenticeship System. On the whole, however, the Department expects this rulemaking to facilitate the expansion and growth of registered apprenticeship.
The NAA has not been changed since the New Deal. There is need for a renewed commitment to registered apprenticeship and a modern system. In addition, there is need for a registered pathway for CTE apprenticeship. It has been decades since there has been a serious overhaul and update of registered apprenticeship regulations to address labor standards in a rapidly changing economy. This proposed rule would enhance labor standards to affirm guarantees and results for workers, create a consistent navigable system to support expansion across industries, and create equitable pathways to registered apprenticeship for underserved communities and youth. In addition, it would extend the high-quality requirements associated with registered apprenticeship to the newly created registered CTE apprenticeship model.
The NAA (29 U.S.C. 50) authorizes the Secretary of Labor to formulate and promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, to extend the application of such standards by encouraging their inclusion in contracts of apprenticeship, to cooperate with States to formulate and promote such standards, and to bring together employers and labor for the formulation of programs of apprenticeship. Pursuant to this authority, the Department has established regulations governing the registration of apprenticeship programs and apprentices at 29 CFR part 29 that prescribe minimum quality and content requirements with respect to a program's standards of apprenticeship and its apprenticeship agreements; establish procedures concerning the registration, cancellation, and deregistration of apprenticeship programs; and set forth a mechanism for the recognition of SAA as Registration Agencies. The steady expansion of the registered apprenticeship model has revealed the need to revise and modernize the policies and procedures contained in the current version of 29 CFR part 29 in order to promote dual goals of fostering innovation while preserving and enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the registered apprenticeship model.
The proposed rule would primarily affect program sponsors and participating employers in registered apprenticeship. Registered apprenticeship program sponsors may be employers, employer associations, industry associations, or labor management organizations and, thus, may represent businesses, small businesses, and not-for-profit organizations. The proposed rule would also affect program sponsors and participating employers in registered CTE apprenticeship. Registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors may be secondary schools and postsecondary institutions. This analysis focuses on the participating employers and sponsors that participate in registered apprenticeship programs or registered CTE apprenticeship programs and would incur costs from the proposed rule. As explained in the E.O. 12866 section above, the Department used historical program data for registered apprenticeship, and the Department's best estimates of CTE participation, to estimate the number of participating employers and sponsors that are projected to participate in registered apprenticeship programs and registered CTE apprenticeship programs. Exhibit 17 below summarizes the projections over the 10-year analysis period.
The Department lacks data on the size of these sponsors and participating employers. Therefore, the Department assumes that registered apprenticeship program sponsors will have the same size distribution as the firms in each of the 19 major industry sectors represented in registered apprenticeship. In addition to the 19 major industry sectors, the Department assumes that the Educational Services sector (NAICS 61) would have a similar representation in size distribution for registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor. This assumption allows the Department to conduct a robust analysis using data from the Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses,
The E.O. 12866 analysis above quantifies several types of labor costs that would be borne by registered apprenticeship program sponsors: (1) rule familiarization; (2) on-the-job training documentation; (3) wage analysis and career development; (4) data collection and reporting; (5) program registration; (6) program standards and adoption agreement; (7) end-point assessments; and (8) program reviews. Since some sponsors can also be participating employers, the Department adds costs of recordkeeping that are imposed on participating employers to all sponsors.
As explained in the E.O. 12866 section above, the Department estimates the following first-year costs to sponsors; each sponsor would incur a subset of these nine costs:
• rule familiarization: $412 per sponsor
• on-the-job training documentation: $1,031 per sponsor with program with less than 2,000 hours on-the-job training
• wage analysis and career development profile: $206 per sponsor submitting a new or revised occupation determination
• data collection and reporting: $111 per sponsor
• program registration: $103 per sponsor with a new program
• program standards adoption agreement: $103 per sponsor with new non-collectively bargained program standards
• end-point assessments: $103 per sponsor per apprentice
• program reviews: $842 per noncompliant sponsor
• recordkeeping: $138 per employer
Additional costs that may be incurred but could not be quantified due to a lack of data include new requirements for off-the-job training and prohibition of non-disclosure and non-compete provisions. In addition, the proposed rule would result in transfer payments from participating employers to apprentices in the form of compensation, but the Department lacks data on the extent of entities that would be impacted as well as the magnitude of transfers as discussed in the nonquantifiable transfer payments section of the E.O. 12866 analysis.
The costs associated with the increased requirements for registered apprenticeship present the possibility that some sponsors and employers may leave the registered apprenticeship system altogether. However, in other countries with quality labor standards, such as Germany, apprenticeship
The E.O. 12866 analysis above quantifies several types of labor costs that would be borne by registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors: (1) rule familiarization; (2) program registration application requirements; (3) selection of a diverse and inclusive cross-section of students; (4) sponsor oversight; (5) apprenticeship agreements; (6) program reviews; (7) request for reconsideration of program registration status; and (8) data and quality metrics.
As explained in the E.O. 12866 section above, the Department estimates the following first-year costs to registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors; each sponsor would incur a subset of these eight costs:
• rule familiarization: $412 per sponsor
• program registration application requirements: $1,031 per sponsor
• selection of a diverse and inclusive cross-section of students: $74 per sponsor
• sponsor oversight: $913 per sponsor
• apprenticeship agreements: $17 per sponsor per apprentice
• program reviews: $842 per noncompliant sponsor
• request for reconsideration of program registration status: $619 per sponsor
• data and quality metrics: $495 per sponsor
Additional costs that may be incurred but could not be quantified due to a lack of data include new requirements for off-the-job training and prohibition of non-disclosure and non-compete provisions. In addition, the proposed rule would result in transfer payments from participating employers to apprentices in the form of compensation, but the Department lacks data on the extent of entities that would be impacted as well as the magnitude of transfers as discussed in the nonquantifiable transfer payments section of the E.O. 12866 analysis.
To quantify the costs to small entities, the Department uses the same cost estimates for sponsors and participating employers described in the subject-by-subject analysis of the E.O. 12866 analysis for registered apprenticeship programs and registered CTE apprenticeship programs, respectively. Note that “firm” refers to “sponsor” in this IRFA. Sponsors are frequently employers, so the Department combined the costs for sponsors and employers to obtain an upper-bound estimate of the cost for “firms.” Hence, the cost estimates are the maximum amount that would be borne by a small entity that chooses to participate. The E.O. 12866 analysis above quantifies two types of labor costs that would be borne by participating employers in registered apprenticeship: (1) rule familiarization; and (2) recordkeeping. These two requirements combined would impose $343.69
Exhibit 18 shows the estimated cost per registered apprenticeship program sponsor for each year of the analysis period. The first-year cost per sponsor is estimated at $3,420 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized cost per sponsor is estimated at $3,238 at a discount rate of 7 percent. These estimates are
Exhibit 19 shows the estimated cost per registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor for each year of the analysis period. The first-year cost per sponsor is estimated at $3,476 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized cost per sponsor is estimated at $2,398 at a discount rate of 7 percent. These estimates are
Based on the estimated costs to participating employers, presented above, to have a significant economic impact on a participating employer in registered apprenticeship, the participating employer would need revenue less than $11,400.
The Department used the following steps to estimate the cost of the proposed rule per registered apprenticeship program sponsor as a percentage of annual receipts. First, the Department used the Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards to determine the size thresholds for small entities within each major industry.
The results for registered apprenticeship are presented in the following 19 tables, one for each major industry sector. The tables are in numeric order by their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code—from NAICS 11 (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting) to NAICS 81 (Other Services). Currently, apprentices are concentrated in the construction industry (33 percent), public administration industry (22 percent), and educational services industry (12 percent),
As shown in Exhibit 20, the first-year and annualized costs for registered apprenticeship program sponsors in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry (18.0 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.7 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.4 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 21, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the mining industry are not expected to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities of any size.
As shown in Exhibit 22, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the utilities industry are not expected to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities of any size.
As shown in Exhibit 23, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the construction industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the construction industry (24.1 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.6 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.3 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 24, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the manufacturing industry are not expected to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities of any size.
As shown in Exhibit 25, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the wholesale trade industry are not expected to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities of any size.
As shown in Exhibit 26, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the retail trade industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, but those firms do not constitute a substantial number of small entities in the retail trade industry (10.9 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.6 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.3 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 27, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the transportation and warehousing industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the transportation and warehousing industry (18.0 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.8 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.5 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 28, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the information industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the information industry (20.0 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.9 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.6 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 29, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the finance and insurance industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the finance and insurance industry (18.7 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.8 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.5 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 30, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the real estate and rental and leasing industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the real estate and rental and leasing industry (22.3 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.5 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.3 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 31, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the professional, scientific and technical services industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the professional, scientific and technical services industry (23.4 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.9 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.5 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 32, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the management of companies and enterprises industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, but those firms do not constitute a substantial number of small entities in the management of companies and enterprises industry (6.2 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 9.9 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 9.4 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 33, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the educational services industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the educational services industry (24.3 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 6.1 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.7 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 34, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the administrative and support and waste management and remediation services industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the administrative and support and waste management and remediation services industry (25.0 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 6.1 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.7 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 35, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the health care and social assistance industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the health care and social assistance industry (16.3 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.9 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.6 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 36, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the arts, entertainment, and recreation industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the arts, entertainment, and recreation industry (23.2 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 6.0 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.7 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 37, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the accommodation and food services industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, but those firms do not constitute a substantial number of small entities in the accommodation and food services industry (12.3 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.7 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.4 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
As shown in Exhibit 38, the first-year and annualized costs for sponsors in the other services industry are estimated to have a significant economic impact (3 percent or more) on small entities with receipts under $100,000, and those firms constitute a substantial number of small entities in the other services industry (24.6 percent). The first-year costs are estimated to be 5.7 percent of the average receipts per firm and the annualized costs are estimated to be 5.4 percent of the average receipts per firm for firms with revenue below $100,000.
The Department used the same steps as in the analysis of registered apprenticeship programs to estimate the cost of the proposed rule per registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor as a percentage of annual receipts. The Department divided the estimated first-year cost and the annualized cost per registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors (discounted at a 7-percent rate) by the average annual receipts per firm in the educational services industry (NAICS 61) to determine whether the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors in each size category.
The Department is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
The RFA directs agencies to assess the impacts that various regulatory alternatives would have on small entities and to consider ways to minimize those impacts. Accordingly, the Department considered two regulatory alternatives. Under the first alternative, end-point assessments (proposed § 29.16) would not be required under the proposed rule. Under the second alternative, program reviews (proposed § 29.19) would only be conducted for cause.
For the first alternative the Department considered removing the requirement for end-point assessments from the proposed rule. To estimate the reduction in costs under this alternative, the Department subtracted the estimated costs of end-point assessments from the total costs estimated of the proposed rule. Exhibit 40 shows the estimated cost per sponsor for each year of the analysis period. The first-year cost per sponsor is estimated at $737 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized cost per sponsor is estimated at $468 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The Department decided not to pursue this alternative because end-point assessments are a key method for sponsors to assess the skills and knowledge acquired by the apprentice and to ensure the quality of registered apprenticeship programs.
For the second alternative, the Department considered conducting program reviews only for cause, rather than for all sponsors every 5 years. To estimate the reduction in costs under this alternative, the Department adjusted the calculations described in the subject-by-subject analysis for program reviews (proposed § 29.19). The Department estimated that instead of all sponsors undergoing a program review every 5 years, only 320 sponsors would receive program reviews in each year. The Department maintained the assumption that 20 percent of those program reviews would find noncompliance and require a subsequent compliance action plan. The Department maintained the cost estimates for all other provisions. Exhibit 41 shows the estimated cost per sponsor for each year of the analysis period. The first-year cost per sponsor is estimated at $3,164 at a discount rate of 7 percent. The annualized cost per sponsor is estimated at $3,174 at a discount rate of 7 percent.
The Department decided not to pursue this alternative because conducting program reviews only for cause would miss a large number of programs that may need reviews. The Department seeks public comment on recommendations for additional lower cost alternatives that would still allow the Department to meet the goals of the proposed rule. To ensure high-quality registered apprenticeship programs, and that all programs abide by the regulatory requirements of registered apprenticeship, the Department believes that all registered apprenticeship programs should be reviewed over a 5-year period as specified in the proposed rule. This 5-year period ensures that the Department has the resources available to conduct reviews and that the review is not overly burdensome on programs undergoing the review. The Department seeks public comment on other alternatives to the proposed rule that would mitigate impacts on small businesses while maintaining the goals of the revisions to registered apprenticeship requirements and creation of registered CTE apprenticeship.
The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public also is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person will be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
In this NPRM, the Department is proposing several new ICs that will impact existing, and potentially new, registered apprenticeship stakeholders, including those stakeholders involved in program registration (
(1) Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity for Registered Apprenticeship Programs Registration and Reporting Requirements—Revisions and additions to current Form 671
(2) Information Collection on Suitability of Occupations for Registered Apprenticeship Programs and National Occupational Standard—New
(3) SAA Governance (State Apprenticeship Plan)—New
(4) CTE Apprenticeship—New
The Department is soliciting comments concerning the proposed IC related to the below ICRs. The Department is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden related to the IC, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the IC on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of IT (
Please see additional information regarding each ICR for context on comments.
The ICs associated with this proposal are summarized as follows:
The proposed changes are intended to increase the quality and uniformity of data related to apprenticeship that are ultimately reported to OA, provide clearer and more usable tools for registered apprenticeship program sponsors, and cover the new or updated apprenticeship labor standards in this proposal that are designed on the basis of protecting and safeguarding the welfare of apprentices. This ICR encompasses the information required from program sponsors to meet the program registration, operation, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for registered apprenticeship programs. The ICR also covers the information apprentices provide to sponsors (which in turn provide apprentice information to OA via the RAPIDS system, which is populated in part by the data from current form 671 that sponsors submit, either by paper or electronically). The Department proposes to further update ETA form 671, part I by adding part IA to incorporate the newly proposed Group Program Participating Employer Tear-off, a Program Standards Adoption Agreement, a Registered Apprenticeship Individual Record Layout schema to operate a case management system and for SAAs to accurately report data to the Department, additional proposed elements for the complaints process. The Department is also incorporating the IC elements related to National Program Standards for Apprenticeship and National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards, tools that were first introduced via DOL Circulars issued by OA (2022-01
The Department invites the public to provide comments on this proposed update to the existing form 671 and the additional elements related to registered apprenticeship program registration and operation. In particular, the Department is interested in comments about the current form 671, its clarity and ease of use, and the existing registration and reporting requirements for registered apprenticeship programs, and whether the proposed updates to this form are necessary, whether the new IC elements will have practical utility for the Department's oversight of the National Apprenticeship System, and any other feedback or suggestions related to form 671 and the registration and reporting requirements for registered apprenticeship programs. The Department is also interested in its proposed introduction of the RAIR Layout, which would provide a schematic for the development of a case management system, such as RAPIDS to collect the information required in the proposed rule, as well as a schema for SAAs that do not utilize RAPIDS to use when updating their case management systems to align with the NPRM. In addition, the Department is interested in comments about the accuracy of its burden estimates related to this proposal, and whether any potentially impacted stakeholders would be unduly burdened by the proposed changes to form 671 and registration and reporting requirements for registered apprenticeship programs.
Information exchanged under this collection is necessary to determine if an occupation meets the criteria for occupational suitability at proposed § 29.7, including the critical element of industry-vetting that underpins occupational suitability for registered apprenticeship. In addition, it is necessary to collect information from industry and the public related to the development of a set of nationally applicable standards of apprenticeship for an occupation (National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship) to ensure these standards are applicable and usable for quality registered apprenticeship programs on a nationwide basis. The information under this collection is also necessary to give other stakeholders and the public the opportunity to provide feedback on a sponsor's submission for either occupational suitability or a set of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship.
The Department is interested in comments from the public on all elements of the ICs related to the proposed processes for making determinations regarding occupational suitability for registered apprenticeship training and for National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship development. In particular, the Department is interested in hearing from existing stakeholders regarding the existing process for making occupational suitability determinations, whether the responsibility to make such determinations should rest with the Administrator or should remain the purview of both OA and SAAs, and what types of information would best inform the suitability determination process. In addition, the Department is interested in comments from industry representatives, particularly those from industries new to registered apprenticeship that may have a vested interest in the development of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship for their industry, regarding the process for developing National Occupational Standards, what types of information would best inform such development, and other feedback or suggestions on how to accelerate registered apprenticeship expansion into new industries through frameworks, tools, and other resources.
The information requested in this IC is required to facilitate the Department's examination of a State agency's fitness to serve in the role of an SAA, including meeting the requirements and responsibilities outlined in proposed § 29.26 and the other SAA-related requirements found in proposed §§ 29.27 and 29.29, as applicable. The Department has determined that its proposal for revamping the SAA Governance framework will increase its ability to monitor and verify States' operational and strategic capacity to serve in the important role of an SAA within the National Apprenticeship System, including assessing whether State laws conform to the minimum standards in the parts 29 and 30 regulations, and whether States have a detailed, actionable plan for advancing DEIA and EEO outcomes for the registered apprenticeship programs in their State. The information will be collected via an online form and by email, and the Department is committed to providing substantial technical assistance to any SAAs recognized at the time of this proposed rule's effective date, if finalized, as well as any new States seeking recognition from the Federal government as an SAA State.
The Department invites comments from the public, including State or SAA representatives, State and local elected officials, and sponsors and apprentices in SAA States, regarding the proposed updates to the SAA Governance framework and the Department's IC plans related to such framework. In particular, the Department is interested in comments or feedback regarding the increased burden, if any, this revamped approach to SAA Governance may introduce, and whether the benefits of the proposal (as articulated above in the section-by-section discussion) justify any increased burden. The Department is also interested in receiving comments on the practical and strategic benefits of the State planning process (such as that used for the WIOA model) and whether this is appropriate or useful for the National Apprenticeship System.
Description: This IC is new and encompasses the information exchange related to registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors—primarily LEAs, institutions of higher education, or their designated intermediaries—and CTE apprentice information under the Department's proposed registered CTE apprenticeship model at proposed 29 CFR part 29, subpart B (proposed § 29.24). This IC also encompasses the exchange of information related to the development of industry skills frameworks (including establishing and updating such Frameworks) under proposed § 29.24, wherein the Department would work with the public and industry representatives to develop nationally applicable frameworks to guide the on-the-job training and CTE apprenticeship-related instruction of CTE apprentices in subject industry for proposed registered CTE apprenticeships.
This ICR will cover sponsors' submission of information for registered CTE apprenticeship program registration, operation, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements (as proposed in § 29.24), including CTE program standards, a CTE apprenticeship agreement, an employer adoption agreement (where applicable under proposed § 29.24), a complaints form, and a voluntary attestation of disability. The ICR also covers the information CTE apprentices provide to sponsors, as populated through a CTE apprenticeship agreement, and sponsors' subsequent provision of apprentice information, to the extent feasible, to a Registration Agency via the RAPIDS or State sponsored case management system (in accordance with FERPA and relevant State laws for sharing information on students in secondary education). This ICR is similar to the current IC practices under subpart A but tailored to meet the requirements under subpart B. OA does not currently collect this information, and doing so will require the development of an applicable form. The ICR will also involve the exchange of information between industry stakeholders (including industry groups, leaders, and representatives, trade associations, labor organizations, and local advisory councils) and the Administrator (the Department official responsible for overseeing the process of developing and establishing industry skills frameworks). Information exchanged under this collection is necessary to collect information from industry and the public related to the development of nationally applicable and locally tailored industry skills frameworks that provide the basis for the paid on-the-job component of a registered CTE apprenticeship.
The Department invites the public to provide comments on this proposed IC for registered CTE apprenticeship program registration and industry skills frameworks. In particular, the Department is interested in comments about the ability for registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsors or their designated intermediaries to provide valid and timely information to meet applicable reporting requirements, such as the submission of standards for program registration. The Department is interested in comments about the potential barriers to reporting CTE apprentice information to a Registration Agency and the types of mechanisms that can facilitate sponsors' or States' ability to report CTE apprentice information. In addition, the
The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 13132 and found that, if finalized as proposed, it will have federalism implications because it will have substantial direct effects on States, their registration of programs for Federal purposes, and the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. Due to the nature of OA's role overseeing the National Apprenticeship System per its statutory mandate to protect the welfare of apprentices nationwide, OA's enforcement of the parts 29 and 30 regulations, as well as OA's development and promulgation of updates to such regulations, may have such federalism implications if States are required to make any changes or adjustments to apprenticeship policy, State apprenticeship laws, or any procedures related to their respective roles in this Federally administered apprenticeship system. OA regularly consults and collaborates with State partners and organizations, including when developing and promulgating proposed updates to part 29 or part 30 impacting the National Apprenticeship System (as described below). The Department and OA will continue consulting and collaborating with State partners, which the Department views as central to OA's role in promoting and maintaining quality registered apprenticeship programs. The Department invites comments from the public on the federalism implications of this proposed rule and is interested in comments from State partners regarding the quality and effectiveness of the Department's ongoing consultations and collaborations and any recommendations for improvement.
In particular, the proposed rule, if finalized, may affect internal State organizational structures and processes with regard to new and ongoing SAA recognition, strategic planning for the expansion of registered apprenticeship, determining occupations' suitability for registered apprenticeship training, and developing processes for reciprocal approval of programs registered in other States. The Department is proposing updates to the part 29 regulations concerning National Apprenticeship System governance (with the most significant changes to the relationship between the Federal government and the States contained within proposed subpart C) based on analysis of the functioning and efficacy of the current system, consultations with State partners including representatives from SAAs and State partners from OA States (
Stakeholders, including State and local officials and other National Apprenticeship System partners, have been a vital source of both feedback regarding the efficacy of the current system and suggestions and advice (based on their experiences and regional perspectives registering, overseeing, participating, or analyzing registered apprenticeship programs) regarding ways to improve the system, including recommended adjustments to its governing regulations. In the past 2 years, as an essential part of its planning for the development and promulgation of this NPRM, the Department has been engaged with stakeholders more specifically on the topic of updating the regulatory framework (including whether updates were necessary, and what issues should be prioritized in updating the regulations) and has participated in or organized several forums for soliciting feedback and advice from State partners and other apprenticeship stakeholders on this topic. For example, the Department solicited and considered advice from the most recent term of the ACA,
The ACA, which includes representation from NASTAD, offered specific suggestions on matters relating to SAA governance and the role of States in the expansion and modernization of registered apprenticeship that are relevant to this Federalism analysis. These suggestions included aligning registered apprenticeship policies and procedures among SAA and OA States to promote cohesiveness and uniformity within the National Apprenticeship System, standardizing the process for making determinations on occupations' suitability for registered apprenticeship training, and enhancing data collection and reporting requirements to develop a national repository of high-quality apprenticeship data. The Department agrees with many of the ACA's observations and recommendations and has incorporated these recommendations throughout the proposed rule.
In addition to consulting during with the ACA during its most recent term, the Department organized forums to intentionally engage with State partners, such as SAAs and NASTAD, on the effectiveness of the National Apprenticeship System and its existing regulations, the Department's plans to pursue updates to the regulations, and State partners' concerns, issues, or recommendations related to system governance. In March and May 2023, OA held listening sessions to discuss and obtain feedback from these important State partners. To guide the discussions and generate feedback on topics related to the Department's developing plans for updating the part 29 regulations, the Department circulated guiding questions to stakeholders invited to participate in the listening sessions. These questions asked about ways to modernize the National Apprenticeship System, the characteristics of high-quality registered apprenticeship programs, and strategies to improve equitable access to registered apprenticeship programs and promote the expansion of registered apprenticeship into new and emerging industries.
During the listening sessions with State partners, several issues emerged related to the relationship between the Federal Government (for registered apprenticeship, OA) and the States (SAAs and other State partners). For
The proposal would also expand the collection of apprenticeship data (at proposed § 29.25) to include elements like interim, secondary, or postsecondary credentials provided in registered apprenticeship programs, additional information regarding apprentices' progress through a program, and information about employers, workforce systems, and other partners associated with a program and its ability to place apprentices on a pathway to quality, sustainable careers. The proposal's enhanced data collection measures also align with feedback from State partners, which discussed the importance of measuring more than just apprentices' entry into and exit from a registered apprenticeship program for assessing program quality.
Many State partners and apprenticeship stakeholders discussed the importance of standardization and uniformity throughout the National Apprenticeship System. In the listening sessions, State partners also discussed the value and effectiveness of existing tools to clarify and facilitate administrative responsibilities (
The Department's proposal would also increase standardization throughout the system with respect to program registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and SAA recognition processes to promote consistent performance accountability among registered apprenticeship programs operating in all States. A key reform in this proposal is the clarification of SAA roles and responsibilities at proposed § 29.26 and the State Apprenticeship Plan process outlined at proposed § 29.27. The Department expects that its proposed reforms to the SAA governance framework, including establishing clearer roles for SAAs and consultative bodies such as State Apprenticeship Councils, aligning State policies via the required submission and approval of a State Apprenticeship Plan, and standardizing data collection processes, will promote uniformity and standardization throughout the National Apprenticeship System to the benefit of existing programs and any new stakeholders entering the system going forward. The updated SAA recognition and reporting requirements represent the most direct Federalism implication within this proposal, and the Department invites comments from all registered apprenticeship stakeholders and State partners regarding the benefits, feasibility, potential challenges, and any undue burdens that may arise related to the Department's proposal to reform SAA recognition and systemwide governance.
Some State partners suggested that the Department should avoid adding to or changing the regulations at all because some existing or potential stakeholders have expressed that the current regulation, the part 30 regulations and associated EEO responsibilities for States and programs, and overall administrative requirements within the system were too long, complicated, or burdensome. Other State partners specifically pointed to EEO requirements, or efforts to improve DEIA outcomes throughout the system, as a source of discomfort among some stakeholders. The Department did not ultimately accept these recommendations in this proposed update to the part 29 regulations because, in the Department's view, the existing regulations need to be strengthened and modernized to reflect the realities and needs of stakeholders in the modern National Apprenticeship System. Further, in the Department's view, the EEO requirements and intentional DEIA focus of the part 30 regulations are important aspects of its goal to improve inclusivity and equity in the National Apprenticeship System.
In addition to soliciting and considering recommendations from the ACA and the facilitation of formal listening sessions, OA has maintained (and will continue to maintain) an open line of communication with SAA leadership that has created a consistent feedback loop on matters related to registered apprenticeship. OA staff at the national and regional levels regularly consult with SAAs, and as stated earlier, OA views the provision of technical assistance as central to its responsibility to oversee the National Apprenticeship System. OA will continue to provide such technical assistance and plans to develop robust tools to assist SAAs and all National Apprenticeship System stakeholders with understanding and complying with this proposed rule, including assistance related to the development of a State Apprenticeship Plan, continuous improvement of the labor standards
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 rule that may result in $100 million or more in expenditures (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
This proposed rule, if finalized, does not exceed the $100-million expenditure in any 1 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.
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.
The Department has developed a summary of the proposed rule in plain language in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4) and it is publicly available at
Apprenticeship agreements and complaints, Apprenticeship programs, Program standards, Registration and deregistration, Sponsor eligibility, State Apprenticeship Agency recognition and derecognition, Suitability for registered apprenticeship criteria.
Administrative practice and procedure, Apprenticeship, Employment, Equal employment opportunity, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Training.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Employment and Training Administration proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 29 and 30 as follows:1. Revise part 29 to read as follows:
29 U.S.C. 50; 40 U.S.C. 3145; 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C. App. P. 534.
The purpose of this part is to set forth labor standards to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, promote the formulation of quality registered apprenticeship programs across a wide range of industries, bring employers, labor, education partners, and other intermediaries together for the formulation of such programs, ensuring equitable apprenticeship opportunities for underserved communities, and to extend the application of Federal standards of apprenticeship by prescribing policies and procedures concerning the registration, for Federal purposes, of registered apprenticeship programs with the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Apprenticeship (OA). These labor standards, policies, and procedures cover the registration, cancellation, and deregistration of registered apprenticeship programs and of apprenticeship agreements; the registration of career and technical education (CTE) apprenticeship programs; the collection of apprenticeship-related data from programs; the recognition of a State government agency as an authorized agency for registering apprenticeship programs for certain Federal purposes; the oversight and accountability of registered apprenticeship programs; and matters relating thereto.
For purposes of this part and part 30 of this title:
(1) A joint committee is composed of an equal number of representatives of the employer(s) and of the employees represented by a bona fide collective bargaining agent(s).
(2) A non-joint committee, which may also be known as a unilateral committee or group non-joint committee (which may include employees), has employer representatives but does not have a bona fide collective bargaining agent as a participant.
(1) Offer a sequence of courses that—
(i) Provide individuals with rigorous academic content and relevant technical knowledge and skills needed to prepare for further education and careers in current or emerging professions, which may include high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations, which shall be, at the secondary level, aligned with the challenging State academic standards adopted by a State under sec. 1111(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(ii) Provide technical skill proficiency or a recognized postsecondary credential, which may include an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or an associate degree; and
(iii) May include prerequisite courses (other than a remedial course) that meet the requirements of this paragraph;
(2) Include competency-based, work-based, or other applied learning that support the development of academic knowledge, higher order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, employability skills, technical skills, and occupation-specific skills, and knowledge of all aspects of an industry, including entrepreneurship, of an individual;
(3) To the extent practicable, coordinate between secondary and postsecondary education programs through CTE programs, which may include coordination through articulation agreements, early college high school programs, dual or concurrent enrollment program opportunities, or other credit transfer agreements that provide postsecondary credit or advanced standing; and
(4) May include career exploration at the high school level or as early as the middle grades (as such term is defined in sec. 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965).
(1) Aligns with the skill needs of industries in the economy of the State or regional economy involved;
(2) Prepares an individual to be successful in any of a full range of secondary or postsecondary education options, including apprenticeship programs registered under subpart A of this part;
(3) Includes counseling to support an individual in achieving the individual's education and career goals;
(4) Includes, as appropriate, education offered concurrently with and in the same context as workforce preparation activities and training for a specific occupation or occupational cluster;
(5) Organizes education, training, and other services to meet the particular needs of an individual in a manner that accelerates the educational and career advancement of the individual to the extent practicable;
(6) Enables an individual to attain a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, and at least one recognized postsecondary credential; and
(7) Helps an individual enter or advance within a specific occupation or occupational cluster.
(1) The duration of the risk;
(2) The nature and severity of the potential harm;
(3) The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and
(4) The imminence of the potential harm.
(1) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
(2) A record of such an impairment; or
(3) Being regarded as having such an impairment.
(1) Hispanic or Latino—A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
(2) Not Hispanic or Latino.
(1) Information about—
(i) An individual's genetic tests;
(ii) The genetic tests of that individual's family members;
(iii) The manifestation of disease or disorder in family members of the individual (family medical history);
(iv) An individual's request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or the participation in clinical research that includes genetic services by the individual or a family member of the individual; or
(v) The genetic information of a fetus carried by an individual or by a pregnant woman who is a family member of the individual and the genetic information of any embryo legally held by the individual or family member using an assisted reproductive technology.
(2) Genetic information does not include information about the sex or age of the individual, the sex or age of family members, or information about the race or ethnicity of the individual or family members that is not derived from a genetic test.
(1) Participates in a registered apprenticeship program sponsored by a joint labor-management apprenticeship and training program established pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, and under which the employer has adopted the sponsor's standards of apprenticeship and serves as the employer of record for at least one apprentice enrolled in the sponsor's program; or
(2) Is a party to a written program standards adoption agreement with a registered apprenticeship program sponsor that is concluded outside of a collective bargaining process, and under which the employer has adopted the sponsor's standards of apprenticeship and serves as the employer of record for apprentices enrolled in the sponsor's program.
(1) Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine; or
(2) Any mental or psychological disorder, such as intellectual disability (formerly termed “mental retardation”), organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.
(1) White—A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
(2) Black or African American—A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
(3) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander—A person having origins in any of the peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
(4) Asian—A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian Subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
(5) American Indian or Alaska Native—A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains Tribal affiliation or community attachment.
(i) Modifications or adjustments to a job application process that enable a qualified applicant with a disability to be considered for the position such qualified applicant desires;
(ii) Modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position; or
(iii) Modifications or adjustments that enable a sponsor's apprentice with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of apprenticeship as are enjoyed by the sponsor's other similarly situated apprentices without disabilities.
(2)
(i) Making existing facilities used by apprentices readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and
(ii) Job restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules; reassignment to a vacant position; acquisition or modifications of equipment or devices; appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials, or policies; the provision of qualified readers or interpreters; and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.
(3) To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, it may be necessary for the sponsor to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.
(2)
(i) The nature and net cost of the accommodation needed under this part, taking into consideration the availability of tax credits and deductions, outside funding, or both;
(ii) The overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation, the number of persons employed at such facility, and the effect on expenses and resources;
(iii) The overall financial resources of the sponsor, the overall size of the registered apprenticeship program with respect to the number of apprentices, and the number, type, and location of its facilities;
(iv) The type of operation or operations of the sponsor, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity, and the geographic separateness and administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the sponsor; and
(v) The impact of the accommodation upon the operation of the facility, including the impact on the ability of other apprentices to perform their duties and the impact on the facility's ability to conduct business.
The Secretary will establish and maintain an Office of Apprenticeship (or any successor office or agency so designated by the Secretary) within the Department to facilitate the administration and coordination of the National Apprenticeship System, including:
(a) Formulate and update regulations, subregulatory guidance, policies, and procedures in connection with the implementation of the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (29 U.S.C. 50);
(b) Register and provide oversight of apprenticeship programs and standards that satisfy the requirements of this part and of part 30 of this title;
(c) Promote the development of industry-validated standards, including the determination of occupations suitable for registered apprenticeship, the development and adoption of National Occupational Standards for Apprenticeship, as well as industry skills frameworks;
(d) Recognize and oversee SAAs established under applicable State laws and regulations that satisfy the requirements of this part and of part 30 of this title;
(e) Maintain, utilize, and make publicly available National Apprenticeship System data pertaining to apprentices and apprenticeship programs that are registered by either OA or by SAAs and satisfy the requirements of this part and of part 30 of this title;
(f) Promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in apprenticeship, including for those from underserved communities, and, consistent with part 30 of this title, enforce equal opportunity standards for apprentices and applicants;
(g) Provide technical assistance to apprenticeship program sponsors, SAAs, and other key stakeholders in the development of apprenticeship program standards and the operation of apprenticeship programs to satisfy the requirements of this part and of part 30 of this title;
(h) Engage in discussions with stakeholders, including multilateral institutions, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations in order to promote and facilitate the development and expansion of apprenticeships in the United States; and develop partnerships with apprenticeship stakeholders that can facilitate and accelerate the expansion of quality apprenticeship programs across the National Apprenticeship System in accordance with the requirements of this part and of part 30 of this title; and
(i) Conduct other activities that support the National Apprenticeship System.
(a)
(b)
Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any portion of any provision(s) of this part to be invalid, the provision will be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding is one of total invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision or subprovision will be severable from this part and will not affect the remainder thereof.
(a) With respect to suitability of occupations for registered apprenticeship:
(1) Section 29.7 is in effect for occupations not previously determined suitable for registered apprenticeship by the Administrator 90 days following the effective date of this rule.
(2) Section 29.7 is in effect for occupations not previously determined suitable for registered apprenticeship by an SAA upon the effective date of this rule.
(3) Occupations recognized by OA as apprenticeable under former § 29.4 (Criteria for apprenticeable occupations) as of the day before the effective date of this rule will be subject to the 5-year review of all occupations pursuant to § 29.7(h).
(b) Programs not previously registered by OA as of the day before the effective date of this rule must seek registration based on the requirements of subpart A of this part when an electronic submission process is available to sponsors. Programs registered prior to the development of an electronic submission process must meet all new requirements before converting to permanent registration status.
(c) Programs registered by OA prior to the effective date of this rule must comply with the requirements of subpart A of this part no later than 2 years after the effective date of this rule.
(d) SAAs recognized by the Administrator as of the effective date of this rule will continue to be recognized until December 31, 2026.
(1) SAAs must ensure any programs registered prior to the approval of the State Apprenticeship Plan are registered consistent with the approved State Apprenticeship Plan, within 2 years of the approval date of the State Apprenticeship Plan. Programs registered after the effective date of this rule should be registered provisionally and remain in provisional status until the State Apprenticeship Plan is approved and the program is compliant with its requirements.
(2) SAA-specific occupations must be determined suitable for registered apprenticeship by the Administrator under § 29.7 within 4 years of the effective date of this rule in order for registered apprenticeship programs registered by the SAA to continue being registered for Federal purposes.
(e) SAAs not previously recognized by the Administrator as of the effective date of this rule must seek recognition under the procedures of § 29.27 upon the effective date of this rule.
(a) Only the Administrator can determine whether an occupation is suitable for registered apprenticeship. Occupations determined suitable for registered apprenticeship will be eligible for local registration for Federal purposes by a Registration Agency.
(b) The following minimum requirements must be met for the Administrator to determine that an occupation is suitable:
(1) The occupation under consideration is commonly recognized or accepted throughout a particular industry or sector as a standalone, distinct occupation;
(2) The occupation leads to a sustainable career;
(3) A structured on-the-job apprenticeship training program will enable an apprentice to be able to acquire the knowledge, skills, techniques, and competencies necessary to become proficient in the occupation; and
(4) The completion of at least 2,000 hours of on-the-job training and not less than a minimum average of 144 hours of off-the-job related instruction for every 2,000 hours of on-the-job training in order to obtain proficiency in the occupation.
(c) A current or potential program sponsor, SAA, or other entity seeking a new determination from the Administrator as to whether an occupation is suitable for registered apprenticeship must submit electronically the following information to the Administrator:
(1) Documentation sufficient to show that each of the requirements at paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are met;
(2) A work process schedule and an explanation of how the skills, techniques, and competencies detailed in the work process schedule will lead to proficiency in the occupation through a structured on-the-job apprenticeship training program;
(3) Documentation of the industry standard for the minimum number of hours of on-the-job training needed in order to obtain proficiency in the occupation under consideration. The minimum number of hours must involve the completion of at least 2,000 hours of on-the-job training;
(4) A related instruction outline and an explanation based on industry standards describing the proposed curriculum and the number of hours of such instruction, which cannot be less than an average of 144 hours in duration for every 2,000 hours of on-the-job training provided; and
(5) Documentation of any interim credentials, recognized postsecondary credentials, or occupational licenses related to the occupation and whether they are optional or may be required to be obtained during an apprenticeship program in the occupation.
(d) The Administrator will solicit public comment to assess whether the submission described in paragraph (c) of this section constitutes an occupation suitable for registered apprenticeship. Such solicitations will be made available for public comment for at least 30 days. A determination regarding the occupation will be made within 90 days after a complete application is received, though the Administrator may extend this period by providing notice to the applicant. The Administrator may also consider data or request additional information from the applicant, at the Administrator's discretion. The Administrator will maintain an up-to-date publicly available list of all suitability determinations.
(e) An occupation will not be approved as suitable for registered apprenticeship training in instances where the Administrator determines that:
(1) The application is incomplete;
(2) Any of the requirements set forth at paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are not met;
(3) The proposed scope of the apprenticeship training is confined to a narrowly specialized subset of skills and competencies within an existing occupation that are not readily transferable between employers in the sector; or
(4) The occupation includes or replicates a significant proportion of the work processes that are covered by another occupation that OA previously approved as suitable for registered apprenticeship training, but does not lead to a more advanced occupation.
(f) In instances where the Administrator determines, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, that the occupation under consideration is not one that is suitable for registered apprenticeship training, the
(g) A current sponsor or potential sponsor, SAA, or other entity must submit proposed adjustments to the existing scope, minimum duration, or work processes of an occupation previously deemed suitable for registered apprenticeship training by the Administrator. Such adjustments may be accepted by the Administrator provided that they satisfy the requirements established in this section.
(h) The Administrator will, consistent with the process described in paragraph (d) of this section, periodically review the continued suitability, relevance, and applicability of the work process schedule and related instruction outline associated with an occupation previously approved as suitable for registered apprenticeship training. Based on its review the Administrator will determine whether the occupation remains suitable for registered apprenticeship or requires adjustments to the previously approved work process schedule and related instruction outline. Such a review will occur at least every 5 years. If revisions to work process schedules or related instruction outlines are made during this process, existing programs must update their work process schedules or related instruction outlines to align with the changes before the start of the next training cycle.
(a) Each registered apprenticeship program must have a written set of standards of apprenticeship that will govern the conduct and operation of that program; such standards must include the following provisions:
(1) The minimum eligibility requirements for entry into the registered apprenticeship program, including a minimum starting age for an apprentice of not less than 16 years except where a higher minimum age requirement is otherwise required by Federal, State, or local law;
(2) The sponsor's procedures for the selection of apprentices, which must comply with the requirements for the selection of apprentices set forth in part 30 of this title;
(3) The sponsor's relevant recruitment area for the selection of apprentices;
(4) The term of the apprenticeship program, which must be sufficient for an apprentice to attain proficiency in all of the knowledge, skills, techniques, and competencies that are relevant to the covered occupation(s). The sponsor must include:
(i) A term of paid on-the-job training that reflects the customary industry standard for acquiring technical proficiency in the occupation, which in no instance can be less than 2,000 hours in duration; and
(ii) A number of hours of related instruction that reflects the customary industry standard, but is not less than a minimum average of 144 hours of related instruction for every 2,000 hours of on-the-job training.
(5) The registered apprenticeship program's covered occupation(s), work process schedule(s), and related instruction outline(s);
(6) The related instruction provider(s) and the instructional methods used to deliver the related instruction;
(7) Documentation that the qualifications and experience of the trainers and instructors that provide on-the-job training and related instruction to apprentices satisfy the requirements described in § 29.12;
(8) A description of:
(i) Any interim credential issued to an apprentice by the program during the term of the apprenticeship;
(ii) Any industry-portable occupational qualification, license, degree, or certification that the apprentice will receive, or will be eligible to receive, upon the successful completion of the registered apprenticeship program; and
(iii) Any postsecondary credit that an apprentice may receive, or may be eligible to receive, upon their successful completion of the related instruction and on-the-job training components of the registered apprenticeship program.
(9) A statement as to whether time the apprentice spends in the related instruction component of the apprenticeship training will be counted as hours worked, and if so, what the wage rate and fringe benefits will be for those hours;
(10) The process for regularly assessing and providing feedback to the apprentice regarding the apprentice's acquisition of job-related knowledge, skills, and competencies during the on-the-job training component of the registered apprenticeship program. In those instances where an apprentice attains such occupational skills and competencies at an accelerated pace, the program may grant advanced standing to such an individual pursuant to paragraph (a)(20) of this section;
(11) The end-point assessment process for certifying the apprentice's successful attainment of all of the knowledge, skills, and competencies necessary for proficiency in the occupation at the conclusion of the term of the registered apprenticeship program;
(12) A probationary period that is reasonable in relation to the program's full apprenticeship term and that must be credited toward the completion of the registered apprenticeship program. However, in no event will the duration of the probationary period exceed 25 percent of the total length of the program, or 1 year, whichever is shorter;
(13) A statement that the registered apprenticeship program will be conducted in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, or local laws;
(14) A statement acknowledging that apprentices will be entitled to the same worker allowances, rights, and protections that are afforded by applicable Federal, State, or local laws to similarly situated, non-apprentice employees, including but not limited to: family and medical leave, workers' compensation, and health and retirement plan benefits;
(15) An attestation by the sponsor, supported by any available documentation, that the program will provide adequate, safe, and accessible facilities and equipment for the training and supervision of apprentices that are compliant with all applicable Federal, State, and local disability, occupational safety, and occupational health laws;
(16) An attestation by the sponsor that the program will provide adequate, industry-recognized safety training for apprentices in both their on-the-job training and related instruction;
(17) The wage(s) and fringe benefits that the apprentice will receive from the employer sponsoring or participating in the registered apprenticeship program, which must meet the following requirements:
(i) The entry wage is not less than the minimum wage prescribed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, where applicable, unless a higher wage is required by other applicable Federal law, State or local law, or by the terms of an applicable collective bargaining agreement;
(ii) A graduated schedule of increasing wages, from the entry wage to the journeyworker wage, that:
(A) Reflects the progressive and measurable acquisition of relevant occupational skills and competencies by the apprentice, except where a different graduated schedule of increasing wages is required by other applicable Federal, State, or local laws (including those governing the payment of prevailing wages), or by the terms of an applicable collective bargaining agreement;
(B) Includes at least one incremental wage step increase during the first 2,000 hours of the registered apprenticeship
(C) The final wage in the program must be at least 75 percent of the journeyworker wage paid by the employer for that occupation, except where the graduated schedule of increasing wages is required by other applicable Federal, State, or local laws or by the terms of an applicable collective bargaining agreement.
(18) The approximate amount of any unreimbursed costs, expenses, or fees that the apprentice may incur during the registered apprenticeship program. Any such costs, expenses, or fees charged by the sponsor:
(i) Must be necessary and reasonable;
(ii) Must not impose substantial or inequitable financial barriers to program enrollment or to completion of the program; and
(iii) Must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local wage laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, and the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act, and the implementing regulations for such laws.
(19) The program's specific numeric ratio of apprentices to journeyworkers.
(i) The ratio must be consistent with the proper safety, health, supervision, and training of the apprentice.
(ii) A sponsor must use a ratio that is:
(A) Consistent with the provisions of any applicable collective bargaining agreements, as well as any applicable Federal and State laws governing such ratios; and
(B) Specific and clearly described as to its application to a particular workforce, workplace, worksite, job site, department, or plant.
(20) The process by which the sponsor will reduce the usual term of on-the-job training or related instruction as a result of an apprentice's prior learning, training, or acquired experience, or as a result of accelerated progress in the attainment of occupational competencies that is made by an apprentice during their participation in the registered apprenticeship program. Such process must:
(i) Involve a fair, transparent, and equitable process for objectively identifying, assessing, and documenting an apprentice's prior learning, training, or acquired experience, as well as for measuring any accelerated progress in the attainment of occupational competencies in the sponsor's registered apprenticeship program; and
(ii) Result in advanced standing or credit and an increased wage for an apprentice that is commensurate with any progression granted by the sponsor.
(21) If applicable, a provision for the transfer of apprentices between registered apprenticeship programs involving the same occupation. The transfer must be agreed to by the apprentice and the affected program sponsors or apprenticeship committees, and must meet the following requirements:
(i) Both the transferring apprentice and the program to which the apprentice is transferring must be provided a documentation of the apprentice's accrued related instruction and on-the-job training from the originating program sponsor or committee;
(ii) The transfer must be to the same occupation; and
(iii) A new apprenticeship agreement between the apprentice and the incoming program sponsor or committee must be executed after the transfer is executed.
(22) A requirement that the program sponsor and any participating employers create and maintain all records concerning apprenticeship that are detailed at section § 29.18;
(23) The sponsor's Equal Opportunity Pledge, pursuant to § 30.3(c) of this title, as well as an attestation that the program will be operated in accordance with the provisions of part 30 of this title and, where applicable, an approved State EEO plan;
(24) An attestation that the program sponsor (as well as any participating employers in the sponsor's program) will implement effective measures to promote and maintain a safe and inclusive workplace environment that is free from all forms of violence, harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against apprentices;
(25) For apprenticeship programs that were registered on or after September 22, 2020, an attestation that the program sponsor will provide each of the written assurances required under section 2(b)(1) of the Support for Veterans in Effective Apprenticeships Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116-134, 134 Stat. 277, 29 U.S.C. 50c); and
(26) Contact information (name, address, telephone number, and email address) for the appropriate individual with authority under the program to receive, process, and make disposition of complaints.
(b) In instances where a registered apprenticeship program provides training to apprentices who are employed by participating employers in a group program (pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, or to a program standards adoption agreement described in § 29.11), the sponsor will be responsible for:
(1) Obtaining an attestation that the participating employer agrees to abide by the requirements contained in this part and in part 30 of this title prior to the admission of the participating employer to the program;
(2) Obtaining a disclosure in writing of all instances where a Federal, State, or local government agency has issued a final agency determination that the participating employer (or any of its officers or employees) has violated any applicable laws pertaining to occupational safety and health, labor standards (including wage and hour requirements), financial mismanagement or abuse, EEO, protections for employees against harassment or assault, or other applicable laws governing workplace practices or conduct, prior to the admission of the participating employer to the program; such disclosure must include a description of the violation, as well as the actions taken by the employer to remedy the violation; and
(3) Actively monitoring each participating employer after their admission to the group program to assess whether such an employer is adhering to both the minimum standards of apprenticeship outlined in this section and the applicable regulatory requirements for registered apprenticeship programs set forth in this part and in part 30 of this title.
(a) All apprenticeship programs registered by a Registration Agency must develop and establish a written apprenticeship agreement that contains the terms and conditions of the employment and training of the apprentice. Such agreement must be signed prior to the start of an apprenticeship term by:
(1) The apprentice;
(2) The apprentice's parent or legal guardian, if the apprentice is under 18 years of age;
(3) The program sponsor; and
(4) Any participating employers in the program that have adopted the sponsor's standards of apprenticeship through a program standards adoption agreement.
(b) Prior to signing the apprenticeship agreement, an apprentice who has been admitted to the apprenticeship program must be furnished by the program
(c) At a minimum, the apprenticeship agreement must contain the following:
(1) Contact information and identifying information for the apprentice, including the apprentice's date of birth and, on a voluntary basis, their Social Security number;
(2) Contact information for the Registration Agency, program sponsor, and participating employer(s);
(3) An identification of the occupation in which the apprentice is to be trained, as well as copies of the associated work process schedule and related instruction outline;
(4) The incorporation, either directly or by reference, of the program's standards of apprenticeship;
(5) A description of the respective roles, duties, and responsibilities of the apprentice, the program sponsor, and the participating employer, if applicable, during the registered apprenticeship program. With respect to sponsors and participating employers, these responsibilities must include providing information to apprentices regarding their rights and protections under Federal, State, and local laws, including their right to file complaints with the applicable Registration Agency and the process for doing so;
(6) The term of the registered apprenticeship program, including the beginning date and expected duration of the registered apprenticeship program, the beginning date of the on-the-job training, and the duration of the probationary period for the apprenticeship program;
(7) A detailed statement of the entry wage, subsequent graduated scale of increasing wages to be paid to the apprentice over the term of the apprenticeship, the journeyworker wage, and any fringe benefits;
(8) A disclosure of the expected minimum number of hours that are allocated by the program to the on-the-job training component during the apprenticeship term, and to the related instruction component of the apprenticeship during that term;
(9) A description of the methods used during the course of the apprenticeship to measure progress on competency attainment and the program's end-point assessment;
(10) A description of any supportive services that may be available to the apprentice including childcare, transportation, equipment, tools, or any other supportive service provided by the sponsor or a partnering organization to address potential barriers to participation or completion;
(11) The nature and amount of any unreimbursed costs, expenses, or fees that the apprentice may incur during their participation in the registered apprenticeship program;
(12) A description of any recognized postsecondary credits, credentials, and occupational qualifications that the apprentice will receive or be eligible to receive upon successful program completion, as well as a description of any additional conditions or requirements that the apprentice must fulfill to satisfy any applicable Federal, State, or local qualification and licensure requirements to engage in the occupation;
(13) A statement by the parties to the agreement that they will adhere to the applicable requirements of part 30 of this title and, where applicable, an approved State EEO plan;
(14) A statement addressing:
(i) Whether the apprentice is paid wages and fringe benefits during the related instruction component of the program;
(ii) If wages are paid for related instruction, what the wage rate is; and
(iii) Whether the related instruction is provided during work hours.
(15) Contact information (name, address, phone, and email if appropriate) of the appropriate authority designated under the program to receive, process, and make disposition of controversies or disputes arising out of the apprenticeship agreement when the controversies or disputes cannot be addressed locally or resolved in accordance with the established procedure or applicable collective bargaining provisions; and
(16) A description of the processes and procedures for granting advanced standing or credit consistent with the requirements of § 29.8(a)(20).
(d) A registered apprenticeship program sponsor, or a participating employer in the sponsor's program, cannot include in the apprenticeship agreement or otherwise impose on apprentices a non-compete provision or other provision restricting the apprentice's ability to compete directly with the program sponsor or participating employer or to seek or accept employment with another employer prior to the completion of the registered apprenticeship program.
(e) A registered apprenticeship program sponsor, or a participating employer in the sponsor's program, cannot include in the apprenticeship agreement or otherwise impose on apprentices a non-disclosure provision that prevents the worker from working in the same field after the conclusion of the worker's employment with the employer, or that restricts an apprentice's ability to file a complaint with a Registration Agency or other governmental body concerning possible violations of this part or of part 30 of this title. Subject to these restrictions, a sponsor or participating employer may include a non-disclosure provision that relates to the protection of the sponsor's or participating employer's confidential business information or trade secrets.
(f) The program sponsor must submit a completed copy of the executed apprenticeship agreement for each apprentice registered, to the program's Registration Agency within 30 days of execution.
(g) The apprenticeship agreement may be cancelled during the probationary period specified in the agreement by either party without cause.
(h) After the probationary period of the apprenticeship concludes, the apprenticeship agreement:
(1) May be cancelled at the request of the apprentice at any time; or
(2) May be suspended or cancelled by the program sponsor only for good cause. When cancelling an agreement, the sponsor must provide written notice to the apprentice explaining the cause for the cancellation and must provide written notice to the Registration Agency of the cancellation.
(a) To apply for registration, a prospective program sponsor must submit electronically to a Registration Agency an application that includes:
(1) A work process schedule and related instruction outline that is consistent with an occupation deemed suitable for registered apprenticeship by the Administrator;
(2) Standards of apprenticeship for the proposed program;
(3) The apprenticeship agreement for the apprenticeship program;
(4) A written plan for the equitable recruitment and retention of apprentices, including those from underserved communities;
(5) Information showing that the prospective program sponsor possesses and can maintain the financial capacity
(6) A disclosure in writing of all instances where a Federal, State, or local government agency has issued a final agency determination that the prospective sponsor (or any of its officers or employees) has violated any applicable laws pertaining to occupational safety and health, labor standards (including wage and hour requirements), financial mismanagement or abuse, EEO, protections for employees against harassment or assault, or other applicable laws governing workplace practices or conduct. Such disclosure must include a description of the violation, as well as the actions taken by the prospective sponsor to remedy the violation;
(7) Union participation provisions, if applicable:
(i) In instances where an apprenticeship program is proposed for registration by a sponsor, employer, or employers' association and the standards of apprenticeship, collective bargaining agreement, or other instrument provides for participation by a labor union in any manner in the operation of the substantive matters of the apprenticeship program (and where such participation is exercised), written acknowledgement of union agreement or lack of objection to the registration is required.
(ii) Where no such participation is evidenced and practiced, the sponsor, employer, or employers' association must simultaneously furnish to an existing union, which is the collective bargaining agent of the employees to be trained, a copy of its application for registration and of the apprenticeship program. The Registration Agency must provide for receipt of union comments, if any, within 45 days before final action on the application for registration or approval.
(8) A description of how the sponsor will implement, upon registration, the affirmative steps to provide EEO in apprenticeship required by § 30.3(b) of this title. This description must, at a minimum:
(i) Identify the individual or individuals who will be responsible and accountable for overseeing the sponsor's commitment to equal opportunity in registered apprenticeship;
(ii) Identify the publications or other documents where the sponsor's EEO pledge will be published and the physical or digital locations where the sponsor's EEO pledge will be posted;
(iii) Describe the planned schedule for orientation and information sessions for individuals connected with the administration or operation of the apprenticeship program, including all apprentices and journeyworkers who regularly work with apprentices, to inform and remind such individuals of the sponsor's EEO policy with regard to apprenticeship;
(iv) Provide a list of current recruitment sources that will generate referrals from all demographic groups within the relevant recruitment area, including the identity of a contact person, mailing address, telephone number, and email address for each recruitment source;
(v) Describe the sponsor's procedures to ensure that its apprentices are not harassed or otherwise subjected to discrimination because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age (40 or older), genetic information, or disability and to ensure that its apprenticeship program is free from intimidation and retaliation. This description must specifically include:
(A) The planned schedule and content source for the required anti-harassment training to all individuals connected with the administration or operation of the apprenticeship program; and
(B) The sponsor's procedures for handling and resolving complaints about harassment and intimidation.
(b) A complete electronic application for registration that includes all of the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section will be reviewed within 90 calendar days by the Registration Agency, which will approve the application if:
(1) The occupation covered by the proposed program has been determined by the Administrator to be suitable for registered apprenticeship training pursuant to § 29.7. The Administrator may, in their sole discretion, determine that a work process schedule and related instruction outline submitted for registration substantially differs from those previously approved as suitable for registered apprenticeship such that the application for registration must first undergo a suitability determination pursuant to § 29.7;
(2) The work process schedule proposed for that occupation has been determined to provide training in the specific skills and competencies associated with the approved occupation;
(3) The applicant's work process schedule and related instruction outline would provide an apprentice with a portable set of occupational skills and competencies that are readily transferable between employers within the same industry or sector;
(4) The standards of apprenticeship submitted are consistent with § 29.8;
(5) The apprenticeship agreement adheres to the requirements of § 29.9;
(6) The sponsor possesses the financial capacity and other resources necessary to operate the proposed program;
(7) The Registration Agency finds that any types of misconduct or violations of law acknowledged by the applicant for registration pursuant to paragraph (a)(6) of this section have been satisfactorily addressed and cured by the applicant, and therefore would not pose a significant ongoing risk to the welfare of apprentices who elect to enroll in the program;
(8) If applicable, the union participation requirements of paragraph (a)(7) of this section are satisfied; and
(9) The sponsor's submission is found by the Registration Agency to be satisfactory under paragraphs (a)(4) and (8) of this section.
(c) Applications for new programs that the Registration Agency determines meet the required standards for program registration will be given a Certificate of Registration and provided provisional registration. In instances where a Registration Agency declines to register a program, the Registration Agency will provide a written explanation of the reasons why it determined the application does not meet the requirements of this subpart, and how any deficiencies could be cured, to the applicant. Applicants denied approval may resubmit consistent with the requirements of this subpart.
(d) The Registration Agency must review all provisionally registered programs for compliance with the requirements of this part and of part 30 of this title within 2 years of the program's registration date or at the end of the first training cycle, whichever is sooner. At that time:
(1) A program that is in compliance with the requirements of this part and part 30 of this title:
(i) Will be made permanent if the program's first full training cycle has been completed; or
(ii) Will, if the program's first full training cycle has not been completed, continue to be provisionally registered through the program's first full training cycle, upon which they will receive a subsequent program review.
(2) A program that is not in compliance with this part and part 30 of this title during the provisional registration period will be subject to the deregistration procedures at § 29.20.
(3) After a program receives permanent registration, subsequent program reviews are conducted by the
(e) If a registered apprenticeship program does not have at least one apprentice enrolled and participating in the apprenticeship program, and registered with the Registration Agency, the Registration Agency may initiate deregistration proceedings as described in § 29.20. This does not apply during the following periods of time, which may not exceed 1 year:
(1) Between the date when a program is registered and the date of registration for its first apprentice(s); or
(2) Between the date that a program graduates an apprentice and the date of registration for the next apprentice(s) in the program.
(f) Any sponsor proposals for modification(s) or change(s) to standards of apprenticeship or certified National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards for a registered program must be submitted to the Registration Agency. The Registration Agency must make a determination on whether such submissions are consistent with the requirements of this part and part 30 of this title and, if so, will approve such submissions within 90 calendar days from the date of receipt of a complete submission. If approved, the modification(s) or change(s) will be recorded and acknowledged within calendar 90 days of approval as an amendment to such program. If not approved, the sponsor must be notified of the disapproval and the reasons therefore and provided the appropriate technical assistance.
(a)
(1) Adopt and comply with the sponsor's registered standards of apprenticeship;
(2) Comply with all other applicable requirements in this part; and
(3) Cooperate with, and provide assistance to, the program sponsor to meet the program sponsor's obligations under this part and part 30 of this title, including by providing any apprenticeship-related data and records necessary to assess compliance with these regulatory provisions.
(b)
(c)
(1) May be cancelled by the participating employer upon providing 30 days' written notice to the sponsor; or
(2) Must be suspended or cancelled by the program sponsor if the program sponsor determines that the participating employer failed to satisfy the program standards adoption agreement's provisions of this section.
(i) The program sponsor must provide written notice of any suspension or cancellation to the participating employer, all apprentices affected by the suspension or cancellation, and to the applicable Registration Agency. The notice must explain the reason for the suspension or cancellation.
(ii) If the suspension or cancellation results in an interruption or cessation of training for apprentices, the program sponsor must make reasonable efforts to place such individuals with another of the sponsor's participating employers or a different registered apprenticeship program in the same occupation.
(iii) In instances where a program sponsor fails to suspend or cancel a program standards adoption agreement as required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Registration Agency may initiate deregistration proceedings against the sponsor pursuant to § 29.20.
(a) Registered apprenticeship program sponsors and participating employers must ensure that any journeyworkers providing on-the-job training to apprentices possess, at a minimum, the following qualifications:
(1) A mastery of the relevant skills, techniques, and competencies of the occupation;
(2) Up-to-date knowledge of the latest advances in technical knowledge and skills necessary to maintain proficiency and expertise in the occupation;
(3) Ability to effectively communicate and demonstrate the range of specialized practical knowledge, work processes, skills, and techniques necessary to acquire full proficiency in the occupation;
(4) Ability to apply industry-recognized methods for objectively and fairly evaluating and monitoring the progress of the apprentice during the apprenticeship term, including the ability to assess the attainment of competencies of apprentices acquired during their on-the-job training;
(5) Ability to relate the conceptual and theoretical knowledge acquired by apprentices in their related instruction to the successful performance of job-related tasks that are ordinarily performed by workers in the covered occupation; and
(b) Registered apprenticeship program sponsors and participating employers must further ensure that the trainer establishes a safe and inclusive training environment that promotes the effective development of apprentices from all backgrounds; in addition, the trainer must also have completed all of the required anti-harassment training required under part 30 of this title and must not have a record of substantiated noncompliance with EEO requirements.
(c) Registered apprenticeship program sponsors must ensure that providers of related instruction possess, at a minimum, the following qualifications:
(1) Serve as a faculty member or instructor at an accredited postsecondary institution, or meet the State's certification requirements for a vocational-technical instructor in the State in which the apprenticeship program is registered; or be a subject-matter expert, which is an individual, such as a journeyworker, who is recognized within an industry as having expertise in a specific occupation; and
(2) Have received previous training in teaching techniques and adaptable learning styles.
(a)
(b)
(1) The associated occupation has been determined suitable for registered apprenticeship training by the Administrator pursuant to § 29.7;
(2) The proposed work process schedule framework associated with the occupation under consideration has been documented as nationally applicable;
(3) The proposed standards include a nationally applicable curriculum
(4) The proposed standards describe the nationally applicable methods for conducting ongoing evaluations of apprentices to assess the successful attainment of the skills and competencies required under the framework, including the development of nationally applicable end-point assessments.
(c)
(a)
(1) Train apprentices for an occupation that is not ordinarily subject to Federal, State, or local licensing requirements;
(2) Be national or multistate in their design, suitability, and scope; and
(3) Satisfy the applicable requirements of this part and part 30 of this title.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(1) Be national in their applicability and scope with respect to the covered occupation;
(2) Be suitable for either adoption or adaptation by State or local affiliates of the program sponsor, and
(3) Satisfy the applicable requirements of this part and of part 30 of this title.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) When the standards have been amended consistent with § 29.8(b); and
(2) Every 5 years, beginning on the date of the most recent approval by the Administrator.
(e)
(a) Prior to an apprentice's completion of the registered apprenticeship program, the program sponsor must arrange for an end-point assessment to objectively measure the apprentice's acquisition of the relevant knowledge, skills, and competencies necessary to demonstrate proficiency in the occupation covered by the program.
(b) An apprentice who is not successful in completing the end-point assessment must be offeredat least one additional opportunity to complete the assessment at the apprentice's request.
(c) The sponsor must inform all apprentices of their right to request a reasonable accommodation prior to the administration of the assessment.
(d) Each apprentice whom the sponsor determines has successfully met the on-the-job training and related instruction requirements of a registered apprenticeship program and completes the end-point assessment will be awarded a Certificate of Completion by the appropriate Registration Agency.
(a) This section is not applicable to any complaint concerning discrimination or other EEO matters; all such complaints must be submitted, processed, and resolved in accordance with applicable provisions in part 30 of this title, or applicable provisions of a State EEO plan adopted pursuant to part 30 of this title and approved by the Department.
(b) Except for matters described in paragraph (a) of this section and matters covered by a collective bargaining agreement, a complainant or their authorized representative may submit a complaint regarding any dispute arising under an apprenticeship agreement or alleging a violation of this part to the sponsor or to the Registration Agency that registered the apprenticeship program for review.
(c) A complaint must be filed with the Registration Agency within 300 calendar days after the conclusion of the events that gave rise to the dispute or the alleged violation of this part. However, for good cause shown, the Registration Agency may extend the filing time.
(d) All complaints must be submitted in writing by the complainant or their authorized representative, and must describe the dispute, including all relevant facts and documents. Each written complaint must contain the following information:
(1) A means of contacting the complainant or the authorized representative;
(2) The identity of the individual or entity that is alleged to be responsible for the conduct giving rise to the complaint; and
(3) A short description of the events, facts, or circumstances giving rise to the complaint, including a discussion of when the events giving rise to the complaint took place.
(e) Requirements of the Registration Agency with respect to complaints are as follows:
(1) The investigation of a complaint filed under this part will be undertaken by the Registration Agency and will proceed as expeditiously as possible. In conducting complaint investigations, the Registration Agency must:
(i) Provide written notice to the complainant and the authorized representative, if any, acknowledging receipt of the complaint;
(ii) Initiate an investigation upon receiving a complete complaint;
(iii) Complete a thorough investigation of the allegations of the complaint and develop a complete case record that must contain, but is not limited to, the name, address, and telephone number of each person interviewed, the interview statements, copies, transcripts, or summaries (where appropriate) of pertinent documents, and a narrative report of the investigation with references to exhibits and other evidence that relate to the alleged violations; and
(iv) Provide written notification of the Registration Agency's findings to both the respondent and the complainant.
(2) The Registration Agency will protect the identity of the complainant to the extent practicable.
(3) The Registration Agency will review all complaints. Where a report of findings from a complaint investigation indicates a violation of the requirements of this part or the apprenticeship agreement, the Registration Agency will attempt to resolve the violation as expeditiously as possible.
(f) Nothing in this section precludes an apprentice from pursuing any other remedy authorized under another Federal, State, or local law.
(g) An SAA may adopt a complaint investigation procedure differing in detail from that given in this section, provided that such a procedure has previously been reviewed and approved, pursuant to § 29.27, by the Administrator.
(h) A participant in a registered apprenticeship program may not be intimidated, threatened, coerced, retaliated against, or discriminated against because the individual has:
(1) Filed a complaint alleging a violation of this part or an apprenticeship agreement;
(2) Opposed a practice prohibited by the provisions of this part or an apprenticeship agreement;
(3) Furnished information to, or assisted or participated in any manner in, any investigation, compliance review, proceeding, or hearing under this part; or
(4) Otherwise exercised any rights and privileges under the provisions of this part or an apprenticeship agreement.
(i) Any sponsor that permits such retaliation under paragraph (h) of this section in its registered apprenticeship program, including by participating employers, and fails to take appropriate steps to remedy such activity will be subject to deregistration under § 29.20(a) and other appropriate remedies.
(a)
(1) Employment decisions, such as the hiring or placement, promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, right of return from layoff, and rehiring of apprentices;
(2) Information related to the operation of the registered apprenticeship program, including but not limited to:
(i) Information related to the qualification, recruitment, employment, and training of apprentices, such as the apprenticeship program standards, apprenticeship agreements, completion records, cancellation and suspension records, and compliance review files;
(ii) Records pertaining to each apprentice's performance and progress in both the on-the-job training and related instruction components of the registered apprenticeship program, and records related to the apprentice end-point assessments;
(iii) If applicable, any records pertaining to an apprentice's attainment of an interim credential, postsecondary academic credit, or any other interim milestones attained during the course of an apprentice's participation in the program;
(iv) For each apprentice, the number of hours of on-the-job training, the number of hours of related instruction, the total number of hours worked, and the wages and fringe benefits paid for all hours;
(v) Any records, including personnel records, applicable to non-EEO complaints filed with the Registration Agency pursuant to § 29.17;
(vi) All records related to the safety record of the sponsor and all participating employers in the sponsor's program, where applicable, including records relating to any safety and health training provided to apprentices, incident logs required to be maintained under applicable Federal or State occupational safety and health laws, as well as current worker's compensation documentation;
(vii) Any records required to be maintained by a program sponsor under part 30 of this title;
(viii) Any records required to be maintained under title 38, United States Code, in order for veterans and other individuals eligible for educational assistance under such title to use such assistance for enrollment in registered apprenticeship programs; and
(ix) Any records demonstrating program compliance with registered apprenticeship requirements to meet Federal purposes as defined in this part.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) After an apprenticeship program has received permanent registration status as described in § 29.10, the Registration Agency must conduct periodic reviews of the apprenticeship program (which may include any participating employers in the sponsor's program) not less frequently than every 5 years, except as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The Registration Agency must conduct reviews of a program in instances where the Registration Agency receives credible information or allegations that the program is not being operated in accordance with either its program standards or the requirements set forth in this part or in part 30 of this title, or at the request of the Administrator.
(c) In conducting program reviews, Registration Agencies may consider all information and data that is relevant to any actual or potential areas of noncompliance. As part of a review of data, the Registration Agency must review the program's performance under § 29.25(b).
(d) Sponsors and participating employers are required to cooperate with requests for interviews or documentation from the Registration Agency. Sponsors and participating employers must not impede a Registration Agency's ability to interview prospective, current, or former apprentices.
(e) Upon completion of a program review, the Registration Agency must present a written Notice of Program Review Findings to the sponsor using the contact information listed in the registered standards. If the program review indicates a failure to comply with this part or with part 30 of this title, the required notice will include:
(1) The deficiency or deficiencies identified;
(2) How to cure or remedy the deficiency or deficiencies;
(3) A requirement that the sponsor must develop and submit a compliance action plan pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section; and
(4) A statement that the administrative actions described in § 29.20 may be undertaken if compliance is not achieved within the required timeframe.
(f)(1) When a sponsor receives a Notice of Program Review Findings that indicates a failure to comply with this part, the sponsor must, within 45 calendar days of notification, either develop and submit for approval by the Registration Agency a compliance action plan that meets the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this section or submit a written rebuttal to the Findings. Registration Agencies may extend this deadline one time by up to 45 calendar days for good cause upon request of the sponsor.
(2) If the Registration Agency upholds the findings after considering the sponsor's rebuttal, the Registration Agency must provide the sponsor written notice of its determination, including the reasons for the determination. Upon receipt, the sponsor must develop, and submit to the Registration Agency for approval, a compliance action plan within 45 calendar days of receiving the final notice. The compliance action plan must include, at a minimum, the following provisions:
(i) A specific commitment, in writing, to correct or remediate identified deficiency(ies) and area(s) of noncompliance;
(ii) The precise actions to be taken for each deficiency identified;
(iii) The time period within which each cited deficiency will be remedied and any corrective program changes implemented; and
(iv) The name of the individual(s) responsible for correcting each deficiency identified.
(g) The Registration Agency will evaluate the sponsor's compliance action plan. The Registration Agency will elect one of the following of three responses to the compliance action plan and will notify the sponsor in writing accordingly.
(1) The Registration Agency may approve the compliance action plan, determine that the Program is now in compliance, and terminate the program review process.
(2) The Registration Agency may approve the compliance action plan but continue the program review process until the compliance action plan is appropriately implemented.
(3) The Registration Agency may reject the compliance action plan and either work with the sponsor to revise the compliance action plan or initiate deregistration under § 29.20.
(a)
(1) Offer the sponsor or participating employer technical assistance to promote compliance with this part;
(2) Require the sponsor to submit a compliance action plan pursuant to § 29.19(f);
(3) Suspend the sponsor's right to register new apprentices for a specified time period; or
(4) Deregister the program pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(b)
(c)
(1) The effective date of the requested deregistration; and
(2) A statement that within 15 calendar days of the date of the written
(i) That sponsor has requested that their program be deregistered and the effective date;
(ii) That deregistration automatically deprives the apprentice of individual registration;
(iii) That the deregistration of the program removes the apprentice from coverage for Federal purposes; and
(iv) That the apprentice will be referred to the Registration Agency for information about potential transfer to other registered apprenticeship programs.
(d)
(1) If a former sponsor wishes to request review by the Administrator, the former sponsor must do so by submitting an electronic request for review in writing within 30 calendar days from the date of the Notice of Deregistration. The request for review must include any additional relevant facts or documents that exist as of the date of the request. Statements concerning interviews, meetings, and conferences must include the time, date, place, and persons present.
(2) If the Registration Agency that issued the Notice of Deregistration is an SAA, the former sponsor must simultaneously furnish a copy of the request for review and all supporting facts and documentation to the Administrator. The SAA must transmit to the Administrator within 15 calendar days of receiving the request for review copies of records containing all pertinent facts concerning the deficiencies identified, including the Notice of Deregistration, and copies of all relevant documents and records that were before the SAA at the time of its decision. The Administrator may request additional information from the former sponsor, the SAA, or both.
(3) If the Registration Agency that issued the Notice of Deregistration is OA, OA will compile from within its own files records of all pertinent facts concerning the deficiencies identified, including the Notice of Deregistration and any new information provided by the former sponsor. The Administrator may request additional information from the sponsor.
(4) After reviewing a request for review, the Administrator will issue a final decision that includes the reasons for the decision as quickly as practicable after receipt of all information.
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, the sponsor may request a hearing before the Department's OALJ within 15 calendar days of receipt of the Administrator's final decision. If a hearing is not requested within 15 calendar days, the Administrator's decision is the final determination of the Department and no appeal to OALJ will be considered.
(6) Where the basis for deregistration is a failure to respond to multiple attempts by the Registration Agency to contact the sponsor or failure to register at least one apprentice, the Administrator's decision is the final determination of the Department and the sponsor cannot request a hearing with OALJ.
(e)
(1) A request for a hearing must be sent to OALJ within 15 calendar days of receiving a Notice of Deregistration from OA or receiving the Administrator's final decision. Where an SAA is the Registration Agency, a sponsor must request Review of Deregistration by the Administrator and receive the Administrator's final decision before requesting a hearing with OALJ.
(2) A copy of the request for a hearing must be simultaneously sent to the Administrator and the Associate Solicitor for Employment and Training Legal Services, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor. The Administrator will promptly provide the OALJ with the administrative file containing all documents relied on by the Administrator.
(3) Hearings requested under paragraph (e)(1) of this section must be conducted as set forth in § 29.21.
(a) The procedures contained in part 18 of this title will apply to the disposition of the request for hearing except that:
(1) The Administrative Law Judge will receive, and make part of the record, documentary evidence offered by any party and accepted at the hearing. Copies thereof will be made available by the party submitting the documentary evidence to any party to the hearing upon request.
(2) Technical rules of evidence will not apply to hearings conducted pursuant to this part, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most credible evidence available and to subject testimony to test by cross-examination will be applied, where reasonably necessary, by the Administrative Law Judge conducting the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.
(3) The request for a hearing will not be considered to be a complaint to which an answer is required.
(4) The Administrative Law Judge may authorize discovery and the filing of pre-hearing motions, and so limit them to the types and quantities that in the Administrative Law Judge's discretion will contribute to a fair hearing without unduly burdening the parties.
(b) The Administrative Law Judge must issue a written decision within 90 calendar days of the close of the hearing record. The Administrative Law Judge must uphold the Administrator's decision unless it is shown by the sponsor to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. The Administrative Law Judge's decision constitutes final agency action unless, within 15 calendar days from receipt of the decision, a party dissatisfied with the decision files a petition for review with the Administrative Review Board (ARB) in accordance with part 26 of this title, specifically identifying the procedure, fact, law, or policy to which exception is taken. Any exception not specifically urged is deemed to have been waived. A copy of the petition for review must be served on the opposing party at the same time in accordance with part 26 of this title. Thereafter, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge remains final agency action unless the ARB, within 30 calendar days of the filing of the petition for review, notifies the parties that it has accepted the case for review. The ARB may set a briefing schedule or decide the matter on the record. The ARB must issue a decision in any case it accepts for review within 180 calendar days of the close of the record. If a decision is not so issued, the Administrative Law Judge's decision constitutes final agency action.
Any apprenticeship program deregistered under § 29.20 may be reinstated at any time upon presentation of adequate evidence to the Registration Agency that the apprenticeship program is operating in accordance with this part and part 30 of this title.
Requests for exemption from any provision of this subpart must be made in writing to the Administrator and must contain a statement of reasons supporting the request. The Administrator may only grant exemptions for good cause and may not grant exemptions with respect to requirements set forth outside of this subpart, including requirements set forth in other applicable Federal, State, or local laws.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1) To facilitate the design and implementation of registered CTE apprenticeship programs, the Administrator will oversee the development of and updates to industry-validated, portable, and rigorous industry skills frameworks, which will be used by States and sponsors. Each set of new or updated industry skills frameworks must be reviewed by the Administrator, and will be approved as suitable for use in registered CTE apprenticeship programs if the industry skills framework:
(i) Provides a structure for developing the professional behaviors, workplace competencies, and theoretical knowledge required by an industry;
(ii) Describes skills and competencies that have been validated by the industry under consideration as nationally applicable and widely recognized across the industry;
(iii) Describes skills and competencies that are specified in an on-the-job training outline and obtained through the attainment of at least 900 hours of on-the-job training;
(iv) Aligns with a CTE program as approved by a State CTE Agency; and
(v) Details industry-validated methods for ongoing evaluations to assess the attainment of competency benchmarks by a CTE apprentice.
(2) The Administrator will solicit public comment to assist in evaluating an industry skills framework's suitability for registered CTE apprenticeship in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Such solicitations will be made available for public comment for at least 30 days. A determination regarding the industry skills framework will be made within 90 days of its submission for public comment, though the Administrator may extend this period. The Administrator may also consider data and other relevant information to assist in evaluating an industry skills framework's suitability for registered CTE apprenticeship. The Administrator will maintain an up-to-date public list of all industry skills frameworks and decisions.
(c)
(1) An on-the-job training outline that aligns with an approved industry skills framework;
(2) A description of the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction provided, including the approved CTE program associated with the registered CTE apprenticeship program. This description must include a statement as to whether time the apprentice spends in the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction component of the apprenticeship training will be counted as hours worked, and if so, what the wage rate and fringe benefits will be for those hours. The CTE apprenticeship-related instruction must also:
(i) Be a minimum of 540 hours in duration;
(ii) Result in the awarding of at least 12 postsecondary credit hours; and
(iii) Lead to proficiency in the skills and competencies described in the industry skills framework.
(3) A description of recognized postsecondary credit hours and credentials that are awarded, including any associate or baccalaureate degree associated with the program, and the name of the entity(ies) issuing the credential(s) or certificate(s);
(4) A description of how completion of the program will result in CTE apprentices' selection into an apprenticeship program registered under subpart A of this part (including any advanced standing granted), enrollment in a postsecondary educational program, or employment;
(5) A description of the employment in which CTE apprentices will be employed in on-the-job training. The on-the-job training must:
(i) Be a minimum of 900 hours in duration; and
(ii) Lead to proficiency in the skills and competencies described in the industry skills framework;
(6) The wage(s) that the CTE apprentice will receive from the employer participating in the registered CTE apprenticeship program, which must meet the following requirements:
(i) The CTE apprentice is paid a progressively increasing schedule of wages that is consistent with the industry skills and competencies required; and
(ii) The entry wage is not less than the minimum wage prescribed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, where applicable, unless a higher wage is required by other applicable Federal law, State or local law, or respective regulations, or by the terms of an applicable collective bargaining agreement.
(7) The program's specific numeric ratio of CTE apprentices to journeyworkers.
(i) The ratio must be consistent with the proper safety, health, supervision, and training of the CTE apprentice.
(ii) A sponsor must use a ratio that is:
(A) Consistent with the provisions of any applicable collective bargaining agreements, as well as any applicable Federal and State laws governing such ratios; and
(B) Specific and clearly described as to its application to a particular workforce, workplace, worksite, job site, department, or plant.
(8) A probationary period that may not exceed 30 days;
(9) An attestation by the sponsor, supported by any available documentation, that the program will provide adequate, safe, and accessible facilities and equipment for the training and supervision of CTE apprentices that are compliant with all applicable Federal, State, and local disability, occupational safety, and occupational health laws;
(10) An attestation by the sponsor that the program will provide adequate, industry-recognized safety training for CTE apprentices on the job and in CTE apprenticeship-related instruction;
(11) The minimum qualifications, if any, required by a sponsor and its participating employers for persons
(12) The sponsor's procedures for the selection of CTE apprentices, which must comply with the requirements for the selection of apprentices set forth in part 30 of this title;
(13) A list of supportive services that may be available to the CTE apprentice during their registered CTE apprenticeship program, including whether the services are provided by the sponsor or partner organization;
(14) The process by which the sponsor will reduce the usual term of on-the-job training or CTE apprenticeship-related instruction as a result of a registered CTE apprentice's prior learning, training, or acquired experience, or as a result of accelerated progress in the attainment of occupational competencies that is made by an apprentice during their participation in the registered CTE apprenticeship program. Such process must:
(i) Involve a fair, transparent, and equitable process for objectively identifying, assessing, and documenting a registered CTE apprentice's prior learning, training, or acquired experience, as well as for measuring any accelerated progress in the attainment of occupational competencies in the sponsor's registered CTE apprenticeship program; and
(ii) Result in advanced standing or credit and an increased wage for a CTE apprentice that is commensurate with any progression granted by the sponsor.
(15) Documentation that the qualifications and experience of the trainers and instructors that provide on-the-job training and CTE apprenticeship-related instruction to CTE apprentices satisfy the requirements of § 29.12;
(16) The identity of the Registration Agency and the State CTE Agency;
(17) The sponsor's equal opportunity pledge, pursuant to § 30.3(c) of this title, as well as an attestation that the program will be operated in accordance with the provisions of part 30 of this title, and, where applicable, an approved State EEO plan; and
(18) Contact information (name, address, telephone number, and email address) for the appropriate individual with authority under the program to receive, process, and make disposition of complaints.
(d)
(1)
(i) An LEA that is an eligible recipient as defined under Perkins;
(ii) An institution of higher education that is an eligible institution as defined under Perkins;
(iii) A State CTE Agency or other State government agency that shares responsibility for CTE in the State; and
(iv) An intermediary organization designated by the State CTE Agency, State Educational Agency, LEA, or IHE, pursuant to an agreement, that has expertise in organizing and coordinating registered CTE apprenticeship programs or registered apprenticeship programs, including:
(A) The local affiliate of a labor organization (such as a joint apprenticeship and training committee);
(B) An employer;
(C) The local affiliate of a trade or industry organization;
(D) A local workforce development board;
(E) An IHE;
(F) An LEA; and
(H) Any other public, private, or not-for-profit entity that has experience coordinating Perkins funding.
(2)
(i) An on-the-job training outline that aligns with an associated industry skills framework;
(ii) A CTE apprenticeship-related instruction outline;
(iii) Standards of registered CTE apprenticeship for the proposed program;
(iv) The CTE apprenticeship agreement for the registered CTE apprenticeship program;
(v) A written plan that includes the following:
(A) A description of how the program will ensure the students who are selected to participate in the registered CTE apprenticeship program reflect a diverse and inclusive cross-section of the current student body enrollment of the participating secondary or postsecondary school(s) consistent with the requirements of part 30 of this title;
(B) A description of how the CTE program's training and curriculum align with an approved industry skills framework;
(C) A description of the secondary credits or recognized postsecondary credit hours and credentials the program may provide, including how the program confers such credits and credentials, and its usefulness for CTE apprentices' entry into employment, a registered apprenticeship program under subpart A, or a postsecondary educational program;
(D) A description from the sponsor of how they will ensure each employer has an established record of maintaining a safe and inclusive workplace that is free from discrimination, violence, harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against employees;
(E) A description of how the CTE apprentices participating in the program will have access to a broad range of career services and supportive services that enable participation in, and successful completion of, the registered CTE apprenticeship program;
(F) A description of the routine monitoring and oversight conducted by the sponsor of all aspects of the registered CTE apprenticeship program; and
(G) A description of how the sponsor will implement, upon registration, the affirmative steps to provide EEO in apprenticeship required by § 30.3(b) of this title. This description must at a minimum:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(vi) An assurance that the specific commitments, roles, and responsibilities assumed by employers, secondary schools, LEAs, postsecondary educational institutions, intermediaries, and others with respect to the operation of the registered CTE apprenticeship program are formalized through memoranda of understanding or other written agreements; and
(vii) An assurance that, consistent with § 29.18, the sponsor will maintain any required records that the Registration Agency considers necessary to determine whether the sponsor has complied or is complying with the requirements of this part and any applicable Federal or State laws.
(3)
(4)
(i)
(A) Adopt and comply with the sponsor's standards of registered CTE apprenticeship;
(B) Comply with all other applicable requirements of this part; and
(C) Cooperate with, and provide assistance to, the program sponsor to meet the sponsor's obligations under this part and part 30 of this title, including by providing any apprenticeship-related data and records necessary to assess compliance with these regulatory provisions.
(ii)
(iii)
(A) A sponsor standards adoption agreement:
(
(
(B) The program sponsor must provide written notice of any suspension or cancellation to the participating employer, all CTE apprentices affected by the suspension or cancellation, and the applicable Registration Agency. The notice must explain the reason for the suspension or cancellation.
(C) If the suspension or cancellation results in an interruption or cessation of training for CTE apprentices, the program sponsor must make reasonable efforts to place such individuals with another of the sponsor's participating employers.
(D) In instances where a program sponsor fails to suspend or cancel a sponsor standards adoption agreement as required by paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(A)(
(e)
(1) All CTE apprenticeship programs registered by a Registration Agency must develop and establish a written CTE apprenticeship agreement that contains the terms and conditions of the employment, education, and training of the CTE apprentice. Such agreement must be signed prior to the start of the registered CTE apprenticeship term by:
(i) The CTE apprentice;
(ii) The CTE apprentice's parent or legal guardian, if the CTE apprentice is under 18 years of age;
(iii) The program sponsor;
(iv) The secondary or postsecondary institution in which the CTE apprentice is enrolled as a student; and
(v) Any participating employers in the program that have adopted the sponsor's standards adoption agreement.
(2) A copy of the signed CTE apprenticeship agreement and the program's standards of registered CTE apprenticeship must be given to the CTE apprentice, and their parent or legal guardian if applicable, prior to the start date of the registered CTE apprenticeship term.
(3) At a minimum, the CTE apprenticeship agreement must contain the following:
(i) Contact information and identifying information for the CTE apprentice, including the apprentice's date of birth and, on a voluntary basis, their Social Security number;
(ii) Contact information for the Registration Agency, program sponsor, and participating employer(s);
(iii) An identification of the job or occupation the CTE apprentice will be employed in, as well as copies of the associated industry skills framework and CTE apprenticeship-related instruction outline;
(iv) The incorporation, either directly or by reference, of the program's standards of CTE apprenticeship;
(v) A description of the respective roles, duties, and responsibilities of the CTE apprentice, the program sponsor, and the participating employer, during the registered CTE apprenticeship program. With respect to sponsors and participating employers, these responsibilities must include providing information to CTE apprentices regarding their rights and protections under Federal, State, and local laws, including their right to file complaints with the applicable Registration Agency and the process for doing so;
(vi) The term of the registered CTE apprenticeship, including the beginning date and expected duration of the registered CTE apprenticeship program, the beginning date of the on-the-job training, and a probationary period that does not exceed 30 days;
(vii) A detailed statement of the entry wage and the subsequent graduated scale of increasing wages to be paid to the CTE apprentice over the registered CTE apprenticeship term;
(viii) A disclosure of the expected minimum number of hours allocated by the program to the on-the-job training component during the registered CTE apprenticeship term, and to the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction component of the registered CTE apprenticeship program during that term;
(ix) A description of the methods used during the course of the registered CTE apprenticeship program to measure progress on competency attainment;
(x) A description of any supportive services that may be available to the CTE apprentice including, childcare, transportation, equipment, tools, or any other supportive service provided by the sponsor or a partnering organization to address potential barriers to participation or completion;
(xi) The nature and amount of any unreimbursed costs, expenses, or fees that the CTE apprentice may incur during their participation in the program;
(xii) A description of any secondary or postsecondary credits or credentials that the CTE apprentice will receive upon successful program completion;
(xiii) A statement by the parties to the agreement that they will adhere to the requirements of part 30 of this title;
(xiv) A statement addressing:
(A) Whether the CTE apprentice is paid wages and fringe benefits during the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction component of the program;
(B) If wages are paid for CTE apprenticeship-related instruction, what the wage rate is; and
(C) Whether the CTE apprenticeship-related instruction is provided during work hours.
(xv) Contact information (name, address, phone, and email if appropriate) of the appropriate authority designated under the program to receive, process, and make disposition of controversies or disputes arising out of the CTE apprenticeship agreement when the controversies or disputes cannot be addressed locally or resolved in accordance with the established procedure or applicable collective bargaining provisions; and
(xvi) The consent of the CTE apprentice, or their parent or guardian, if the CTE apprentice is under 18 and not in attendance at a postsecondary institution, permitting the secondary or postsecondary institution in which the CTE apprentice is enrolled as a student to disclose individual apprentice level information to the program sponsor, to the entity designating any intermediary organization as a sponsor, to participating employers, to the Registration Agency and the Department, if OA is not the Registration Agency, and to any other institution involved in administering the registered CTE apprenticeship program, as required under subpart B of this part.
(4) A registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor, or a participating employer in the sponsor's program, cannot include in the CTE apprenticeship agreement or otherwise impose on CTE apprentices a non-compete provision or other provision that restricts an apprentice's labor market mobility, including a provision restricting the apprentice's ability to seek or accept employment with another employer prior to the completion of the registered CTE apprenticeship program.
(5) A registered CTE apprenticeship program sponsor, or a participating employer in the sponsor's program, cannot include in the CTE apprenticeship agreement or otherwise impose on CTE apprentices a non-disclosure provision that prevents the worker from working in the same field after the conclusion of the worker's employment with the employer, or that restricts an apprentice's ability to file a complaint with a Registration Agency or other governmental body concerning possible violations of this part or of part 30 of this title. Subject to these restrictions, a sponsor or participating employer may include a non-disclosure provision that relates to the protection of the sponsor's or participating employer's confidential commercial information or trade secrets.
(6) The program sponsor must submit a completed copy of the executed CTE apprenticeship agreement for each CTE apprentice registered to the program's Registration Agency within 30 days of execution.
(f)
(g)
(1)
(i) The Registration Agency must review an application submitted by a sponsor consistent with paragraph (d)(2) of this section and provide a determination on whether the program is eligible for program registration within 90 days of receipt of a complete application.
(ii) The Registration Agency will inform applicants in writing of all decisions regarding program registration.
(iii) If the Registration Agency denies the application, it must explain in writing the reasons for the denial.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) For program reviews under this subpart, the process described in § 29.19 applies.
(ii) Program reviews should be done in coordination with the relevant State CTE Agency pursuant to the written agreement described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(iii) The result of any program review conducted under paragraph (g)(4) of this section will not impact an entity's eligibility for funding under the Perkins program.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(i) OA may serve as the Registration Agency within States where the Administrator has not recognized an SAA to register CTE apprenticeship programs, provided a written agreement has been signed between OA and the State's respective State CTE Agency as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(ii) SAAs recognized or seeking recognition as a Registration Agency under subpart C of this part will be recognized to register CTE apprenticeship programs provided the following criteria are met:
(A) The State's proposed or current apprenticeship laws for CTE apprenticeship meet or exceed the requirements for protecting the safety and welfare of CTE apprentices set forth in this subpart;
(B) A written agreement has been signed between the SAA and the State CTE Agency as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
(C) The State has submitted its relevant apprenticeship laws and CTE engagement strategies as described in its State Apprenticeship Plan submission or a modification as described in subpart C of this part; and
(D) The Administrator has approved the State Apprenticeship Plan for both recognition as an SAA, and for recognition to register CTE apprenticeship programs.
(9)
(i)
(A) Within 30 calendar days of the start of a CTE apprentice's term, the
(
(
(
(
(B) At the end of each academic semester, the program sponsor must report a change in a CTE apprentice's status, including additional receipt of services and attainment of outcomes, to its Registration Agency in a manner prescribed by the Administrator regarding the following apprentice outcomes and services:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(ii)
(A) Within 30 days of the change in status and no less than on an annual basis, for each registered CTE apprenticeship program and industry skills framework in which CTE apprentices are being trained, a program sponsor must report to the Registration Agency, in a manner prescribed by the Administrator, the following information:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(B) On an annual basis, for each registered CTE apprenticeship program and industry skills framework, the following quality metrics will be calculated by the Registration Agency, in a format prescribed by the Administrator:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(iii)
(A) The Administrator will make on an annual basis general information relating to registered CTE apprenticeship programs along with the information described in paragraph (g)(9)(ii) of this section publicly available. Upon request of the sponsor, the Administrator may decide not to make the information described in paragraph (g)(9)(ii) of this section publicly available for good cause.
(B) Unless otherwise prohibited by Federal law, the Administrator will make publicly available a national summary report of CTE apprentices and their outcomes, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, and other categories determined by the Administrator.
(C) In addition to the metrics in paragraph (g)(9)(iii)(B) of this section, the Registration Agency must use supplemental sources, such as wage records and surveys, to calculate at a national or State level at least the following additional metrics:
(
(
(
(D) The Administrator may also conduct evaluations and longitudinal studies to assess the impact and improve the effectiveness of registered CTE apprenticeship programs.
(E) The Registration Agency may decide to withhold from publication certain information contained in paragraphs (g)(9)(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this section for good cause.
(iv)
(v)
(A) SAAs with an approved State Apprenticeship Plan to serve as a Registration Agency for CTE apprenticeship are required to collect
(B) No less frequently than on a quarterly basis, SAAs must report the information collected from sponsors discussed in paragraphs (g)(9)(i) and (ii)(A) of this section.
(C) On an annual basis, the SAA will report the information collected under paragraph (g)(9)(ii)(B) of this section to the Administrator.
(D) The Administrator will make the information collected from paragraph (g)(9)(iii) of this section publicly available.
(E) SAAs may meet these requirements by either:
(
(
(10)
(a)
(1) Within 30 calendar days of the start of an apprentice's participation in a registered apprenticeship program, the program sponsor must submit to its Registration Agency, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the following information:
(i) Individual apprentice level information that includes demographic information, education level, and veteran status;
(ii) Receipt of pre-apprenticeship services prior to participation in apprenticeship, if applicable;
(iii) The occupation in which the apprentice is to be trained;
(iv) The date the individual became an apprentice;
(v) The beginning date and term (duration) of the apprenticeship, the date of the beginning of on-the-job training, the full graduated schedule of wages including the journeyworker wage, and the approximate time to be spent in each work process in the occupation; and
(vi) Any additional apprentice-related information required by the Administrator.
(2) Within 30 calendar days of a change in an apprentice's status, the program sponsor must submit the following information to its Registration Agency:
(i) Change in apprenticeship status (completion, transfer, suspension, or cancellation);
(ii) Interim credentials attained;
(iii) Employment status;
(iv) Wage progression;
(v) Supportive services provided; and
(vi) Any additional apprentice outcomes or services information required by the Administrator.
(b)
(1) Within 30 days of the change in status, for each registered apprenticeship program and occupation, a program sponsor must report to the Registration Agency, in a manner prescribed by the Administrator, the following information:
(i) Up-to-date contact information for the program sponsor (including headquarters);
(ii) Up-to-date contact information for each participating employer in the program and, if applicable, the collective bargaining signatories;
(iii) An up-to-date copy of the program standards adoption agreement with the sponsor for each participating employer;
(iv) Information about which participating employers have canceled their participation in a program;
(v) Up-to-date information about the program's coordination with credentialing agencies;
(vi) Up-to-date contact information for those individual(s) designated and authorized under the registered apprenticeship program to receive, process, and make disposition of complaints filed by apprentices under both this part and part 30 of this title;
(vii) All unreimbursed costs to the apprentice; and
(viii) Any additional sponsor or program level information required by the Administrator.
(2) On an annual basis, for each registered apprenticeship program and occupation, in a format prescribed by the Administrator, the following quality metrics will be calculated:
(i) The total number of apprentices served annually in the sponsor's program under an apprenticeship agreement;
(ii) The total number of apprentices who successfully completed the sponsor's program annually;
(iii) The annual completion rate for apprentices.
(iv) The cohort completion rate for apprentices, which must be calculated by comparing the number of apprentices in a designated apprenticeship cohort who successfully completed the sponsor's requirements and attained a Certificate of Completion with the number of apprentices in that cohort who initially began training in the program;
(v) The median length of time for program completion;
(vi) The employment retention rate at the time of exit;
(vii) The percentage of exiters that receive at least one interim credential at time of exit;
(viii) The percentage of exiters that enter postsecondary education or a career pathway program at time of exit;
(ix) Apprentice wage at time of exit;
(x) Information and data relating to any pre-apprenticeship programs with which the sponsor has established a documented partnership; and
(xi) Any additional sponsor or program level information required by the Administrator.
(c)
(1) The Registration Agency will make publicly available on an annual basis general information relating to registered apprenticeship programs along with the information described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) The Registration Agency will make publicly available an annual State or national summary report of apprentices and their outcomes, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, and other categories determined by the Administrator.
(3) In addition to the metrics in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Registration Agency must use supplemental sources, such as wage records and surveys, to calculate at a national or State level, at least the following additional metrics:
(i) The post-apprenticeship employment retention rate, calculated 6 and 12 months after program exit;
(ii) The annualized average and median earnings of a registered apprenticeship program's former apprentices, calculated over the 6-month period after program completion;
(iii) The percentage of all completers of a registered apprenticeship program who, at 1 year after program completion, are earning an income that allows them to support themselves and their families, have been placed in a postsecondary educational program, or a career pathway program; and
(iv) Registration Agency metrics including median time for registration, number of programs approved and denied registration, and post-
(4) The Administrator may also conduct evaluations and longitudinal studies to assess the impact and improve the effectiveness of registered apprenticeship programs.
(5) The Registration Agency may decide to withhold from publication certain information contained in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of this section for good cause.
(a)
(1) Implementing apprenticeship-related laws and policies, provided that the Administrator has previously approved such laws pursuant to § 29.27(c)(1) or § 29.27(c)(2);
(2) Reviewing, approving, disapproving, and amending standards of apprenticeship submitted by potential or existing program sponsors, and registering apprenticeship programs within 90 days of a complete submission for Federal purposes in that State;
(3) Prescribing the content of apprenticeship agreements, and registering apprentices who have signed valid apprenticeship agreements with registered apprenticeship program sponsors and participating employers;
(4) Providing technical assistance to registered apprenticeship program sponsors, participating employers, registered apprentices, intermediaries, and other apprenticeship stakeholders;
(5) Collecting and reporting to OA any apprenticeship-related data from program sponsors, participating employers, and individual apprentices described in §§ 29.25 and 29.28;
(6) Conducting program reviews of approved registered apprenticeship programs;
(7) Establishing policies and procedures to promote EEO for apprentices and applicants for apprenticeship in registered apprenticeship programs consistent with the requirements in part 30 of this title;
(8) Establishing the basic standards, criteria, and requirements for program registration, and providing for the suspension or deregistration of programs;
(9) Establishing a process for the registration, suspension, or cancellation of apprenticeship agreements;
(10) Investigating complaints filed under this part or part 30 of this title; and
(11) Functioning as a Registration Agency for registered CTE apprenticeship programs pursuant to § 29.24.
(b)
(c)
(1)
(i) Employers or representatives of employer organizations, including from sectors and occupations where apprenticeship is not currently widespread;
(ii) Representatives of labor organizations or joint labor-management organizations, including from non-traditional apprenticeship industries or occupations; and
(iii) Other members representing the general public, which must at least include:
(A) One representative who represents the State's workforce development system; and
(B) One representative of a secondary or postsecondary education system who is familiar with registered apprenticeship.
(2)
(d)
(1) Ensure that the program sponsor meets the statutory and regulatory wage and hour requirements and apprentice-to-journeyworker ratios of the State in which reciprocal approval is sought;
(2) Ensure that the program and individual apprentices who will work in the State are properly registered with the SAA; and
(3) Ensure that the program sponsor develop standards that prepare apprentices to meet or exceed the minimum requirements of State or local occupation licensure, if applicable.
(a)
(1)
(i) State Apprenticeship Plans must be submitted to the Administrator at least 120 days prior to the date when an SAA is seeking recognition.
(ii) State governmental entities recognized by the Administrator as an SAA prior to the effective date of this rule must submit a State Apprenticeship Plan described in paragraph (b) of this section no later than September 1, 2026,
(iii) Subsequent State Apprenticeship Plan submissions are for 4-year periods beginning July 1, 2030.
(iv) State Apprenticeship Plans submitted and approved outside of the time periods described in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section must still submit a State Apprenticeship Plan to the Administrator consistent with the timing described in either paragraph (a)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section.
(2)
(i) An approved State Apprenticeship Plan requires modification and resubmission:
(A) When changes in Federal or State law or policy substantially affect the roles and responsibilities of the SAA described in § 29.26;
(B) When proposed State laws may affect an SAA's compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section;
(C) When there are significant changes in the strategies, goals, and priorities upon which the State Apprenticeship Plan is based; and
(D) When there are significant changes in the statewide vision, strategies, policies, operational procedures, or organizational structure of the SAA.
(ii) Modifications may be requested by the SAA for any other reason at any time during the 4-year period of the plan, including:
(A) When the SAA is seeking to change its plan status from provisional to full approval;
(B) When the SAA seeks recognition as a Registration Agency for the purposes of subpart B of this part; or
(C) For any other reason at the discretion of the SAA.
(iii) Modifications to an approved State Apprenticeship Plan must be submitted to the Administrator at least 120 days prior to the requested effective date of the modification.
(iv) Modified State Apprenticeship Plans remain approved until the end of the original cycle of the Plan.
(b)
(1)
(i) Allow registration for Federal purposes for only those occupations that have been determined suitable for registered apprenticeship pursuant to § 29.7;
(ii) Meet or exceed the requirements for protecting the safety and welfare of apprentices set forth at the following regulatory provisions:
(A) The standards of apprenticeship enumerated at section § 29.8;
(B) The apprenticeship agreement elements identified in § 29.9;
(C) The program registration requirements of § 29.10;
(D) The program standards adoption agreement requirements of § 29.11;
(E) The qualifications of apprentice trainers and providers of related instruction requirements of § 29.12;
(F) The end-point assessment and certification of program completion requirements of § 29.16;
(G) The complaints requirements of § 29.17;
(H) The recordkeeping requirements of § 29.18;
(I) The procedural requirements of §§ 29.19 through 29.22;
(J) The SAA requirements of § 29.26;
(K) The reporting requirements for SAAs of § 29.28; and
(L) The EEO requirements at part 30 of this title.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) The current apprentice participants in the State by race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, and veteran status;
(B) The goals and milestones the State will utilize to track progress towards the strategic plan.
(iii)
(A) A description of any coordination or leveraging of State planning and registered apprenticeship programs under WIOA and any milestones the State will use to track progress;
(B) A description of any efforts or processes the SAA has developed with the State Workforce Agency to enhance or increase the leveraging of registered apprenticeship programs on the State list of eligible providers of training services under section 122(d) of WIOA;
(C) An assessment of how registered apprenticeship programs in the State meet employers' workforce needs as identified by the State workforce development board or State Workforce Agency;
(D) A description of current activities to coordinate with the State's education system, including institutions of higher education, LEAs, State CTE and Educational Agencies, and other educational entities that support CTE programs and career pathways;
(E) A description of current activities and goals in coordinating with economic development entities in the State; and
(F) A description of the State's strategy for engaging and leveraging intermediaries as defined in § 29.2.
(G) A description of any efforts to align and leverage apprenticeship-related data with education system and workforce development system data.
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(4)
(i) That the State will provide a process for local registration of National Guidelines for Apprenticeship Standards recognized by the Administrator pursuant to § 29.15.
(ii) That the State has sufficient resources to carry out the functions of an SAA, including outreach and education; registration of programs and apprentices; provision of technical assistance, and monitoring of programs as required to fulfill the requirements of this part.
(iii) That the State will make available on a publicly available website a description of any laws (including regulations), policies, and operational procedures relating to the process of reviewing, registering, and assessing registered apprenticeship programs under the State's apprenticeship system, including those that impose requirements in addition to this rule, as well as any approved State Apprenticeship Plans.
(iv) That the State requires a written assurance from any sponsors registered by the State that they are complying with the requirements of the Support for Veterans in Effective Apprenticeships Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 116-134, 134 Stat. 277, 29 U.S.C. 50c).
(5)
(i) The State's proposed or current registered CTE apprenticeship laws as described in § 29.24(g)(8).
(ii) A written agreement between the State entity seeking recognition and the State's CTE Agency as described in § 29.24(a)(2).
(iii) A narrative summary of the State's strategic vision and strategy for expanding registered CTE apprenticeship programs under subpart B of this part.
(c)
(1) Full recognition if the Administrator has determined:
(i) The State's apprenticeship laws meet or exceed the minimum standards as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(ii) The State's Plan includes all strategic planning elements that are complete and responsive to the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(iii) The State's Plan includes all operational elements that are complete and responsive to the requirements in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(iv) The State's Plan includes all of the assurances as required in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(2) Provisional recognition if the Administrator has determined that the State's apprenticeship laws meet or exceed the minimum standards described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and that the State's Plan includes all of the assurances described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, but further determines that:
(i) The strategic planning elements described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section or the operational elements described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are either incomplete or nonresponsive; and
(ii) Any deficiencies identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section are resolvable with technical assistance provided by OA and a corrective action plan is submitted by the State and approved by the Administrator. A State may be provisionally recognized for no more than one full planning cycle.
(3) Denial of recognition if the Administrator determines:
(i) That the State's apprenticeship laws do not meet the minimum standards described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or
(ii) That the SAA is unable to be fully approved within one full planning cycle after having been provisionally recognized, as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) The process and procedures for such denial of recognition are described in § 29.29.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a) SAAs are required to collect the information from sponsors described in § 29.25(a) and (b).
(b) On at least a quarterly basis, SAAs must report the information collected from sponsors described in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of § 29.25 to OA.
(c) On an annual basis, the SAA will report the information collected under§ 29.25(b)(2) to the Administrator.
(d) The Administrator will make the information described in paragraph (c) of this section publicly available.
(e) SAAs may meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section by either:
(1) Utilizing a Department-provided case management system; or
(2) Maintaining a State system that is capable of reporting individual apprentice record level information to OA in a manner prescribed by the Administrator, and that meets minimum
(a)
(1) If the Administrator denies a State Apprenticeship Plan pursuant to § 29.27(c)(3) or derecognizes an SAA pursuant to § 29.27(f), the Administrator will issue a written notice that includes:
(i) The reason(s) for the denial or derecognition;
(ii) The needed remedial measure(s); and
(iii) The timeframe for addressing those measures, which will be no longer than 12 months from the date of the written notice.
(2) If the State has failed to take adequate remedial measures in the timeframe provided in the written notice, the Administrator may issue a final determination that will include the reason(s) for the denial or derecognition and state in the final determination that the State may request a hearing with OALJ within 30 calendar days of the date of the final determination.
(3) Requests for a hearing must be sent to OALJ within 30 calendar days from the date of a final determination from the Administrator. A copy of the request for a hearing must be simultaneously sent to the Administrator, who must transmit it to the Associate Solicitor for Employment and Training Legal Services, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor. The Administrator will promptly provide OALJ with the administrative file containing all documents relied on by the Administrator or designee to deregister the program or to issue the Administrator's final determination.
(4) The procedures contained in part 18 of this title will apply to the disposition of the request for review except that:
(i) The Administrative Law Judge will receive, and make part of the record, documentary evidence offered by any party and accepted at the hearing. Copies thereof will be made available by the party submitting the documentary evidence to any party to the hearing upon request.
(ii) Technical rules of evidence will not apply to hearings conducted under this part, but rules or principles designed to assure the production of the most credible evidence available and to subject testimony to test by cross-examination will be applied, where reasonably necessary, by the Administrative Law Judge conducting the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.
(iii) The request for a hearing will not be considered to be a complaint to which an answer is required.
(iv) The Administrative Law Judge may authorize discovery and the filing of pre-hearing motions, and so limit them to the types and quantities in the Administrative Law Judge's discretion will contribute to a fair hearing without unduly burdening the parties.
(5) The Administrative Law Judge must issue a written decision within 90 calendar days of the close of the hearing record. The Administrative Law Judge must uphold the Administrator's decision unless it is shown by the sponsor to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. The Administrative Law Judge's decision constitutes final agency action of the Department unless, within 15 calendar days from receipt of the decision, a party dissatisfied with the decision files a petition for review with the ARB in accordance with part 26 of this title, specifically identifying the procedure, fact, law, or policy to which exception is taken. Any exception not specifically urged is deemed to have been waived. A copy of the petition for review must be served on OA at the same time in accordance with part 26 of this title. Thereafter, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge remains final agency action unless the ARB, within 30 calendar days of the filing of the petition for review, notifies the parties that it has accepted the case for review. The ARB may set a briefing schedule or decide the matter on the record. The ARB must issue a decision in any case it accepts for review within 180 calendars of the close of the record. If a decision is not so issued, the Administrative Law Judge's decision constitutes final agency action.
(6) An SAA may request voluntary withdrawal from its recognition status for Federal purposes at any time. The Administrator will derecognize the SAA after the State sends a formal notice of withdrawal to the Administrator.
(b)
(1) Notify the sponsors in the State of the derecognition and effect public notice of such derecognition.
(2) Notify the sponsors that, 45 calendar days after the date of the determination to derecognize the SAA, the Department will cease to recognize, for Federal purposes, each apprenticeship program previously registered with the SAA, unless within that time, the sponsor submits an application for registration with OA, pursuant to the following:
(i) Within 90 days of receiving the application for registration, the Office of the Apprenticeship will review the application to determine if it meets the requirements for registration described in § 29.10(a).
(ii) OA will approve an application for registration in accordance with the procedures and requirements described in § 29.10(b).
(iii) OA will deny an application for registration if the application does not meet the requirements in § 29.10(b). The procedures described in § 29.10(c) apply to any applications for registration that are declined.
(c)
(1) Provide all apprenticeship program standards, apprenticeship agreements, completion records, cancellation and suspension records, EEO compliance review files, and any other documents relating to the State's registered apprenticeship programs, to the Department;
(2) Within 15 calendar days of receiving a final determination, unless the State requests a hearing as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, advise all sponsors that any benefits of registration for Federal purposes are no longer available to the apprentices in its apprenticeship program as of 45 calendar days after the date of the Administrator's final determination. The communication from the State must direct that all apprentices are referred to OA for information about potential transfer to other registered apprenticeship programs; and
(3) Cooperate fully with the Administrator during a transition period.
The Administrator or recognized SAA may provide a Certificate of Participation to employers and government agencies to demonstrate a program sponsor's or participating employer's compliance with any Federal purpose or State benefit associated with a program's or
Sec. 1, 50 Stat. 664, as amended (29 U.S.C. 50; 40 U.S.C. 276c; 5 U.S.C. 301); Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267, 3 CFR 1949-53 Comp. p. 1007.
The definitions in § 29.2 also apply to this part.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Publish its equal opportunity pledge—set forth in paragraph (c) of this section—in the standards of apprenticeship required under part 29 of this title, and in appropriate publications, such as apprentice and employee handbooks, policy manuals, newsletters, or other documents disseminated by the sponsor or that otherwise describe the nature of the sponsorship;
(b) * * *
(2)
(c) * * *
(6) Sponsors, working with the Registration Agency, will conduct availability analyses at each program review.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)
(a) A sponsor's procedures for selection of apprentices must be included in the written plan for standards of apprenticeship submitted to and approved by the Registration Agency, as required under part 29 of this title.
(a) * * *
(3) Information relative to the operation of the apprenticeship program, including but not limited to job assignments in all components of the occupation as required under part 29 of this title, promotion, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, rates of pay, other forms of compensation, conditions of work, hours of work, hours of training provided, and any other personnel records relevant to EEO complaints filed with the Registration Agency under § 30.14 or with other enforcement agencies;
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Complete a thorough investigation of the allegations of the complaint and develop a complete case record that must contain, but is not limited to, the name, address, and telephone number of each person interviewed, the interview statements, copies, transcripts, or summaries (where appropriate) of pertinent documents, and a narrative report of the investigation with references to exhibits and other evidence that relate to the alleged violations;
(v) Provide written notification of the Registration Agency's findings to both the respondent and the complainant; and
(vi) Protect the identity of the complainant to the extent practicable.
Where the Registration Agency, as a result of a program review, complaint investigation, or other reason, determines that the sponsor is not operating its apprenticeship program in accordance with this part, the Registration Agency must notify the sponsor in writing of the specific violation(s) identified and may:
(b) Suspend the sponsor's right to register new apprentices if the sponsor fails to implement a compliance action plan to correct the specific violation(s) identified within 45 days from the date the sponsor is so notified of the violation(s), or, if the sponsor submits a written response to the findings of noncompliance, fails to implement a compliance action plan within 45 days of receiving the Registration Agency's notice upholding its initial noncompliance findings. If the sponsor has not implemented a compliance action plan within 45 days of notification of suspension, the Registration Agency may institute proceedings to deregister the program in accordance with the deregistration proceedings set forth in part 29 of this title.
(a) * * *
(3) Furnished information to, or assisted or participated in any manner, in any investigation, program review, proceeding, or hearing under this part or any Federal or State equal opportunity law; or
(a)
(3) If the State does not submit a revised State EEO plan that addresses identified nonconformities within 90 days from the date that OA provides the SAA with written notification of the areas of nonconformity, OA will begin the process set forth in part 29 of this title to rescind recognition of the SAA.
(4) An SAA that seeks to obtain or maintain recognition must obtain the Administrator's written concurrence in any proposed State EEO plan, as well as any subsequent modification to that plan, as provided in part 29 of this title.
(b)
(c)
(1) Conduct program reviews of all registered apprenticeship programs;
(3) Deregister for Federal purposes an apprenticeship program registered with a recognized SAA as provided in part 29 of this title; and
(d)
Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any portion of any provision(s) of this part to be invalid, the provision will be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding is one of total invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision or subprovision will be severable from this part and will not affect the remainder thereof.