[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 2, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28947-28976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-12317]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
29 CFR Parts 29 and 30
[Docket No. ETA-2025-0006]
RIN 1205-AC21
Prohibiting Illegal Discrimination in Registered Apprenticeship
Programs
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule, request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) is issuing
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to remove undue regulatory
burdens on registered apprenticeship program sponsors. The Department's
proposal would rescind certain regulatory provisions that it believes
are unlawful. It also includes conforming, technical changes to the
Department's regulation that addresses Labor Standards for the
Registration of Apprenticeship Programs. This proposed rule would
streamline and simplify sponsors' obligations, while maintaining broad
and effective nondiscrimination protections for apprentices and those
seeking entry into apprenticeship programs. A brief summer of this
document may be found at regulations.gov by searching by the RIN 1205-
AC21.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed rule on or before September 2, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket No. ETA-2025-
0006 and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1205-AC21, by any of
the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
the above-referenced RIN, open the proposed rule, and follow the on-
screen instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking or ``RIN 1205-AC21.''
Please be advised that the Department will post comments received
that relate to this proposed rule to https://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. The https://www.regulations.gov website is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal and all
comments posted there are available and accessible to the public.
Please do not submit comments containing trade secrets, confidential or
proprietary commercial or financial information, personal health
information, sensitive personally identifiable information (for
example, social security numbers, driver's license or state
identification numbers, passport numbers, or financial account
numbers), or other information that you do not want to be made
available to the public. Should the agency become aware of such
information, the agency reserves the right to redact or refrain from
posting sensitive information, libelous, or otherwise inappropriate
comments, including those that contain obscene, indecent, or profane
language; that contain threats or defamatory statements; or that
contain hate speech. Please note that depending on how information is
submitted, the agency may not be able to redact the information and
instead reserves the right to refrain from posting the information or
comment in such situations.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents,
comments received, or the plain-language summary of the proposed rule
of not more than 100 words in length required by the Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023, go to https://www.regulations.gov (search using RIN 1205-AC21 or Docket No. ETA-2025-
0006). If you need assistance to review the comments, contact the
Office of Policy Development and Research at 202-693-3700 (this is not
a toll-free number).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Murren, Acting Administrator,
Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: 202-693-3700 (voice)
(this is not a toll-free number). For persons with a hearing or speech
disability who need assistance using the telephone system, please dial
711 to access telecommunications relay services.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Introduction to Registered Apprenticeship and the National
Apprenticeship System
B. Regulatory History of the 29 CFR Part 30 Regulation
C. Need for the Rulemaking
II. Central Goals of the Rulemaking
A. Revising the 29 CFR Part 30 Regulation To Remove Requirements
Conflicting With Nondiscrimination Laws
B. Implementation of Recent Executive Orders Pertaining to
Federal Regulations and Apprenticeship
[[Page 28948]]
C. Accelerating Growth of the National Apprenticeship System
II. Section-by-Section Discussion of this Proposed Rule
A. Part 30 Revisions
B. Part 29 Technical and Conforming Edits
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, and Executive Order 13272 (Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking)
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Congressional Review Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
I. Background
A. Registered Apprenticeship
For nearly a century, registered apprenticeship has stood as a
foundational, employer-led model of workforce development anchored in
private sector leadership and real-world skill development that
accelerates the recruitment, training, and retention of highly
proficient workers in the skilled occupations employers need. This
training model supports the development of high quality, skilled
workers without the high cost or inefficiencies often associated with
traditional academic pathways. Registered apprenticeship offers a high-
quality, industry-driven career pathway in which employers can develop
and prepare their future workforce, and individuals can obtain paid
work experience with a mentor and receive progressive wage increases;
classroom instruction; and a portable, nationally recognized
credential. Registered apprenticeship programs are industry-vetted and
are approved and validated by DOL or a State Apprenticeship Agency
(SAA).
Employers and industry stakeholders continuously refine the
registered apprenticeship model to meet the changing workforce system
demands and emerging skills needs. Apprentices gain affordable, hands-
on training while earning wages and receiving guidance from qualified
journeyworkers. Program sponsors use registered apprenticeship to build
a skilled, job-ready workforce that enhances their competitiveness and
yields strong returns on investment. According to the Common Reporting
Information System, individuals who complete registered apprenticeship
programs earn an average annual salary of approximately $84,000,
exceeding the average earnings of associate degree holders, which range
from $50,000 to $56,000 per year.\1\ Employers also report positive
outcomes resulting from their participation in registered
apprenticeship; for example, an Abt Associates report that surveyed
employers who participate in registered apprenticeship found that
registered apprenticeship programs delivered a return on investment of
44 percent, reduce staff turnover, boost productivity, and strengthen
the talent pipeline.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training
Administration/Kansas Department of Commerce, Common Reporting
Information System (CRIS), FY2025 Q1 publication, retrieved Feb. 7,
2025.
\2\ Daniel Kuehn, Sonia M. De La Rosa, Robert I. Lerman, and
Kevin Hollenbeck, Abt Associates and Urban Institute, ``Do Employers
Earn Positive Returns to Investments in Apprenticeship? Evidence
from Registered Programs under the American Apprenticeship
Initiative,'' 2022, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/AAI/AAI_ROI_Final_Report_508_9-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered apprenticeship programs also yield a 90 percent
employment retention rate, indicating that most graduates remain in the
workforce after completing their training.\3\ Over the course of their
careers, registered apprenticeship completers earn more than $300,000
(including benefits) above what their non-apprentice peers earn on
average, highlighting the long-term economic advantage of this training
model.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CRIS, FY2025 Q1 publication, supra note 1.
\4\ Kevin Hollenbeck, Mathematica Policy Research, ``An
Effectiveness Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Registered
Apprenticeship in 10 States,'' 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered apprenticeship programs are voluntarily sponsored by a
wide range of organizations, including employers of all sizes--among
them Federal, State, and local governments, employers groups,
associations, joint labor-management organizations, workforce
intermediaries, and educational institutions. Together, these
stakeholders comprise the National Apprenticeship System, a voluntary
network of registered apprenticeship programs and their sponsors, SAAs,
and industry leaders who design apprenticeship training to meet their
workforce needs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In registered apprenticeship programs, such training plans
are referred to as ``work process schedules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.)
14278, Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the
Future, directing the Secretaries of Labor, Education, and Commerce to
strengthen the nation's workforce development system. The E.O. affirms
the Administration's commitment to expanding access to high-quality,
skills-based career pathways aligned with emerging labor market demands
and national economic priorities, including the nationwide goal of
reaching and surpassing one million active apprentices. E.O. 14278
positions registered apprenticeship as a key workforce development
strategy by promoting expansion into ``new industries and occupations,
including high-growth and emerging sectors'' and by enhancing alignment
with career and technical education.
As of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, the registered apprenticeship system
supports 678,014 active apprentices nationwide. This represents an
88.45% increase in participation since FY 2015. The data reflects
sustained long-term growth in registered apprenticeship participation
across industries and geographies, with Texas and Ohio among the
leading states by apprentice volume. The data shows that registered
apprenticeship programs are scalable, and an effective workforce
development model aligned with both industry demand and national
economic goals.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``Apprentices by State
Dashboard,'' https://www.apprenticeship.gov/data-and-statistics/apprentices-by-state-dashboard, last visited June 27, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the growth it has achieved over the past decade, registered
apprenticeship remains an underutilized approach for developing the
skills of America's workforce. In the United States, the proportion of
workers who have participated in registered apprenticeship programs
constitutes approximately 0.2 percent of the labor force; this is a
significantly lower figure than the percentage of apprentices in the
labor force seen in several other nations with highly developed
apprenticeship systems, including Canada (2.2 percent), Britain (2.7
percent), Australia (3.7 percent), and Germany (3.7 percent).\7\ The
Department is currently seeking ways to promote greater uptake of
registered apprenticeship in the United States, including removing
unnecessary administrative barriers to the registration of new
apprenticeship programs that have inhibited the accelerated adoption of
this proven workforce development model. Broader adoption of registered
apprenticeship by employers across industries and occupations will be
necessary to achieve the Administration's goal of one million
[[Page 28949]]
active apprentices. More importantly, widespread adoption of the
registered apprenticeship model will ensure that more American workers
possess the occupational skills and competencies that employers require
to drive innovation and economic expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Robert I. Lerman, Brookings Institution, ``Expanding
Apprenticeship Opportunities in the United States,'' 2014, 3,
https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/expand_apprenticeship_opportunities_united_states_lerman.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory History of the 29 CFR Part 30 Regulation
The National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (NAA) authorizes the
Department to formulate and promote labor standards necessary to
safeguard the welfare of apprentices.\8\ Within the Department, this
responsibility falls to the Employment and Training Administration's
(ETA) Office of Apprenticeship (OA). OA registers apprenticeship
programs that meet the regulatory requirements set forth in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 29 CFR parts 29 and 30. The original
version of the regulation at 29 CFR part 29 (part 29), titled ``Labor
Standards of Apprenticeship,'' was issued in 1977, and amended in 2008.
Part 29 implements the NAA by establishing minimum labor standards
necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices. These include:
policies and procedures for the registration, cancellation, and
deregistration of apprenticeship programs; safety requirements;
progressive wage standards; apprentice-to-journeyworker ratios;
apprenticeship agreement content; and the criteria for the recognizing
SAAs as Registration Agencies.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 29 U.S.C. 50.
\9\ 73 FR 64402. These regulations can be accessed on OA's
website at http://www.doleta.gov/oa/pdf/FinalRule29CFRPart29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first version of the regulation at 29 CFR part 30 (part 30),
titled ``Nondiscrimination in Apprenticeship and Training,'' was
published in December of 1963,\10\ more than six months before
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law in
July of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act contains landmark
protections for workers against employment discrimination, and its
protections extend to apprentices.\11\ The 1963 version of the
Department's part 30 regulation prohibited discrimination based on
race, creed, color, or national origin in all phases of a registered
apprenticeship program. In the preamble of the NPRM that preceded the
publication of the 1963 version of the part 30 final rule, the
Department declared that ``discrimination based on race, creed, color,
or national origin has no place in American life today, particularly in
the programs by which young people acquire the skills that determine
their future employment prospects,'' (see 28 FR 11313).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Department's promulgation of the original part 30
regulation was set in motion by the issuance of a statement by
President John F. Kennedy on June 4, 1963, that directed the
Secretary of Labor, in the conduct of his duties under the National
Apprenticeship Act of 1937, ``to require that the admission of young
workers to apprenticeship programs be on a completely
nondiscriminatory basis.'' Office of the Federal Register, National
Archives and Records Service, Public Papers of President John F.
Kennedy, ``Statement of the President on Equal Employment
Opportunity in Federal Apprenticeship and Construction Programs,''
1963, 439.
\11\ Specifically, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
its subsequent amendments protect employees, applicants, and
training or apprenticeship program participants from discrimination
on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 42
U.S.C. 2000e-2(a); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(d). Among
other things, title VII bars discrimination against applicants or
employees in hiring, firing, compensation, or any term, condition,
or privilege of employment. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). Under title
VII, an employer initiative, policy, program, or practice may be
unlawful if it involves an employer or other covered entity taking
an employment action motivated--in whole or in part--by race, sex,
or another protected characteristic. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1971, the Department revised part 30, renaming it Equal
Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training. The 1971
amendments to the regulation prohibited program sponsors from
discriminating against apprentices on the basis of sex and religion
(thus bringing the regulation into alignment with Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964) and introduced a new requirement for
apprenticeship programs with five or more apprentices to establish a
written affirmative action program (AAP).\12\ The 1971 revision also
clarified that such AAPs must include female apprentices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 36 FR 6810 (Apr. 8, 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, the Department again revised the content of part 30 by
expanding the scope of protected characteristics covered by the
nondiscrimination provision of the regulation to include, among other
things, age, disability, and genetic information. The 2016 version of
the part 30 regulation \13\ (2016 final rule) also subjected
apprenticeship program sponsors to an expanded set of administratively
burdensome requirements, such as: mandating that sponsors provide anti-
harassment training to apprentices and to all personnel connected with
the administration of their apprenticeship program; imposing a highly
complex scheme of demographic and utilization analyses on sponsors to
determine whether apprenticeship programs with five or more apprentices
were meeting their respective AAP goals; and requiring program sponsors
subject to the AAP provision of the regulation to review their
personnel practices on an annual basis to determine their continuing
compliance with the foregoing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 81 FR 92026 (Dec. 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016 final rule imposed excessive administrative requirements--
as well as affirmative action obligations that are legally vulnerable
(which are described in greater detail below)--upon apprenticeship
program sponsors. In the Department's view, the imposition of such
onerous and burdensome regulatory mandates on sponsors impede the goal
of apprenticeship expansion. Such governmental overreach can serves to
undermine the establishment, development, and expansion of innovative,
high-quality apprenticeship programs. At a time when the rapid
expansion of high-quality apprenticeship training is urgently needed to
equip Americans of all backgrounds with the occupational skills they
need to succeed in a competitive global marketplace, it is imperative
that the Department revise and rescind outdated, burdensome, and
legally vulnerable regulatory provisions that prevent the accelerated
expansion of registered apprenticeship. The Department invites public
comments from all interested parties on this proposal to significantly
revise the part 30 regulation. The Department is particularly
interested in comments from registered apprenticeship stakeholders
about any reliance interests that may be impacted by this proposed
rule.
C. Need for the Rulemaking
The Department has determined that revising part 30 is necessary to
remove regulatory requirements that impose unnecessary administrative
burdens on registered apprenticeship program sponsors and hinder the
continued growth of this successful workforce development model. In
addition to advancing the Department's broader goal of expanding
registered apprenticeship, the proposed changes are intended to bring
the regulation into alignment with nondiscrimination law. These
revisions would eliminate a duplicative and outdated equal employment
opportunity framework that applies only to registered apprenticeship
and would instead adopt a streamlined approach consistent with the
Administration's directive to reduce regulatory burdens. By simplifying
compliance obligations and focusing on core legal protections, the
Department anticipates that this proposed deregulatory action will
support broader program participation and expand
[[Page 28950]]
registered apprenticeship opportunities for all Americans.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have clarified the legal
limitations on race- and sex-conscious measures under the Equal
Protection Clause and Federal civil rights laws. These developments
raise serious questions about the validity of certain affirmative
action-related provisions in part 30, particularly those that
incentivize or induce sponsors to make decisions based on protected
characteristics. In light of recent court decisions, the Department has
determined that revising part 30 is necessary to ensure the regulatory
framework for registered apprenticeship is fully aligned with
nondiscrimination standards and legal precedent.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President
and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (holding that
race-conscious admissions policies violate the Equal Protection
Clause); Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. _ (2024) (clarifying
the threshold for employment discrimination claims under Title VII);
Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023) (strengthening religious
accommodation standards under Title VII); and Ames v. Ohio Dep't of
Youth Servs., 605 U.S. _, (2025) (addressing burdens in proving
disparate treatment in employment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 30 was last revised in 2016 and contained an expanded range of
nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements for registered
apprenticeship program sponsors. The prescriptive affirmative action
planning and recordkeeping requirements, among others, have proven
burdensome, duplicative, and--following recent legal decisions--
potentially unlawful. For example, the protected characteristics
contained in Sec. 30.3(a) of the current part 30 rule are duplicative
of the nondiscrimination requirements contained in a number of Federal
civil rights statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In addition, the Department
believes that the affirmative action requirements found throughout the
existing part 30 regulation conflict with merit principles, may
potentially induce the illegal selection of apprentices based on race
and sex, and likely will no longer withstand legal scrutiny.
This rulemaking would streamline the part 30 regulation to reduce
administrative complexity and compliance burdens, especially for small
and mid-sized employers, while preserving core protections against
unlawful discrimination. The Department has determined that part 30, as
currently structured, is overly prescriptive and unnecessarily
restrictive, characteristics which impede the diversification of
industries within the registered apprenticeship ecosystem and are not
necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices. The Department
believes that establishing a clear and concise requirement to comply
with all Federal and State laws and regulations prohibiting
discrimination aligns more closely with the Department's fundamental
statutory mandate to safeguard the welfare of apprentices under the
NAA.
Finally, the proposed revision to the part 30 regulation would
align with and effectuate the directives contained in recent Executive
Orders issued by the current Administration. E.O. 14278, Preparing
Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future (90 FR 1525,
April 28, 2025), directs Federal agencies to identify barriers that
prevent the acceleration of the workforce system, including the
expansion of registered apprenticeship. Additionally, E.O. 14173,
Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (90
FR 8633, Jan. 31, 2025), directs Federal agencies to ``terminate all
discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs,
activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders,
and requirements.'' This NPRM provides clarity to registered
apprenticeship stakeholders on the Department's plans to implement and
align with these Executive Orders and the Administration's priority to
promote economic prosperity.
II. Goals of the Rulemaking
In the Department's view, imposing an elaborate set of affirmative
action requirements upon registered apprenticeship program sponsors
(particularly those that enroll five or more apprentices) is not only
administratively burdensome and vulnerable to legal challenge under the
laws governing nondiscrimination; it also tends to promote the
development of pernicious and divisive group-based preferences within
our society, thereby undermining the goal of ensuring equality of
opportunity for every individual that participates in the labor force.
The Department holds to a more egalitarian vision that is consistent
with longstanding American values: that all applicants for registered
apprenticeship programs should be evaluated and selected strictly on
the basis of individual merit and demonstrated potential, and that a
person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or age must never
be considered by a sponsor as a basis for either rejecting or granting
preferential treatment to anyone seeking admission to a registered
apprenticeship program.
Accordingly, this proposed revision to part 30 seeks to ensure
genuine equality of opportunity for all persons enrolled in (or seeking
admission into) an apprenticeship program by restoring the original
focus and purpose of the 1963 version of the regulation: namely, to
require that all registered apprenticeship programs be operated on a
nondiscriminatory basis. To realize this goal, the proposed revision to
part 30 would reaffirm the obligation of sponsors to conduct their
apprenticeship programs in accordance with all applicable Federal and
State laws governing nondiscrimination in the workplace, while also
rescinding the provisions of the current regulation that obligate
sponsors to engage in legally questionable affirmative action
practices. This proposed rebalancing of the regulation would thus bring
the content of part 30 into alignment with the governing law on
nondiscrimination and, at the same time, substantially reduce the
administrative burdens placed on program sponsors.
A. Revising 29 CFR Part 30 Regulation To Align With Governing
Nondiscrimination Law
Recent Supreme Court Rulings Regarding Nondiscrimination Law
In light of recent Supreme Court decisions addressing the use of
racial preferences in admission selections, the Department believes
that the affirmative action obligations in part 30 imposed on
registered apprenticeship sponsors with five or more apprentices are
legally vulnerable, and should be rescinded. As the Court stated in
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. President and Fellows of Harvard
College, ``[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their
ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose
institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.'' 600 U.S.181,
208 (2023) (hereinafter SFFA). This principle, according to the Supreme
Court, ``cannot be overridden except in the most extraordinary case.''
Id. While the current version of the part 30 regulation requires that
apprentice selections be made on a nondiscriminatory basis, other
provisions within the regulation may incentivize and induce sponsors
with five or more apprentices in their programs to consider
characteristics like race, ethnicity, and sex when making employment
decisions concerning apprentices. This creates an untenable legal
conflict where sponsors are required to operate their programs on a
[[Page 28951]]
nondiscriminatory basis, while being simultaneously incentivized and
induced to engage in the disparate treatment of applicants.
The affirmative action provisions currently found in part 30
require covered sponsors to establish specific numerical goals for the
inclusion of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the program
based on their prevalence in the local labor force. These statistical
goals are imposed without regard to the many nondiscriminatory factors
that may explain demographic disparities between an employer's
workforce and the demographics of the available local labor market--and
without any finding that the sponsor has engaged in unlawful
discrimination. Sponsors that fail to demonstrate a ``good faith''
effort to meet these goals may face enforcement actions, including the
possible deregistration of the apprenticeship program by a Registration
Agency. However, part 30's regulatory mandate that a program sponsor
adopt placement goals based on race and sex could be considered, in the
absence of a finding of discriminatory conduct, vulnerable to legal
challenge.
In the Department's view, the non-remedial affirmative action
requirements in part 30 effectively place a finger on the scale for
certain apprenticeship applicants based on their race, ethnicity, or
sex--without any showing that a given sponsor has engaged in
discriminatory conduct warranting remedial action. These provisions
raise legal concerns similar to those addressed by the Supreme Court in
SFFA, where the Court rejected college affirmative action programs that
``concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity
is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the
color of their skin.'' 600 U.S. at 215-216, 231. Regulations that
incentivize and induce the adoption of certain practices that can lead
to disparate treatment in employment decisions based on race, color,
ethnicity, or sex ``cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the
Equal Protection Clause.'' Id. at 230. As such, they must be rescinded.
A similar principle was affirmed in Ames v. Ohio Department of
Youth Services, 605 U.S. _, (2025) (slip op.), where a unanimous
Supreme Court held that, ``[a]s a textual matter, Title VII's
disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-
group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, [42 U.S.C.
2000e-2(a)(1)] makes it unlawful `to fail or refuse to hire or to
discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin' (emphasis added).'' Thus, even if
the use of placement goals or action-oriented measures could
potentially be justified on a theory of underutilization under Ames,
there is no legal justification for limiting the placement goals and
action-oriented measures to only women and minorities. As Justice
Jackson's opinion in Ames explains, Supreme Court caselaw has long been
``clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title
VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of
a majority group.'' Id. at *6. Similarly, nothing in the NAA justifies
creating different standards or regulatory requirements for women or
minorities or treating race and sex differently from the other
protected categories of religion and national origin. If men, whites,
or persons of a particular religion or national origin were also being
underutilized based on the DOL's statistical regulatory formula, the
regulations failed to impose any affirmative action measures or require
placement goals to ensure persons with those characteristics were
entitled to equal opportunity in employment.
Moreover, the Department's prior rationale for establishing non-
remedial affirmative action requirements on employers and sponsors
rested on the abstract premise that an employer's or sponsor's
workforce should mirror the demographic composition of the available
local labor force--even in the absence of any evidence that disparities
were caused by unlawful discrimination. This theory relied on a set of
unsupported assumptions. In reality, there are numerous
nondiscriminatory factors that may explain differences between a
sponsor's workforce and the available local labor force, including
applicant interest, qualifications, geography, industry-specific
dynamics, and other variations on an individualized basis.
Nevertheless, the current regulation imposes demographic utilization
goals and compliance obligations on sponsors without accounting for
these legitimate variables. And apart from the flawed foundational
premise of the rationale, the statistical analyses that sponsors are
required to undertake in determining whether utilization goals are
required by regulation rely on inconsistent line drawing in determining
what is the relevant recruitment area against which to compare the
sponsor's apprenticeship program workforce. That sponsors and not the
registration agency are the ones who determine the relevant recruitment
area pursuant to the regulations does not make this exercise any less
inconsistent. It is actually more inconsistent given that two similarly
situated apprenticeship sponsors in the same geographic area could
select different geographic lines for the relevant recruitment area
analysis--and as a result, one sponsor could conclude that utilization
goals are regulatorily required and the other sponsor could conclude
those measures are not regulatorily required. The potential unlike
outcomes between similarly situated sponsors violates the fundamental
principle that regulations should lead to like outcomes between
regulated entities.
Streamlining Federal Nondiscrimination Enforcement and Eliminating the
Duplicative Oversight and Enforcement Framework in Registered
Apprenticeship
The Department's proposal to significantly streamline the part 30
regulation and focus on compliance with existing nondiscrimination laws
also reflects its conclusion that a separate oversight, investigative,
and enforcement framework specific to registered apprenticeship is not
necessary. While the current part 30 regulation imposes substantial
administrative burdens--which may deter employers from registering
apprenticeship programs--it has not demonstrated clear benefits in
terms of improved protections against unlawful discrimination for
apprentices. The Department has determined that the costs and
disadvantages of maintaining this duplicative and complex regulatory
framework--including complex burdens, stakeholder confusion, and a
chilling effect on program participation--outweigh any potential
benefits. As such, if finalized as proposed, this rule would eliminate
redundant requirements while preserving core legal protections through
existing Federal and State nondiscrimination enforcement systems.
Part 30 was originally intended to ensure that registered
apprenticeship programs operated on a nondiscriminatory basis, with
deregistration available as a remedy for noncompliance. However, the
Department's historical records show that it has never initiated
deregistration proceedings against a sponsor based on a violation of
part 30. Although the Department has received a relatively small number
of complaints over the years from apprentices alleging
[[Page 28952]]
instances of discrimination, its longstanding practice has been to
refer such complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), the Federal agency with primary authority to enforce Federal
laws that prohibit discrimination against employees and job applicants.
Regardless of part 30, any employee of, or job applicant for
employment with, a covered employer in the United States--including
apprentices--may file a charge of unlawful discrimination with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against covered
employers. Apprentices may also seek relief through other established
enforcement entities, such as State fair employment practice agencies
or State attorneys general offices. These enforcement bodies are better
positioned than Registration Agencies (OA or SAAs) to investigate
discrimination allegations and facilitate appropriate resolution. Under
the Department's proposal, OA would retain the authority to deregister
an apprenticeship program if a competent enforcement agency or court
issues a final determination of unlawful discrimination.
Modernizing the Federal Apprenticeship Regulations To Maintain
Consistency With Applicable Nondiscrimination Laws
As discussed above, part 30 not only imposes significant
administrative burdens on registered apprenticeship program sponsors,
but also creates legal uncertainty in light of applicable
nondiscrimination law. Many of its requirements--such as establishing
utilization goals based on race and other demographic characteristics--
closely resemble policies that have been struck down by the Supreme
Court for inserting impermissible racial preferences into selection
processes (e.g., SFFA). As a result, the Department has concluded that
part 30 regulation is increasingly misaligned with, and in some
respects contrary to, current nondiscrimination law.
Moreover, part 30 regulation reflects a static and prescriptive
framework that lacks the flexibility to evolve and adapt. Its
requirements are duplicative of existing Federal and State protections
provided in nondiscrimination law, ineffective in achieving their
intended goals, and in some cases, legally questionable. To address
these concerns, the Department proposes replacing the current part 30
regulatory structure with a simplified standard: that all registered
apprenticeship sponsors must comply with applicable Federal and State
laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion,
national origin, sex, age (40 or older), genetic information, or
disability. By anchoring the nondiscrimination obligation to existing
legal authorities concerning nondiscrimination, the proposed approach
ensures that registered apprenticeship programs remain aligned with the
full scope of civil rights protections--without the need for continual
regulatory revisions.
With respect to the requirement contained in Sec. 30.7 of the
current regulation that establishes a 7 percent utilization goal for
the employment of qualified individuals with disabilities as
apprentices, the Department's experience in administering the
disability AAP provisions has shown them to be overly burdensome for
sponsors who struggle to understand the complex steps of conducting the
workforce and utilization analyses, as well as the requirements
surrounding the request for and maintenance of self-identification
information. In line with the directives of Executive Orders 14192 and
14278, the Department is proposing to remove these regulatory burdens
that impose costs on stakeholders and serve as barriers inhibiting
broader sponsor participation in the registered apprenticeship system.
The Department is therefore proposing to remove these requirements.
The utilization goal also raises the risk that employers will
engage in pre-employment disability-related inquiries of apprentice
applicants before a conditional job offer is made, which is generally
not allowed by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
B. Implementation of Recent Executive Orders Pertaining to Federal
Regulations and Apprenticeship
President Trump has recently issued a number of Executive Orders
intended to advance the Administration's goals of building a skilled
workforce, unleashing prosperity, removing restraints on national
economic growth through deregulation, and restoring merit-based
opportunity. The Department is committed to developing strategies and
enacting bold changes to align its programs and policies with the
Administration's policy directives. The Department's proposal to
streamline the part 30 regulation for registered apprenticeship
represents a critical, strategic policy change that addresses policy
directives across several of the Administration's Executive Orders, as
discussed below.
In E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR
9065 (issued on January 31, 2025), the President directed Federal
agencies to assess their regulations and pursue deregulatory actions to
eliminate regulations that impose costs, create confusion, hamper
innovation, or otherwise restrain economic growth and opportunities for
Americans. The Department has applied this lens to its programs and
their governing regulations and has identified a wide range of
deregulatory actions to support the Administration's deregulatory
policy priorities, including this proposal to substantially revise and
streamline the part 30 regulation. The proposed rule would eliminate
eleven entire sections of the part 30 regulation, including sections on
affirmative action plans that contain various burdensome requirements
for program sponsors. The Department's proposed part 30 regulation
would only contain one straightforward requirement for program
sponsors--that they comply with all applicable Federal and State
nondiscrimination laws--which would not impose any additional costs for
sponsors. The Department's analysis of the potential cost savings
associated with its proposal to remove all part 30 requirements beyond
the streamlined nondiscrimination requirement estimates that sponsors
and Registration Agencies would save over $65 million per year.\15\
This significant cost savings, along with the increased clarity for the
regulated community that would result from streamlining the part 30
regulation, aligns with the Administration's deregulatory policy
directives as stated in E.O. 14192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For the methodology of this estimate, see the cost savings
estimated for sponsors from the removal of current part 30
regulations under the proposed rule as described in the cost-benefit
description of the proposed rule in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
section of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In E.O. 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit
Based Opportunity, 90 FR 8633 (Jan. 31, 2025), the President maintained
that his Administration was committed to enforcing, for the benefit of
all Americans, the protections contained in longstanding civil rights
laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,
and national origin. At the same time, the President stated in the E.O.
that the utilization of pernicious race- and sex-based preferences and
policies by the Federal Government and other influential institutions
of American society not only contravenes the letter and spirit of these
civil rights laws, but also operates to undermine the traditional
American values of individual initiative, excellence, and hard work.
Accordingly, section 2 of E.O. 14173 directs all executive departments
and agencies ``to
[[Page 28953]]
terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates,
policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement
actions, consent orders, and requirements'' which operate to undermine
the protections against discrimination afforded to individual Americans
by longstanding Federal civil rights laws.
In E.O. 14278, Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade
Jobs of the Future, 90 FR 17525 (April 28, 2025), President Trump
directed the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and Education to develop a
plan to reach and surpass 1 million new active apprentices in
Registered Apprenticeship programs. The President's E.O. also expressed
the Administration's commitment to further protecting and strengthening
Registered Apprenticeships as a means of unlocking the limitless
potential of the American worker.
To facilitate the accomplishment of the Administration's important
policy goals described in the foregoing Executive Orders, the
Department is determined to rescind legally questionable regulatory
mandates and to reduce, to the extent feasible, any existing
administrative and regulatory burdens on employers, apprenticeship
program sponsors, SAAs, workforce intermediaries, and other
stakeholders. In particular, the Department's proposed revisions to the
part 30 regulation are targeted to remove regulatory requirements that
impose onerous administrative burdens and costs on stakeholders, that
are misaligned with emergent policy priorities, that unnecessarily
expose stakeholders to legal risk, and that inhibit the accelerated
establishment and growth of high-quality registered apprenticeship
programs.
In evaluating the regulations for registered apprenticeship
programs under part 30, the Department has identified provisions that
conflict with recent presidential directives and raise legal concerns.
Specifically, the requirement that sponsors with five or more
apprentices develop affirmative action plans contravenes the directive
in E.O. 14173 to ``terminate all discriminatory preferences'' embedded
in federal regulation. Similarly, the reference to ``gender identity''
that appears in the ``equal opportunity pledge'' at 29 CFR 30.3(c) of
the current regulation is at odds with the policy directives contained
in E.O. 14168.
C. Accelerating Growth of the National Apprenticeship System
Growing Registered Apprenticeship To Meet Employer Needs
The Trump Administration has identified registered apprenticeship
as a cornerstone of its strategy to build a demand-driven, skilled
workforce. As labor market demands continue to evolve, the need for an
apprenticeship system that is simultaneously scalable and employer-
responsive has become increasingly urgent. In facing that reality, the
Department is committed to the exponential expansion of registered
apprenticeship--a feat that can only be accomplished through the
promulgation of thoughtful regulations free of unnecessary
administrative burden.
This rulemaking addresses key structural and regulatory barriers
that have long inhibited broader participation in the registered
apprenticeship system. Among deterrents to participation in the
voluntary system cited by employers, in particular small businesses,
are barriers related to compliance with the Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) regulations at part 30. The simplification of
regulatory obligations, while maintaining a strong baseline commitment
to nondiscrimination, preserves key protections that serve to safeguard
the health and welfare of apprentices. This action serves as a
recalibration that will foster expansion, drive employer interest, and
bolster registered apprenticeship as the premier workforce development
model.
The expansion of registered apprenticeship is predicated on the
voluntary participation of employers across a wide range of industries.
Stakeholders have long held that the prescriptiveness of part 30 poses
a substantial barrier to employer entry and program sustainability. It
is certainly understandable how such challenges might be particularly
acute for small businesses, which comprise the majority of American
employers and figure prominently in the Administration's economic
development agenda. Absent sufficient legal or human resources
capacity, many employers have suggested that compliance with part 30
constitutes a significant barrier to participation in registered
apprenticeship. In light of these sentiments, DOL is concerned that the
continued imposition of the extensive administrative requirements
contained in part 30 could restrain the system's full growth potential
and undermine the Department's ambitious goals to expand the system.
The Department concedes that prescriptive regulatory mandates are
antithetical to the promotion and support of an employer-centric model.
Creating a compliance environment that is both responsive and adaptive
while eliminating unnecessary burden will not only serve to attract
additional employers in sectors that have long held strongholds in the
registered apprenticeship system but will also be a beacon to employers
in new and emerging sectors. By proactively demonstrating an
understanding of the operational priorities of employers, the
Department increases the likelihood of increased employer buy-in and
long-term registered apprenticeship system participation.
As mentioned previously, the registered apprenticeship system has
seen consistent growth over the last decade while maintaining strong
outcomes, suggesting that the model's continued growth would provide
even more opportunities for Americans to access high-skilled and high-
paying jobs.
While construction remains the largest sector for apprenticeships,
accounting for approximately 244,858 active apprentices (about 36% of
the national total), there has been notable diversification. As of FY
2025, more than 430,000 apprentices are now training in non-
construction sectors, including public administration (149,782),
educational services (83,777), manufacturing (30,479), and health care
and social assistance (18,824). These trends point to growing interest
across a wider range of industries--but also highlight where barriers
to entry may be limiting broader adoption.
Despite these advancements, a barrier to the further growth and
occupational diversification of the apprenticeship model has been the
onerous and time-consuming requirements for sponsors to initially
receive and consistently maintain registration for an apprenticeship
program. In a survey of employers participating in the Department's
American Apprenticeship Initiative (AAI),\16\ the mean registration
cost per apprentice was found to be over $1,000, with one employer
reporting a cost of over $12,000 per apprentice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Daniel Kuehn, Sonia M. De La Rosa, Robert I. Lerman, and
Kevin Hollenbeck, Abt Associates and Urban Institute, ``Do Employers
Earn Positive Returns to Investments in Apprenticeship? Evidence
from Registered Programs under the American Apprenticeship
Initiative,'' 2022, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/AAI/AAI_ROI_Final_Report_508_9-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current part 30 requirements, such as requiring the development
of an affirmative action plan, require
[[Page 28954]]
substantial staff time and contribute to these significant costs. Many
of these costs are also ongoing instead of one-time costs associated
with the initial registration of a program. These ongoing costs under
part 30 include the requirements to establish an equal employment
opportunity (EEO) coordinator (29 CFR 30.3(b)(1)), conduct anti-
harassment training (29 CFR 30.4(i)), meet record-keeping requirements
(29 CFR 30.12), and (for programs with more than five apprentices)
conducting workforce and utilization analyses (29 CFR 30.5(b)).\17\ The
Department estimated that the current part 30 regulations cost over $65
million annually. These costs create burdens for the sponsors of
apprenticeship programs and disincentivize registering an
apprenticeship program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 29 CFR part 30, ``Equal Employment Opportunity in
Apprenticeship,'' https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-A/part-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current requirements under part 30 also create a perverse
incentive to enroll fewer apprentices. Since sponsors with fewer than
five apprentices are exempt from the affirmative action plan
requirements under part 30, the current regulation creates a
disincentive for sponsors to recruit further apprentices and grow the
size of their program. A sponsor may avoid further growing their
program to more than five apprentices to avoid having to dedicate staff
time and resources to meet the requirements of an affirmative action
plan if the program exceeds five apprentices. These costs imposed on
sponsors under part 30 are likely more significant for smaller firms
who have fewer staff and resources or less expertise in human resource
management.
The costs and disincentives created by the current part 30
regulations may also be greater in new and emerging industries that are
less familiar with the requirements of registered apprentices. Without
familiarity of the registered apprenticeship system or contacts within
their industry to demystify the process, potential sponsors in these
newer industries may need to spend more time to research the existing
requirements and how to comply with the highly complex regulatory
requirements mandated by part 30. Sponsors and employers in these newer
industries may also overestimate the time and resources needed to
comply with the requirements under part 30 because of their
unfamiliarity and may forgo developing or registering an apprenticeship
program altogether because of concerns about the compliance burden and
resources needed.
Streamlining part 30 to focus on ensuring registered programs to
comply with existing laws would eliminate these burdens and program
registration barriers for sponsors and employers and remove perverse
incentives that may artificially limit the number of apprentices served
by each program. These proposed changes to part 30 would ultimately
help further accelerate the overall growth of the registered
apprenticeship model and allow it to spread to additional industries
less familiar with the system, and with fewer barriers.
Benefits of Reduced System Bifurcation
To further its commitment to building a modern and cohesive
National Apprenticeship System that delivers high-quality training and
career pathways to all American workers, this proposed rulemaking also
aims to actively address the key challenge of bifurcation between
states operated under the direction of the OA States and those operated
by federally recognized SAA States. While this dual structure has been
foundational to increased flexibility throughout the system, it has
also led to divergent standards and operational inconsistencies that
hamper compliance due to varying interpretations of part 30 regulatory
requirements.
By revising part 30 to prioritize nondiscrimination and remove both
legally suspect and burdensome reporting requirements, the Department
will strengthen standards alignment and reduce systemic fragmentation
while promoting universal participation. Streamlining the existing part
30 requirements--particularly those that have proven difficult to
implement uniformly across State systems--will lessen the regulatory
disparities that have driven bifurcation and uneven access across the
national system.
The NAA allows for both federal and state-level administration of
registered apprenticeship programs. In OA States, direct oversight of
the state's registered apprenticeship system is the exclusive
responsibility of the Department, including the enforcement of the
requirements outlined in current part 30. In SAA States, State entities
recognized by the Department are responsible for oversight of
registered apprenticeship programs, in accordance with State-specific
laws or regulations that conform with Federal regulation, including the
registration of programs for both State and Federal purposes.
In practice, variances in application of the complex part 30
requirements have persisted between OA States and SAA States. In some
SAA States, different constructions of State laws and regulations
pertaining to EEO in apprenticeship have resulted in divergent sets of
rules and requirements for registered apprenticeship program sponsors,
particularly as it relates to affirmative action plans, collection of
demographic information for apprentices, and targeted outreach
strategies. Resistance from registered apprenticeship stakeholders
compounds those challenges, resulting in registration delays and
limited or uneven compliance enforcement. These divergences exacerbate
negative perceptions of the registered apprenticeship system--
particularly among sponsors operating in multiple jurisdictions--which
has negatively impacted apprenticeship expansion.
Through this proposed rulemaking, the Department articulates a
unified approach to nondiscrimination in registered apprenticeship and
eliminates the requirement for SAA States to establish complex EEO
State laws specific to registered apprenticeship that reach beyond
nondiscrimination and impose administratively burdensome and legally
suspect mandates on apprenticeship sponsors. Adoption of the proposed
text will result in OA States and SAA States adhering to identical
regulations that align the nondiscrimination standards for
apprenticeship sponsors, registered for federal purposes, to all
applicable Federal and State nondiscrimination laws, while facilitating
the removal of State apprenticeship regulations, laws or policies that
impose additional mandates on registered apprenticeship sponsors, and
that fail to conform to or exceed what is required under the proposed
revision of part 30. The Department recognizes that SAA States have
developed their State apprenticeship regulations, laws or policies to
conform with the administratively burdensome and legally suspect
requirements imposed under the current part 30, and that achieving
conformity with the proposed revision of part 30 will require States to
update their policies to align with the streamlined regulatory approach
to nondiscrimination in registered apprenticeship. While the proposed
part 30 will establish an identical regulatory approach to
nondiscrimination across the National Apprenticeship system by tying
the nondiscrimination standard to compliance with Federal and State
nondiscrimination laws, the proposed regulation will achieve the
deregulatory
[[Page 28955]]
goals of this rulemaking while recognizing States' ability to establish
general nondiscrimination laws that apply to entities operating in
their jurisdiction. This proposed regulatory approach is intended to
promote the cohesion of and prevent unnecessary fragmentation within
the National Apprenticeship System, while also encouraging the
accelerated adoption of registered apprenticeship by potential sponsors
as a proven model for upskilling the workforce.
III. Section-by-Section Discussion
Removing Burdensome Requirements From the Part 30 Regulation Proposed
Recission of AAP Requirements (Sec. Sec. 30.4-30.9 and 30.11)
Affirmative Action Programs (Sec. 30.4)
Existing Sec. 30.4 requires non-exempt sponsors to adopt
affirmative action programs, the components of which are captured at
existing Sec. Sec. 30.4, 30.5, 30.6, 30.7, 30.8, 30.9, and 30.11, and
to set forth that program in a written plan.
The affirmative action program requirements include conducting
utilization analyses and setting goals if underutilized on the basis of
race, sex, and ethnicity. As part of their affirmative action programs,
sponsors are also required to review their personnel processes on an
annual basis and conduct targeted outreach, recruitment and retention
activities. There are also specific requirements related to individuals
with disabilities, including measuring progress towards meeting a
utilization goal set by OA and inviting applicants for apprenticeship
to self-identify as individuals with disabilities.
As a general matter, the Department has determined that the
affirmative action components of existing part 30 are unnecessarily
burdensome, ineffective, and, in some cases, legally vulnerable. The
specific rationale for rescinding each affirmative action component is
discussed in the respective sections, below. The Department solicits
comments from all interested parties, including registered
apprenticeship stakeholders, regarding its proposal to rescind the AAP
requirements from the part 30 regulation, particularly the extent to
which the administrative burdens associated with AAP requirements have
impacted the operation of their program or their decision to
participate in registered apprenticeship.
Utilization Analysis for Race, Sex, and Ethnicity (Sec. 30.5)
Existing Sec. 30.5 requires sponsors maintaining AAPs to assess
and compare the racial, sex, and ethnic representation within each
major occupation group of their program to the racial, sex, and ethnic
representation available in the sponsor's relevant recruitment area.
Pursuant to this section, when the sponsor's utilization of women,
Hispanics or Latinos, or a particular racial minority group is
significantly less than would be reasonably expected, the sponsor is
required to establish a utilization goal for the affected group in
accordance with Sec. 30.6.
As discussed above, the Department believes that these provisions
that cause sponsors to focus on the race, sex and ethnicity composition
of the apprentice workforce are legally vulnerable because they may
induce sponsors to engage in illegal race and/or sex-based decision-
making in apprenticeship. The AAP requirements to set race, sex, and
ethnicity-based goals may have the effect of pressuring sponsors to
engage in impermissible discrimination in favor of underutilized
groups. The Supreme Court's decision in SFFA v. Harvard makes clear
that race-conscious selection decisions would be subject to exacting
scrutiny, and an apprenticeship system that incentivizes such improper
preferences would not survive legal challenge. Furthermore, the Supreme
Court's recent decisions in Ames v. Ohio and Muldrow v. St. Louis held
that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does
not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a
majority group. No. 23-1039, 605 U. S.__ , (2025) (slip op. at 6).
Thus, any individual can bring a discrimination suit under Title VII by
demonstrating, as a threshold matter, that he or she suffered ``some
harm'' in relation to an allegation of unlawful discrimination in
employment (such as being adversely impacted by an employer's
affirmative action policy).
For these reasons, the Department proposes to rescind the
affirmative action provisions requiring utilization analysis on the
basis of race, sex, and ethnicity.
Establishment of Utilization Goals for Race, Sex, and Ethnicity (Sec.
30.6)
Pursuant to existing Sec. 30.6, sponsors maintaining AAPs are
required to set a utilization goal equal to availability for any
racial, sex, or ethnic group that is underutilized in the
apprenticeship program. While Sec. 30.6 further states that these
goals are not to be used as quotas, preferences, set-asides, or as a
basis for departure from merit principles, the Department has
determined that the incentive created by this goal-setting provision
creates too great a risk that, in practice, sponsors may use
impermissible race and sex-based preferences to meet the utilization
goal. Accordingly, the Department is proposing to rescind these
requirements.
Utilization Goals for Individuals With Disabilities (Sec. 30.7)
Existing Sec. 30.7 requires sponsors maintaining AAPs to compare
the representation of individuals with disabilities in their program to
the 7% benchmark set by the Administrator. Where sponsors determine
that their utilization of individuals with disabilities is less than
the 7% goal, they must take steps to determine whether and/or where
impediments to equal opportunity exist and undertake action-oriented
programs designed to correct any problem areas.
The Department's experience in administering the disability AAP
provisions (including Sec. Sec. 30.7 and 30.11, discussed further
below) has shown them to be overly burdensome for sponsors who struggle
to understand the complex steps of conducting the workforce and
utilization analyses, as well as the requirements surrounding the
request for and maintenance of self-identification information.
Combined with the fact that only approximately 25% of sponsors are
required to maintain AAPs, the Department does not feel that these
requirements have moved the needle in a meaningful way in terms of data
collection or advancing equal opportunity for all apprentices. The
Department is also concerned that this requirement may improperly
incentivize employers to make unlawful disability-related inquiries
prior to extending a conditional job offer.
The Department notes that all sponsors with 15 or more employees
remain covered by title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. 12101, et seq., which provides robust protections against
unlawful discrimination of individuals with disabilities in all terms,
conditions and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. 12112; 29 CFR
1630.4.
In line with the directives of Executive Orders 14192 and 14278,
the Department is proposing to remove these regulatory burdens that
impose costs on stakeholders and serve as barriers inhibiting broader
sponsor participation in the registered apprenticeship system. The
substantial staff time required to collect the self-identification
information and conduct the accompanying utilization analyses are
ongoing costs and creates a disincentive for sponsors to recruit
[[Page 28956]]
further apprentices and grow the size of their program. Accordingly,
the Department is proposing to remove these requirements.
Targeted Outreach, Recruitment, and Retention (Sec. 30.8)
Existing Sec. 30.8 requires sponsors that have found
underutilization to undertake targeted outreach, recruitment, and
retention activities that are likely to generate an increase in
applications for apprenticeship and improve retention of apprentices
from the targeted group or groups and/or from individuals with
disabilities, as appropriate. As these activities are targeted to be
race and/or sex-conscious, the Department believes that these required
activities present the same legal risks as those posed by the
utilization goals based on race, sex, and ethnicity. These requirements
may put ``official pressure'' upon sponsors to recruit candidates of a
particular race, sex, or ethnicity and thus subject persons of
different races to unequal treatment by inducing sponsors to use
limited recruiting resources only to the benefit of certain minority
groups. MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass'n v. FCC, 236 F.3d 13, 15, 20-21
(D.C. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1113 (2002).
Thus, for the same reasons discussed in Sec. 30.5, the Department
is proposing to rescind these requirements.
Review of Personnel Processes (Sec. 30.9)
Existing Sec. 30.9 requires sponsors maintaining an AAP to engage
in an annual review of their personnel processes related to the
administration of their apprenticeship program to ensure that the
program is free from unlawful discrimination.
Similar to other AAP provisions, the Department has found this
requirement to be unnecessarily burdensome and confusing to sponsors.
Most sponsors are subject to federal and State nondiscrimination laws
and likely already have their own mechanisms and reviews in place to
ensure compliance with those laws. The Department does not need to
prescribe an overly detailed and onerous method for doing so; rather,
the Department trusts sponsors to determine the best means of ensuring
compliance with nondiscrimination laws for their program. This approach
will allow for sponsor innovation, avoids a one-size-fits-all scheme,
and would align with the Administration's policy to ``significantly
reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations to secure America's economic prosperity . . . .'' E.O.
14192. This flexibility will also prevent duplication of
nondiscrimination compliance efforts already being made by employers
that participate in registered apprenticeship programs.
Invitation To Self-Identify as an Individual With a Disability (Sec.
30.11)
Existing Sec. 30.11 requires sponsors maintaining an AAP to invite
applicants and current apprentices to identify as an individual with a
disability.
For the reasons discussed above at Sec. 30.7, the Department has
found this requirement to generate confusion among sponsors and SAAs,
and has resulted in greater burden than expected on sponsors as they
attempt to comply while simultaneously maintaining apprentice
confidentiality and engaging with the Registered Apprenticeship
Partners Information Data System (RAPIDS) system. Because the
Department has concluded that the burden and confusion caused by this
requirement outweighs any benefit from the invitation--due to limited
and unreliable data collection--the Department now proposes to rescind
it.
Proposed Rescission of 30.10, Selection of Apprentices
The Department proposes to rescind Sec. 30.10, which governs how
sponsors may select apprentices. The section provides that sponsors may
use any method of combination of methods for selection of apprentices
provided the method(s) meet the criteria set out in the section. These
provisions are duplicative of Title VII's prohibition against
discrimination in selections, and thus are unnecessary. Title VII
contains detailed prohibitions against unlawful employment practices,
including practices related to selection. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2.
Additionally, current Sec. 30.10 contains requirements that exceed
what is required by Title VII. Specifically, the Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP)--with which current Sec. 30.10
requires compliance--only provides guidance for EEOC and employers
regarding the validity of selection procedures. See 29 CFR 1607.1
(``These guidelines incorporate a single set of principles which are
designed to assist employers . . . to comply with the requirements of
Federal [nondiscrimination] law''); Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v.
Crothall Servs. Grp., Inc., No. CV 15-3812, 2016 WL 3519710, at *7
(E.D. Pa. June 28, 2016) (internal citations omitted) (courts have
found nonbinding ``UGESP's discretionary principles for determining the
validity of selection procedures,'' in contrast to its recordkeeping
requirement). This inconsistency between OA and Title VII standards,
which sponsors also currently must follow, has created confusion for
sponsors. This proposal removes the conflicting framework that was
created by existing Sec. 30.10.
The Department's proposed approach eliminates Sec. 30.10 in favor
of a single, consistent requirement that sponsors comply with
applicable federal and State nondiscrimination laws. The proposal
eliminates the requirement that employers use a more proscriptive
selection procedure for apprentices than they would for other
employees. This will reduce compliance complexity and legal uncertainty
while preserving strong protections against discriminatory selection
practices. It will also reduce confusing and burdensome requirements
that deter sponsors from participating in registered apprenticeship, in
line with the Department's goal of growing high-quality, skills-based
career pathways, including apprenticeship opportunities in new sectors.
Proposed Rescission of 30.17, Intimidation and Retaliation Prohibited
The Department proposes to rescind Sec. 30.17, which prohibits
intimidation, and retaliation against individuals exercising rights
under part 30. While the Department supports protections against
retaliation, similar protections are already well-established and
enforceable under existing federal and State civil rights laws.
Maintaining a separate, apprenticeship-specific retaliation
provision is both duplicative and legally unnecessary. The Department
believes it is more appropriate and effective for such allegations to
be addressed by agencies with jurisdiction and enforcement authority
under those statutes, such as the EEOC.
Accordingly, the Department proposes to remove Sec. 30.17 and
instead require sponsors to comply with all applicable laws prohibiting
retaliation and interference, thereby streamlining the regulatory
framework while preserving robust protections for apprentices.
A. The Revised Part 30 Regulation--Prohibiting Illegal Discrimination
in Registered Apprenticeship
Section 30.1--Purpose and Applicability
The ``Purpose and Applicability'' introductory section of the
proposed rule would substantially revise and streamline the content of
the corresponding ``Purpose, applicability, and relationship to other
laws''
[[Page 28957]]
provision that is found at section 1 of the current part 30 regulation.
Among other things, the revised Sec. 30.1 would, consistent with the
policies and rationales outlined and described above, remove all
references to affirmative action efforts and would also dispense with
redundant and repetitive language pertaining to protected bases and
complaint processes, each of which are addressed fully in later
sections of the updated regulatory text. The revised Sec. 30.1 states
clearly that the purpose of the part 30 regulation is to ``establish a
uniform Federal standard prohibiting illegal discrimination against
apprentices (including applicants for apprenticeship) in registered
apprenticeship programs,'' as well as assert that the nondiscrimination
requirements are applicable to program sponsors and SAAs. The revised
purpose section also notes that the revised rule seeks to provide
clarity to the foregoing interested parties regarding the scope and
content of compliance reviews, compliance assistance, and enforcement
actions by Registration Agencies.
Section 30.2--Definitions
This section of the proposed rule would delete all of the
definitions that are set forth in the current part 30 regulation and
would adopt by reference each of the applicable existing definitions
found in the labor standards of apprenticeship regulation at 29 CFR
part 29. The Department has determined that each of the definitions
contained in 29 CFR 30.2 are either duplicative of existing definitions
found at 29 CFR 29.2 or have been rendered unnecessary or obsolete by
the extensive revisions to the substantive provisions of part 30 made
in this proposal. The Department believes that the resulting
consolidation of all apprenticeship-related definitions within the
existing regulatory text of 29 CFR part 29 will lessen the
administrative burdens on registered apprenticeship program sponsors
and other interested parties by providing a single definitional
reference point within the Federal apprenticeship regulations. The
Department invites comments from all interested parties on the proposed
consolidation of definitions in part 29, including whether the
Department should include any additional definitions based on the
content of this proposed rule.
Section 30.3--Nondiscrimination Standards Applicable to All Sponsors
Section 30.3 of the proposed rule obligates every sponsor of a
registered apprenticeship program to comply with all applicable Federal
and State laws and regulations that prohibit illegal discrimination on
the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age (40 or
older), genetic information, or disability. The Department notes that
the foregoing list of protected bases upon which registered
apprenticeship sponsors may not discriminate is fully consistent with
the content and scope of currently applicable Federal civil rights
statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its
subsequent amendments, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and the
Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 1998. This proposed
regulatory provision further stipulates that a failure by a registered
apprenticeship program sponsor to comply with applicable Federal and
State nondiscrimination laws may constitute grounds for enforcement
action or deregistration proceedings by a Registration Agency pursuant
to Sec. 30.5 of the proposed rule, provided that such non-compliance
is related to illegal discrimination against an apprentice (or an
applicant for apprenticeship) with respect to any benefit, term, or
condition of employment associated with an apprenticeship. The
Department has an interest in only conferring the benefit of
registration upon sponsors that operate in a manner fully compliant
with the applicable laws governing nondiscrimination. Accordingly, the
Department is confident that this straightforward and streamlined
regulatory provision will facilitate the realization of this
fundamental policy objective.
Section 30.4--Complaints
The Department proposes to rescind the provisions covering
complaints in the existing part 30 regulation. In its place, the
Department proposes a significantly streamlined complaints framework at
proposed Sec. 30.4, which would clarify that the Registration Agency
will refer any individuals alleging unlawful discrimination to an
enforcement agency with appropriate jurisdiction over, and expertise
in, investigating compliance with Federal or State nondiscrimination
laws or regulations. Such entities include the EEOC, the U.S. Attorney
General or a State Attorney General, or an applicable State enforcement
agency (e.g., a Fair Employment Practices Agency).
The Department has determined that the existing regulatory
requirements for part 30 complaints represent a cumbersome, confusing,
and ineffective framework that is much less capable of investigating or
resolving issues arising from apprentice complaints alleging
discrimination than the enforcement entities outlined in proposed Sec.
30.4 and described in this NPRM.
Based on its experience overseeing the National Apprenticeship
System and implementing the part 30 regulatory requirements over the
past eight years, the Department has determined that maintaining a
separate and unique discrimination complaint framework for
apprenticeship does not serve apprentices' interests and does not align
with the Administration's explicit directive to remove burdensome
regulatory requirements and promote flexibility for stakeholders of
programs overseen by Federal agencies. The Department recognizes that
requiring that apprentices file complaints through an official form
unique to the apprenticeship system (the OMB-approved ETA Form 9039) is
overly prescriptive, limiting, and may cause confusion for apprentices
in knowing the agency from which to seek relief. The Department further
recognizes that prescribing other requirements for complainants (such
as dictating who may file and the time period for filing) and program
sponsors (such as the requirement that sponsors communicate their
program's complaint policy using specific ``notice'' language
prescribed at 30.14(b)) only serves to delay and dilute any potential
relief for apprentices alleging violations pertaining to illegal
discrimination. Accordingly, the Department proposes to rescind the
existing complaint provisions at 30.14(a) and (b) which prescribe
complaint requirements for apprentices and sponsors.
The existing part 30 regulation also established an extensive set
of requirements for the Registration Agencies in the part 30 complaints
framework. In response to complaints received, the Department has
either referred or investigated each complaint according to the process
set forth at current 30.14(c)(1). The Department acknowledges that
Registration Agency staff lack the capacity and expertise to
investigate workplace discrimination and is unaware of any evidence
that their involvement in apprenticeship-related complaints has
provided meaningful protections for apprentices. Accordingly, the
Department proposes to rescind the existing requirements for
Registration Agencies at current 30.14(c). Instead, the Department
proposes to replace the existing, extensive requirements for part 30
complaints with a simple and clear requirement explaining what
Registration Agencies are to do if they receive discrimination
complaints (i.e., refer the individual to an appropriate
[[Page 28958]]
enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the complaint, such as the
EEOC).
The Department believes such a streamlined and simplified approach
to discrimination complaints in registered apprenticeship would
preserve Federal and State enforcement, oversight, and investigative
resources, and would align with the Administration's directives to
undertake deregulatory actions where existing regulations impose
unnecessary and burdensome requirements. Most importantly, the
Department believes that clarifying the most appropriate and effective
avenue for filing discrimination complaints and pursuing relief from
any discriminatory actions would be in apprentices' best interests and
would align with the Department's guiding statutory mandate to protect
apprentices' welfare.
Section 30.5--Nondiscrimination Compliance Reviews and Enforcement
In addition to the proposed removal of the extensive EEO and
affirmative action requirements found in the current version of part
30, the Department proposes to modify the compliance and enforcement
framework that is set forth in Sec. 30.13 and Sec. 30.15 of the
existing regulation by streamlining and consolidating these provisions
under a new provision (Sec. 30.5) of the proposed rule. Currently, the
Department conducts regular ``EEO compliance reviews'' to assess
sponsors' compliance with the extensive requirements found throughout
the existing part 30 regulation, with a particular focus on the
development and implementation of an AAP that is required for programs
with five or more apprentices under current Sec. 30.4 (the specific
contents of which are set forth in Sec. 30.5 through Sec. 30.9 and in
Sec. 30.11 of the current rule). The existing part 30 regulation also
includes various additional requirements applicable to all sponsors
that the Department proposes to rescind, including the obligation that
sponsors maintain extensive records pertaining to the full suite of
current part 30 requirements, invite apprentices to self-report their
disability status at registration and annually thereafter, and post an
``EEO Pledge'' with specific wording in a visible location at the
program's worksite(s), among others. As discussed at length in this
preamble, the Department has determined that it is unnecessarily
burdensome and confusing, to impose an extensive set of
nondiscrimination, EEO, and affirmative action requirements on
registered apprenticeship sponsors, and that the perpetuation of such
onerous regulatory requirements will only serve to inhibit the
accelerated expansion of registered apprenticeships. Accordingly, the
Department proposes to revise and consolidate the content of the
existing Sec. 30.13 and Sec. 30.15 by combining the compliance
reviews and enforcement actions elements of the proposed part 30
regulation within a new section--``Nondiscrimination compliance reviews
and enforcement.'' The subjects covered by this new section of the
proposed rule would align closely with the overarching policy focus of
the streamlined part 30--that sponsors must operate their program in a
completely nondiscriminatory manner.
In the context of registered apprenticeship, the Department is
committed to focusing its resources--including staff expertise--on
matters pertaining to the quality of apprenticeship programs. As
subject-matter experts in the various apprenticeship program-related
topics that are set forth in the ``Labor standards for the registration
of apprenticeship programs'' regulation at 29 CFR part 29, Registration
Agency staff have the knowledge and experience to assess registered
apprenticeship program quality. Registration Agency staff, who are
focused primarily on matters pertaining to apprenticeship quality, are
not well-positioned, and are not suitably equipped, to make the legal
determinations \18\ necessary to assess registered apprenticeship
programs' adherence to the elaborate nondiscrimination, EEO, and
affirmative action requirements found in the existing part 30
regulation. Accordingly, the Department proposes eliminating these
extensive requirements and substituting in their place a clear,
universal standard of compliance with applicable Federal and State
nondiscrimination laws for all registered apprenticeship programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Under the current regulation, such legal determinations
include assessing: whether a sponsor's selection procedures are
``facially neutral'' or whether sponsors have adequately assessed
their selection procedures' impact on race, sex, and ethnic groups
per the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (per
current Sec. 30.10); whether sponsors' affirmative outreach,
recruitment, and retention plans have been effective in meeting
sponsors' utilization goals (per current Sec. Sec. 30.6, 30.8); and
whether allegations of discrimination have violated applicable
antidiscrimination requirements (per current Sec. 30.14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess program compliance with this revised and consolidated
regulatory provision, the Department proposes to rely solely on final
determinations made by courts. These entities are equipped with the
necessary competencies and resources, along with the applicable
authority and jurisdiction, to investigate, adjudicate, and impose
remedial actions in response to allegations of discrimination in
employment. The Department expects that relying on the expertise and
authority of such entities to determine whether sponsors (or other
apprenticeship stakeholders, such as an employer participating in a
registered apprenticeship program) have engaged in illegal
discrimination in violation of applicable Federal or State statutes or
regulations will lead to a more efficient compliance and oversight
framework, improved accountability, greater clarity for stakeholders,
and more relevant and effective relief for any victims of unlawful
discrimination, harassment, or other illegal treatment in the
registered apprenticeship context.
Under proposed Sec. 30.5(a), the Department proposes that
compliance reviews for the streamlined part 30 nondiscrimination
requirement would occur concurrently with a registered apprenticeship
program's normal program review to assess compliance with part 29. At
proposed Sec. 30.5(b), the Department sets forth the process for
determining sponsors' compliance with the streamlined nondiscrimination
requirement and the threshold for initiating enforcement actions. The
Department proposes that Registration Agencies may only initiate
enforcement actions over a violation of the part 30 nondiscrimination
requirement when a final determination of a violation of applicable
nondiscrimination laws or regulations is made pertaining to an
apprentice or applicant for an apprenticeship, without any remaining
right to appeal, by a court with jurisdiction over allegations of
discrimination in employment (including alleged discrimination against
apprentices or an applicant to apprenticeship program). Such an
approach is intended to ensure that a Registration Agency does not act
on any complaints while such matters are being adjudicated, which is
consistent with due process principles. Proposed Sec. 30.5(c)
describes the process for Registration Agencies to initiate
enforcement, which includes working with the sponsor to develop a
compliance action plan that aligns with the remedy for the alleged
discrimination prescribed by the court, and brings the program into
compliance with the part 30 nondiscrimination requirement. Under
proposed Sec. 30.5(c), Registration Agencies may pursue further
enforcement actions, including the suspension of the sponsor's right to
register new apprentices or the initiation of formal deregistration
[[Page 28959]]
proceedings (set forth at 29 CFR 29.8), if the Registration Agency
determines that the sponsor is not implementing the compliance action
plan according to the remedy prescribed by the court.
The Department believes that this streamlined approach to
compliance and enforcement of the part 30 regulation would preserve
Registration Agencies' critical role in conferring the benefit of
program registration, and in rescinding registration when such
enforcement is necessary.
Section 30.6--Reinstatement of Program Registration
The Department proposes to retain the ``Reinstatement of program
registration'' provision from the existing part 30 regulation at
current Sec. 30.16. The Department has determined that its proposal to
streamline and simplify the part 30 regulation should retain a
provision allowing sponsors to seek and receive reinstatement of their
program registration if they demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
Registration Agency and the relevant court which issued a final
determination confirming a violation of an applicable nondiscrimination
statute or regulatory requirement that the apprenticeship program is
being operated in accordance with this part. The Department retains the
existing provision's language that sponsors must present ``adequate
evidence'' that they are operating in compliance with part 30. Under
the framework proposed in this NPRM, any violations of part 30 would be
confirmed by acourt of competent jurisdiction over nondiscrimination in
employment statutes or regulations; accordingly, the Department would
require sponsors to provide adequate evidence that they have alleviated
any issues giving rise to the nondiscrimination complaint to the
satisfaction of the court, including implementing any remedial actions.
The Department has determined that keeping a regulatory provision on
the reinstatement of a program's registration aligns with the proposed
compliance framework and the Department's goal, in streamlining the
regulation, to promote regulatory flexibility for registered
apprenticeship stakeholders.
Section 30.7--State Apprenticeship Agencies
The Department proposes to rescind parts of current Sec. 30.18,
the provision covering State Apprenticeship Agencies in the existing
part 30 regulation. Existing regulatory requirements for SAAs under
part 30 have been ineffective in setting a consistent standard for
nondiscrimination in registered apprenticeship. As evidenced by varying
degrees of conformity with existing Sec. 30.18, the current part 30
regulation has not been fully successful in achieving a uniform
national standard for nondiscrimination in registered apprenticeship
and equality of opportunity. For instance, existing Sec. 30.18(a)
requires that an SAA have a State EEO Plan that ``at a minimum''
includes ``draft State apprenticeship language corresponding to the
requirements of this part.'' This language has created inconsistencies
across SAAs. In its place, the Department proposes a new Sec. 30.7
that would eliminate burdensome and legally suspect administrative
requirements for SAAs, including the requirements for State-specific
laws that exclusively apply to nondiscrimination in registered
apprenticeship; the Department believes that such State laws specific
to registered apprenticeship only serve to complicate and splinter the
National Apprenticeship System. Accordingly, Sec. 30.7 would
facilitate the establishment of a uniform standard governing
nondiscrimination in registered apprenticeship and reduce SAA
administrative burdens by stipulating that compliance with applicable
federal and State nondiscrimination laws is sufficient to conform with
the requirements of the updated part 30.
Proposed Sec. 30.7(a) requires that, within one year of the
effective date of the final rule, all SAAs seeking to obtain or
maintain recognition under current Sec. 29.13 must ensure that their
apprenticeship laws, regulations, policies, and procedures exclusively
pertaining to nondiscrimination and equality of opportunity for
apprentices ``conform only to the requirements of this part [30].''
This proposed provision would relieve SAA States from having to impose
the complex, burdensome, and legally suspect set of regulatory
obligations that are found in current version of part 30 and would
substitute a straightforward requirement that such states conform to
the nondiscrimination requirements found in applicable federal and
State laws. Accordingly, the purpose of this proposed provision is to
establish a nationally uniform standard for nondiscrimination
protections across all States participating in the National
Apprenticeship System. The establishment of such a uniform standard at
proposed Sec. 30.7(a) seeks to ensure that State laws and regulations
concerning nondiscrimination and equality of opportunity in registered
apprenticeship are coextensive in their substance and scope with the
requirements of revised part 30 and consistent with federal and State
nondiscrimination laws; the attainment of such a result would be
particularly helpful for sponsors that register and operate their
programs in multiple States, and would foster an environment that is
conducive to accelerating the expansion of registered apprenticeship
programs. In addition, the allowance of a ``good cause'' extension
stipulated by proposed Sec. 30.7(a) would allow needed flexibility for
States with differing legislative or regulatory processes to enact and
implement laws that conform only to the requirements stipulated herein.
Proposed Sec. 30.7(b) and related subsections set forth the
elements of State Plans for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship for
States seeking new or continued SAA recognition. Proposed Sec.
30.7(b)(1)(i) stipulates that State plans include all of a State's
statutes, regulations, and policies pertaining exclusively to
nondiscrimination in apprenticeship, and that they conform only to the
requirements of the proposed part 30. This language helps to prevent
operational fragmentation within State-registered programs and ensures
consistent application of nondiscrimination standards. Proposed Sec.
30.7(b)(1)(ii) further stipulates that all State-registered programs
comply with a State's DOL-approved State plan within 180 days from the
date that the Department approves the State Plan submitted under
proposed (a). The Department believes that a 180-day compliance window
ensures an orderly and timely transition to full implementation at the
program level, particularly since sponsors must already be operating
their apprenticeship program in compliance with the applicable Federal
and State nondiscrimination laws. The Department invites comments from
all interested parties, and from SAAs in particular, about the proposed
timeline for compliance with the revised part 30 requirements.
Proposed Sec. 30.7(b)(2) mirrors the purpose of existing Sec.
30.18(a)(2)(i-iii) as it outlines the review process that OA will
undertake upon receipt of the State plan, including provision of
technical assistance to support conformity with Federal regulations.
Similarly, proposed Sec. 30.7(b)(3) stipulates that if an SAA State
does not submit a revised State plan that adequately responds within 90
days to OA's provision of technical assistance on nonconformity issues,
OA may initiate derecognition proceedings set forth in Sec. 29.14 and
proposed Sec. 30.7(e) to formally derecognize the SAA. This provision
is intended to
[[Page 28960]]
provide both due process and accountability for the State. Proposed
Sec. 30.7(b)(4) reaffirms the requirement of existing Sec.
30.18(a)(4) by proposing that any subsequent amendments to the State
Plan for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship are submitted to the OA
Administrator for review and approval prior to implementation. This
requirement is intended to promote alignment between State plans and
the Federal nondiscrimination framework described herein.
The recordkeeping requirements stipulated by proposed Sec. 30.7(c)
largely replicate the SAA recordkeeping obligations currently found in
Sec. 30.18(b), which require a recognized SAA to keep only records
pertaining to program compliance reviews, complaint investigations, and
any other records pertinent to a determination of compliance with this
part. These records must be maintained for five years from the date of
their creation. The proposed provision supports OA's ability to
continue overseeing and auditing compliance over time. It also ensures
that there is adequate documentation to make informed decisions about
SAA recognition status.
Proposed Sec. 30.7(d)(1) states that OA retains full authority to
conduct compliance reviews of all registered programs for Federal
purposes, even programs registered by an SAA. Similarly, proposed Sec.
30.7(d)(2) reiterates that any SAA that fails to comply with the
requirements of this proposed rulemaking is subject to deregistration
proceedings as provided in existing Sec. Sec. 29.8(b) and 29.10. The
recission of existing Sec. 30.18(c)(2) and (c)(4)(i) through (iii) is
in accordance with proposed Sec. 30.4 which proposes a significantly
streamlined complaints framework. The purpose of these revisions is to
more efficiently deploy agency resources while preventing duplication
of investigatory efforts with those civil rights enforcement agencies
that possess the statutory authority and expertise to conduct such
inquiries. Accordingly, under this proposal, the Department would not
retain any authority to independently investigate or resolve complaints
of discrimination in registered apprenticeship. However, OA retains the
authority to refer complaints to appropriate civil rights enforcement
agencies (under proposed Sec. 30.4), and to take appropriate
enforcement action (under proposed Sec. 30.5) based on another
agency's findings regarding discriminatory conduct by apprenticeship
program sponsors.
Proposed Sec. 30.7(e) replicates the content of current Sec.
30.18(d). This derecognition provision may be utilized by the
Department in appropriate circumstances to assure full conformity by
SAA states with federal nondiscrimination obligations contained in this
part.
Section 30.8--Exemptions
The Department proposes to retain the Exemptions provision from the
existing part 30 regulation at current Sec. 30.19. The Department's
proposed revisions are intended to provide relief to registered
apprenticeship stakeholders from burdensome regulatory requirements,
and the Department has determined that preserving the part 30
Exemptions provision serves this goal and retains the regulatory
flexibility built into the current part 30 regulation. Under the
existing provision, which the Department proposes to retain, sponsors
must submit requests for an exemption from part 30 requirements in
writing to the Registration Agency, which may issue the exemption for
good cause. The Department also proposes to retain the requirement that
SAAs in receipt of any exemption requests from sponsors in their State
must receive approval from OA before granting the exemption.
Accordingly, proposed Sec. 30.8 reflects identical regulatory language
to the existing provision at Sec. 30.19.
C. Technical and Conforming Edits to Part 29
The Department proposes technical and conforming edits to 29 CFR
part 29. The scope of the proposed changes would be narrow and
primarily confined to necessary adjustments to align with proposed
changes to 29 CFR part 30.
First, the Department proposes to amend various provisions in part
29 to update cross-references and terminology to reflect the proposed
revisions to part 30. For example, the Department proposes to revise
Sec. 29.3(b)(2) and Sec. 29.5(b)(21) to refer explicitly to the
revised nondiscrimination requirements set forth in 29 CFR part 30, as
amended. These edits ensure that all registered apprenticeship programs
will be subject to the new streamlined nondiscrimination obligations.
Second, the Department proposes revisions to Sec. 29.12
(Complaints) to clarify that complaints alleging illegal
discrimination--on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
sex, age, disability, or other protected characteristics--must be
referred by the Registration Agency to the appropriate enforcement
authority, as specified in proposed Sec. 30.4. This edit conforms to
the proposed part 30 regulatory structure, under which enforcement
actions related to discrimination are handled by agencies with
jurisdiction under applicable nondiscrimination statutes, such as the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Department of
Justice, or equivalent State-level enforcement agencies.
Third, the Department proposes edits to Sec. 29.7 (Apprenticeship
Agreement) to reflect the current statutory language and legal
standards governing nondiscrimination. Specifically, Sec. 29.7(j) is
revised to prohibit discrimination in apprenticeship on the basis of
race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age (40 or older), genetic
information, or disability. This ensures consistency with Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act,
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act.
The Department also proposes to modify the text of the current
Section 29.7(l), by removing the specific references to the
apprentice's race, sex, ethnicity, and disability status, and replacing
these references with a more general request to collect demographic
data about the apprentice. The Department has determined that
requesting specific types of demographic data, such as the apprentice's
disability status, in the Apprenticeship Agreement is not consistent
with the Department's proposal. In addition, the Department believes
that a more general authorization to request ``demographic
information'' about apprentices would provide greater flexibility for
apprenticeship stakeholders and the Registration Agency. Accordingly,
the Department proposes a conforming edit to modify section 29.7(l) to
replace the specific demographic categories and instead require that
the Apprenticeship Agreement simply contain a ``request for demographic
data about the apprentice.''
The Department also proposes edits to provisions governing SAA
recognition and operation. Sections 29.13 and 29.14 are revised to
require State apprenticeship laws, nondiscrimination plans, and
enforcement procedures conform to the streamlined federal requirements
in revised part 30. These edits are intended to reduce regulatory
bifurcation between OA and SAA states, eliminate inconsistent
nondiscrimination standards across jurisdictions, and promote
uniformity in the application and enforcement of apprenticeship
regulations nationwide.
Finally, conforming changes are proposed throughout part 29 to
update
[[Page 28961]]
outdated references and clarify that nondiscrimination enforcement
responsibilities lie with appropriate civil rights agencies. These
include proposed revisions to Sec. 29.11 (Limitations) to reflect
applicable law and Executive Orders, and updates to recordkeeping
provisions in Sec. Sec. 29.13 and 29.14 to ensure continued access to
compliance-related documents by the Department.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192 (Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation)
Under E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether
regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the executive order and review by OMB. See 58 FR 51735
(Oct. 4, 1993). This proposed rule is an economically significant
regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, and OIRA has
reviewed it.
E.O. 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a regulation only
upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs; the
regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 recognizes that some
benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where appropriate
and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss qualitatively
values that are difficult or impossible to quantify.
The Department derives benefit and cost estimates for this proposed
rule by comparing the baseline (the benefits and costs of the current
part 30 regulation) with the benefits and costs of implementing the
provisions in the proposed rule. Only the additional benefits and costs
that are expected to be incurred due to the changes in this regulation
are included in the analysis.
The Department sought to quantify and monetize the benefits and
costs of the proposed rule where feasible. Where we were unable to
quantify benefits and costs--for example, due to data limitations--we
describe them qualitatively. This analysis covers a 10-year period
(2026 through 2035) to ensure it captures major benefits and costs that
accrue over time. In this analysis, we have sought to present benefits
and costs both undiscounted and discounted at 7 and 3 percent,
respectively.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, ``Regulatory
Analysis,'' Sept. 17, 2003, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. As noted in
E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' on
January 31, 2025, regulations should be consistent with the 2003
version of Circular A-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All costs from the proposed rule are incurred in the first year and
total $9.11 million. The 10-year monetized benefits of the proposed
rule range from $748.76 million to $ 891.95 million (with 7 and 3
percent discounting, respectively). The annualized monetized benefits
of the Final Rule are $74.88 million (with 7 percent discounting) and
$89.19 million (with 3 percent discounting).
After considering both the quantified and non-quantified benefits
of the proposed rule, the Department has concluded that the estimated
benefits would justify the costs of the proposed rule. Below, we
present an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule in
the first year and over the 10-year analysis period.
The Department has examined this proposed rule and has determined
that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O.
14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.'' This rulemaking
is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
A. Estimates of Sponsors Impacted by the Rule Across the 10-Year Period
The Department's analysis considers the expected benefits and costs
of the changes to part 30. This analysis measures the costs and
benefits as they accrue to sponsors and State partnering agencies. It
is estimated that the number of sponsors will grow over time and our
annual cost calculations reflect this growth. The Department based its
estimate of the number of sponsors in each year using data from RAPIDS
regarding the number of registered apprenticeship programs and based
its estimate of the annual growth in registered apprenticeship programs
on the average annual growth rate from FY2020 to 2024. The Department
also used the same RAPIDS data to develop an estimate of the number of
registered apprenticeship programs that have five or more apprentices
in each year of the analysis.\20\ While the Department expects that the
number of registered apprentices will increase after part 30 is
streamlined, we used prior data to estimate future growth because it is
common practice in cost-benefit analysis, it is difficult to quantify
how much the streamlining of part 30 will increase the growth of
apprenticeship programs.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Department identified 26,512 total programs and 7,121
programs with five or more apprentices in RAPIDS as the starting
point. The annual average growth rate for all programs was 6.32
percent and 5.34 percent for programs with five or more apprentices
between FY2020 and FY2024. These data are used to estimate the
projected number of total programs and those with five or more
apprentices for each year in the analysis.
\21\ The Department's cost-benefit analysis finds that the
majority of the benefits from streamlining part 30 accrue to
sponsors of registered apprenticeship programs. If the Department
estimated a higher growth rate to registered apprenticeship, the
estimated benefits of the proposed rule would be higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This analysis primarily discusses how the first-year costs were
calculated and indicates that the analysis repeats that calculation
across the 10-year time frame using the appropriate number of sponsors
in any given year. Exhibit 1 presents the estimated number of total
active and new active program sponsors, and the estimated number total
and new active sponsors with five or more apprentices projected for
each year in the analysis.
Exhibit 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total active New sponsors with
Year Total active New sponsors sponsors with five five or more
sponsors or more apprentices apprentices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026........................ 29,969 1,781 7,902 401
2027........................ 31,863 1,894 8,324 422
2028........................ 33,877 2,014 8,768 444
2029........................ 36,018 2,141 9,237 468
2030........................ 38,294 2,276 9,730 493
[[Page 28962]]
2031........................ 40,714 2,420 10,249 520
2032........................ 43,287 2,573 10,797 547
2033........................ 46,023 2,736 11,373 577
2034........................ 48,932 2,909 11,980 607
2035........................ 52,024 3,092 12,620 640
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
The Department first presents the benefits that accrue under the
proposed rule. Most of these benefits arise from cost-savings to the
sponsors of registered apprenticeship programs because the proposed
rule eliminates several requirements of the current part 30
regulations. The savings from eliminating these requirements are
discussed in greater detail below.
In addition to the savings discussed below, there are several other
benefits from streamlining the nondiscrimination requirements under
part 30 that are not included in the Department's analysis. Under the
proposed rule, sponsors will benefit from a more streamlined and less
complex part 30 regulation, reducing confusion and the time required to
answer questions or address confusion regarding compliance
requirements. The proposed rule would also benefits sponsors by
removing the legally questionable components of the current part 30
regulations, thereby eliminating legal risk that sponsors could be sued
or legally challenged for actions taken to comply with part 30, such as
setting utilization goals regarding the race or sex of program
participants.
Since the proposed rule reduces the barriers for sponsors to create
and operate registered apprenticeship programs, it may also lead to the
registration of additional apprenticeship programs. The enhanced growth
of registered apprenticeship programs could improve access for
individuals to enroll in apprentices and receive high-quality job
training--boosting their long-term earnings and having spill-over
effects in the local economy. The increased proliferation of registered
apprenticeship programs could also benefit local employers, as the
creation of additional skilled apprentices could expand local talent
pools and allow employers to more easily fill in-demand occupations.
Finally, chief among these benefits is the elimination of
regulatory provisions that have the effect of encouraging the use of
race- and gender-based preferences in apprenticeship selection and
advancement decisions. By removing these requirements, the proposed
rule promotes a return to individual, merit-based evaluation,
consistent with the principle that all Americans should be treated as
individuals rather than as members of demographic groups. The
Department believes this shift will strengthen public confidence in the
fairness of the apprenticeship system, reduce legal uncertainty, and
encourage broader participation by sponsors who may have been deterred
by the prior rule's prescriptive and group-based mandates.
While these benefits could be substantial, the Department did not
include these benefits in its analysis because of data limitations that
raise concern about our ability to accurately quantify these benefits.
Collectively however, these benefits reinforce the Department's
conclusion that the advantages of this proposal outweigh any potential
costs.
A. Eliminating One-Time Costs for Sponsors of New Registered
Apprenticeship Programs
Under the current part 30 regulation, sponsors must post their
equal opportunity pledge on bulletin boards and through electronic
media, such that it is accessible to all apprentices and applicants to
apprenticeship programs. This requirement imposes costs on sponsors
operating a registered apprenticeship program for the first time, as
they are required to take staff time to post this pledge. Under Title
VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e-10) and the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12115), employers are
already required to post a notice summarizing Federal laws prohibiting
discrimination in employment. Removing this comparable requirement from
part 30 would therefore lead to savings for new sponsors of registered
apprenticeship programs without depriving apprentices of crucial
information about their employment rights.
The Department assumes that new sponsors choose to put up a
physical copy of the pledge and also post it on their website. The
Department assumes it takes a sponsor 5 minutes (0.08 hours) to post
the pledge and that this task is performed by an administrative
assistant. To calculate the hourly compensation rate, the Department
used the median hourly wage rate for Secretaries and Administrative
Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive (SOC code 43-6014) of
$22.26,\22\ and assumed a 17% overhead cost \23\ and a 42-percent
benefit cost.\24\ The total hourly compensation rate is [$22.26 +
($22.26 x 42%) + ($22.26 x 17%)], or $35.39. We multiplied the time
estimate for this provision by the hourly compensation rate to obtain a
total labor cost per sponsor of $2.83 ($35.39 x 0.08). To estimate the
materials cost, the Department assumed that the pledge is one page, and
that the cost per page for photocopying is $0.10, resulting in a
materials cost of $0.10 ($0.10 x 1) per sponsor. The total cost of
putting up a physical copy of the pledge per sponsor is therefore $2.93
($2.83 + $0.10). Additionally, the Department also assumes it takes a
sponsor 10 minutes (0.17 hours) to post the pledge on its website and
that this task is performed by a web developer at an hourly
compensation rate of $69.51.\25\ The cost of posting the pledge
[[Page 28963]]
on the sponsor's website is $11.82 ($69.51 x 0.17). In total, the
current provision requiring the posting of physical copy of the pledge
and the posting of the pledge on the sponsor's website costs $14.75
($2.93 + $11.82) per new sponsor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ BLS, ``2024 National Occupation Employment and Wage
Estimates for Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except
Legal, Medical, and Executive (43-6014), Hourly median wage,''
retrieved June 17, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
\23\ Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage
Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory
Program,'' June 10, 2002, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0650-0005.
\24\ Benefit cost is derived from the ``Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation Summary'' for March 2025 release from BLS,
available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. The
total benefits value was compared to the wages and salary amount at
the 50th wage percentile for private industry workers. This
calculation, $9.79 / $23.18, produced a benefits cost of 42 percent
of wages.
\25\ Median wage for Web Developer (Occupation code: 15-1134) is
$52.47 (source: BLS, ``National Occupation Employment and Wage
Estimates by Ownership,'' 2024, http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/000001.htm#11-0000). The fully adjusted wage rate for a web
developer accounting for overhead and benefits is 43.72 + (43.72 x
0.17) + (43.72 x 0.42), which equals $69.51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department estimates that there are 1,781 new sponsors in the
first year (see Exhibit 1) that would incur these costs. Multiplying
this sum ($14.75) by the estimate of new sponsors (1,781) in the first
year (2026) results in a cost- benefit of $26,270 from eliminating this
provision. Looking over the full ten-year period, the annualized
savings from eliminating the cost of posting the EEO pledge are $25,534
(with 7 percent discounting) and $30,430 (with 3 percent discounting).
B. Eliminating On-Going Costs for All Sponsors
The current part 30 regulations also require that each sponsor
conduct orientation and periodic information sessions for apprentices,
journeyworkers who directly supervise apprentices, and other
individuals connected with the administration or operation of the
sponsor's apprenticeship program to inform and remind such individuals
of the sponsor's equal employment opportunity policy with regard to
apprenticeship (current Sec. 30.3(b)(2)(iii)). Under current Sec.
30.3(b)(4)(i), sponsors are also required to provide anti-harassment
training, which we assume are incorporated into periodic orientation
and information sessions. This training must include active
participation by trainees, such as attending a training session in
person or completing an interactive training online and includes, at a
minimum, communications to apprentices and journeyworkers who directly
supervise apprentices that harassing conduct will not be tolerated, the
definition of harassment and types of conduct that constitute
harassment, and the right to file a harassment complaint.
Using data from RAPIDS, the Department calculated that there are on
average 25.4 apprentices per sponsor, so we round down to 25
apprentices per program.\26\ The Department further assumes a one-to-
one ratio between an apprentice and journeyworker in estimating the
cost of orientations and periodic information sessions. The Department
first estimated that the 29,969 programs in the first year (2026) will
hold one 45-minute regular orientation and information session with an
average of 25 apprentices ($33.39 per hour) \27\ and 25 journeyworkers
($52.47 per hour) \28\ per sponsor. The Department estimated that a
human resource manager ($107.04) \29\ will need to spend 2 hours to
develop and prepare written materials for the session in the first
year, and 2 hours to cover maintaining the training materials that were
already saved on the computer in subsequent years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ This estimate is from RAPIDS data at the end of FY2024.
\27\ We calculated the hourly compensation rate for an
apprentice by multiplying the average hourly wage of $21.00 (as
published by ZipRecruiter, last updated June 16, 2025, https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Apprenticeship-Salary) by 1.59 to
account for private-sector employee benefits and overhead. Thus, the
hourly compensation rate for an apprentice is $33.39 ($21.00 x
1.59).
\28\ We calculated the hourly compensation rate for a
journeyworker by multiplying the average hourly wage of $33.00 (as
published by ZipRecruiter, last updated June 16, 2025, https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Journeyman-Salary) by 1.59 to account
for private-sector employee benefits and overhead. Thus, the hourly
compensation rate for a journeyworker is $52.47 ($33.00 x 1.59).
\29\ We calculated the hourly compensation rate for a human
resource manager (Occupation code 11-3121) by multiplying the median
hourly wage of $67.32 by 1.59 to account for private-sector employee
benefits and overhead. Thus, the hourly compensation rate for a
human resource manager is $107.04 (67.32 x 1.59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This calculation results in a total cost-saving benefit for
removing this provision of approximately $54.66 million in the first
year (2026). It is assumed that all sponsors would hold one 45-minute
regular orientation and information session annually if this
requirement was not eliminated by the rule. This calculation is
therefore repeated in subsequent years. The annualized savings from the
elimination of this cost ranges from $53.13 million (with 7 percent
discounting) to $63.31 million (with 3 percent discounting).
Additionally, under the current part 30, all sponsors are required
to reach out to a variety of recruitment sources, including
organizations that serve individuals with disabilities, to ensure
universal recruitment (current Sec. 30.3(b)(3)). Sponsors are required
to develop a list of recruitment sources that generate referrals of
women, minorities, and persons with disabilities with contact
information for each source. Further, sponsors are required to notify
these sources in advance of any apprenticeship opportunities and while
a firm deadline is not set, the part 30 regulations suggest 30 days'
notice if possible. This current outreach protocol may lead employers
to incur costs due to the additional delay in the hiring process
resulting from this rule. The Department, however, does not have enough
information to estimate the potential costs sponsors currently incur
from these delays.
The kinds of activities sponsors engage in to satisfy this
requirement include distributing announcements and flyers detailing job
prospects, holding seminars, and visiting some of the sources who are
likely able to provide access to designated groups. The Department
assumed that the cost to sponsors to distribute information to
designated groups will be the labor cost to comply with this provision.
We also assumed that the activity to satisfy this provision will be
performed by a human resource manager and an administrative assistant
with hourly compensation rates of $107.04 and $35.39, respectively. We
assumed this task takes 30 minutes (0.5 hour) of a human resource
manager's time and 30 minutes (0.5 hour) of an administrative
assistant's time per targeted source. We calculated the cost of this
provision per affected sponsor by multiplying the time each staff
member devotes to this task by their associated hourly compensation
rates. We then multiplied the total labor cost by the assumed number of
outreach sources (5) and by the total number of sponsors. All sponsors
are assumed to conduct this outreach in all years. The resulting
savings from eliminating this outreach provision are therefore $10.67
million in the first year, with an annualized savings from the
elimination of this cost for sponsors ranging from $10.37 million (with
7 percent discounting) to $12.36 million (with 3 percent discounting).
C. Savings From Eliminating Costs of Performing Utilization and
Workforce Analysis Costs for Sponsors With Five or More Apprentices
The current part 30 regulations require sponsors with five or more
apprentices to establish utilization goals for women and minorities
(current Sec. Sec. 30.5 through 30.7). First, sponsors conduct a
workforce analysis to identify the racial, sex, and ethnic composition
of their apprentices. Second, an availability analysis will establish a
benchmark against which the existing composition of apprentices will be
compared. Sponsors establish utilization goals and engage in targeted
outreach, recruitment, and retention efforts when the sponsor's
utilization of women, Hispanics or Latinos, or individuals in racial
minority groups are ``significantly less than would be reasonably
expected given the availability of such individuals for
apprenticeship.'' Registration Agencies work closely with sponsors
during compliance reviews to assist in the development of an
availability analysis and setting or reassessing utilization goals for
race, sex, and ethnicity. The
[[Page 28964]]
Department also provides a data tool to assist in the collection and
analysis of relevant demographic data for the purposes of goal setting.
The Department has determined that eliminating the utilization goal
requirement will create three types of cost-savings benefits: Savings
from the elimination of costs associated with the familiarization with
the data tool for new sponsors, savings from the elimination of costs
associated with the workforce analysis, and savings from the
elimination of costs associated with the utilization analysis.
To quantify the savings from the elimination of costs associated
with new sponsors' familiarization with the data tool, the Department
assumes that new sponsors with five or more apprentices (401 in 2026)
will incur one hour of HR manager labor ($107.04 per hour) to
familiarize the organization with the tool. This is estimated to create
$42,876 in savings from the elimination of these tool familiarization
costs in the first year of 2026. We repeated this calculation for the
following years. Removing the utilization goal requirement from part 30
therefore creates an annualized savings of $40,004 (with 7 percent
discounting) and $47,537 (with 3 percent discounting) from the
elimination of new sponsors' tool familiarization costs.
To calculate the savings from removing the workforce analysis
requirements from part 30, the Department determined that the
methodology for conducting workforce analyses under the current part 30
results in 2 hours of HR manager labor ($107.04 per hour) for all
sponsors with five or more apprentices (7,902 in 2026). Under the
current part 30 regulations, all sponsors with five or more apprentices
must conduct workforce analysis every 2.5 years. In calculating the
savings for each year, the Department divided the number of applicable
sponsors in each year by 2.5 to reflect the assumption that sponsors
would have conducted the analysis per the 2.5-year timeline. This means
that in any given year 40 percent of these sponsors would have
conducted the workforce analysis or that it would have taken 2.5 years
to have these sponsors conduct new workforce analyses. The cost-savings
from eliminating the requirement to conduct workforce analyses in the
first year is therefore $676,642 (7,902 x 0.4 x $107.04 x 2 hours). We
repeated this calculation for the following years using the appropriate
number of sponsors in any given year, resulting in an annualized
savings from the removal of the workforce analysis requirement of
$631,313 (with 7 percent discounting) and $750,187 (with 3 percent
discounting) for sponsors.
To calculate the savings from the removal of the utilization
analysis requirement, the Department determined that the utilization
analysis results in 0.5 hour of HR manager time ($107.04 per hour) for
all sponsors with five or more apprentices (7,902 in 2026) every 5
years. The cost-savings from removing the requirement to conduct
utilization analyses in the first year is $84,580 (0.5 hour x $107.04 x
(7,902/5 years)). We repeated this calculation for the following years,
and the savings to sponsors from not having to conduct utilization
analyses has an annualized benefit of $78,914 (with 7 percent
discounting) and $93,773 (with 3 percent discounting) for sponsors.
In addition to the normal outreach, recruitment, and retention
activities required of all sponsors under current part Sec. 30.3(b),
the current part 30 regulations require a sponsor of an apprenticeship
program, whose utilization analyses revealed underutilization of a
particular designated group or groups of individuals pursuant to
current Sec. 30.6 and/or who has determined pursuant to current Sec.
30.7(e) that there are impediments to EEO for individuals with
disabilities, to engage in targeted outreach, and retention for all
underutilized groups in current Sec. 30.8. We assumed that this
additional outreach happens in the same manner as the universal
outreach discussed above.
We assumed that the current cost to sponsors to distribute
information about apprenticeship opportunities to organizations serving
individuals with disabilities is the labor cost. We also assumed that
the labor for this provision will be performed by a human resource
manager and an administrative assistant with hourly compensation rates
of $107.04 and $35.39, respectively. The Department estimated that this
dissemination task takes 30 minutes (0.5 hour) of a human resource
manager's time and 30 minutes (0.5 hour) of an administrative
assistant's time per targeted source. The cost of the current provision
per affected sponsor is the time each staff member devotes to this task
multiplied by their associated hourly compensation rates. This
calculation resulted in a labor cost of $71.22 (($107.04 x 0.5) +
($35.39 x 0.5)) per source.
We estimated that the number of sponsors who need to engage in
targeted outreach and recruitment for at least one relevant demographic
group is 95 percent of the total sponsors with five or more
apprentices. We understand this is likely an over-estimate of the
number of sponsors that must conduct this outreach, as more than 5
percent of sponsors may meet their utilization goal for all demographic
groups and may not have to conduct outreach, however the Department
does not have complete or reliable data to produce an alternative
estimate. We then multiplied this total labor cost by the share of
sponsors with five or more apprentices (7,902), the share of sponsors
that undertake a utilization analysis in any given year (20 percent
\30\) and the share of sponsors that are estimated to identify
underutilization and/or problem areas in one or more of the relevant
demographic groups--(95 percent). This calculation ($71.22 x 7,902 x
0.20 x 0.95) results in a total cost of the current outreach provision
of approximately $106,928 in 2026. The benefit from eliminating this
requirement is equal to these estimated costs since sponsors will no
longer need to conduct this outreach. We repeated this calculation for
the following years using the appropriate number of sponsors in any
given year. The annualized savings to sponsors from not having to
conduct this additional outreach ranges from $99,755 (with 7 percent
discounting) to $118,538 (with 3 percent discounting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ This is the percentage of sponsors that undergo compliance
review each year, as determined by the 5-year schedule on which
sponsors undergo compliance reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Savings From Eliminating Affirmative Action Program Review Costs for
Sponsors With Five or More Apprentices
Affirmative action program reviews in the current part 30
regulations result in three additional costs for sponsors: personnel
process reviews, written affirmative action plan updates during
compliance reviews, and written affirmative action plan updates within
three years of compliance reviews (estimated to occur 2.5 years later
in this analysis). The current part 30 requires sponsors with five or
more apprentices to review personnel processes annually (Sec. 30.9).
The Department estimated the current costs of each of these components
and summed them to estimate the savings to sponsors from eliminating
affirmative action program reviews.
To calculate the current costs imposed on sponsors from personnel
process reviews, the Department calculated the cost for all sponsors in
2026 with five or more apprentices (7,902) to spend 8 hours of HR
manager labor ($107.04 per hour) conducting the
[[Page 28965]]
review. This provision is estimated to result in an undiscounted cost
of $6.77 million in 2026 (7,902 x 8 hours x $107.04).
To determine the current cost of the written affirmative action
plan update at the time of the compliance review, the Department
calculated the cost for all sponsors in 2026 with five or more
apprentices (7,902) to spend 12 hours \31\ of HR manager labor every 5
years at the time of the compliance review. With the existing
compliance review rate at 20 percent, this means that approximately one
in five of these sponsors undergo a compliance review every year. This
provision currently results in an undiscounted cost of approximately
$2.03 million in 2026 (7,902 x 12 hours x (1 / 5) x $107.04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ A workforce analysis (1); a utilization analysis (2); goal-
setting (if necessary) (3); and a full update of the written
affirmative action plan (4) need to be undertaken at the compliance
review. Because we have already costed out (1), (2), and (3), the
sponsor would need additional 12 hours to fully update the written
affirmative action plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the cost of the written affirmative action plan update
within three years of the compliance review, the Department calculated
the cost for all sponsors in 2026 with five or more apprentices (7,902)
to spend 6 hours \32\ (estimated to be less because of the lesser
workload from not overlapping with the compliance review) of HR manager
time every 5 years. This provision results in an undiscounted cost of
$1.01 million in 2026 (7,902 x 6 hours x (1/5) x $107.04). We repeated
this calculation for the following years using the appropriate number
of sponsors in any given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ A written affirmative action program review within three
years of compliance reviews contains (1) workforce analysis and (2)
updating the written affirmative action plan to include the updated
workforce analysis and a description of the review of personnel
practices and any changes made as a result of that review (see
30.9(b)). Because we have already costed out (1), the 6 hours are
for including updated the workforce analysis and a description of
the review of personnel practices and any changes made as a result
of that review (see current 30.9(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total cost of the current affirmative action plan program
provision, and therefore the savings from it being eliminated, is
approximately $9.8 in 2026 (6.77 million + $2.03 million + 1.01
million). The annualized savings from eliminating affirmative action
program reviews ranges from $9.15 million to $10.88 million at 7
percent and 3 percent, respectively.
E. Invitation To Self-Identify as an Individual With a Disability
The current part 30 regulations under Sec. 30.11 require sponsors
with five or more apprentices to invite applicants for apprenticeship
to voluntarily self-identify as an individual with a disability
protected by this part at two stages: (1) At the time they apply or are
considered for apprenticeship; and (2) after they are accepted into the
apprenticeship program but before they begin their apprenticeship. Each
year, all sponsors with five or more apprentices are required to
administer the invitation to self-identify twice: Once to all
applicants prior to the offer of apprenticeship, and once after the
offer of apprenticeship to those who were extended offers. The
Department estimated that sponsors post 42 positions in 2026 and
receive 15 applicants per posting.\33\ Of those positions, the
Department estimated that 42 offers of enrollment are made and 42
apprentices choose to enroll in 2026. The Department estimated that it
would take an apprentice ($33.39 per hour) 5 minutes (0.08 hours) to
complete the form. Furthermore, an administrative assistant ($35.39 per
hour) would need to spend 0.5 hour annually to record and keep the
forms. As a result, this requirement has an undiscounted cost in 2026
of $1.42 million (7,902 x ((15 applications x 42 job listings x .08) +
(42 offers of apprenticeship x .08)) x $35.39 + 7,902 x 0.5 x $35.39).
For the 10-year analysis period, this provision has an annualized cost
of $1.33 million and $1.58 million (at 7 percent and 3 percent
discounting, respectively).\34\ In addition, sponsors with five or more
apprentices are required to remind apprentices yearly that they can
update their invitation to self-identify. The Department assumed that
these sponsors send out an annual reminder email at the cost of $22,372
(7,902 x 0.08 hour x $35.39). We repeated this calculation for each
remaining year in the analysis period using the estimated number of
sponsors for each year. This provision in total has an annualized cost
of $20,873 and $24,803 (at 7 percent and 3 percent discounting,
respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The Department determined the number of positions posted
from conversations with programs of various sizes. We determined
that the largest, statewide programs post more than 15 jobs, but the
Department used this as an average for all apprentices to avoid
under-estimating the costs.
\34\ It is assumed that there will be 100 percent participation
in the invitation to self-identify and therefore, the cost of this
provision is likely overestimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
Below, the Department presents the costs incurred on relevant
stakeholders, mainly program sponsors and SAAs, from this proposed
rule. These costs are broken into two major categories: costs to
sponsors of familiarizing themselves with the regulatory change, and
the cost to SAAs. These two main costs of the proposed rules and other
provisions of the proposed rule the Department found to have minimal to
no costs compared to the current part 30 are discussed below. This
provision in total has an annualized cost of $20,873 and $24,803 (at 7
percent and 3 percent discounting respectively).
A. Familiarization With Regulatory Change
To estimate the cost of initial rule familiarization, we multiplied
the number of apprenticeship sponsors in 2026 (26,512)--the first full
year in which the change will be in effect--by the amount of time
required to read the new rule (1 hour) and by the average hourly
compensation of a private-sector human resources manager ($107.04).
This cost is only incurred in the first year of the change, so the
total cost to sponsors for time spent on familiarization amounts is
approximately $3.21 million in labor costs. There are no
familiarization costs for future years because sponsors will already be
complying with nondiscrimination laws.
B. Updating Standards for Compliance
Pre-existing sponsors of registered apprenticeship programs will
also need to develop language or make adjustments and updates to
existing standards to comply with the proposed changes to part 30. This
will be a one-time cost only imposed on pre-existing sponsors that
already had standards prior to the publication of final rule. The
Department estimates that updating standards to comply with part 30
will mainly be removing items currently required by part 30 and
therefore estimates the burden will be minimal. Accordingly, the
Department estimates the average response time for the projected 28,188
pre-existing apprenticeship programs in FY2026 to ensure standards
comply with part 30 is 20 minutes (0.33 hours).\35\ The estimated
annual burden is 9,301 hours (28,188 x 0.33). The Department assumes
the standards will be updated by an administrative assistant.
Therefore, the Department estimates that the annualized cost is
$329,194 (9,301 x $35.39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ There are 28,1888 pre-exiting sponsors in FY2026 because
there are 29,969 projected sponsors in FY2026 and 1,781 of these
sponsors are new. (29,969-1,781 = 28,188).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration agency staff are responsible for reviewing and
providing input on a sponsor's apprenticeship program standards to
ensure compliance with the requirements in part 30.
[[Page 28966]]
Registration agencies will therefore incur a one-time cost to review
updated standards for pre-existing programs. The Department estimates
that the review and input provided by registration agency staff for
program sponsors will take 10 minutes, which results in 4,792 annual
burden hours (28,188 x 0.17 hours). Using the State employee wage
calculated above, the total cost to registration agency of this one-
time review is $412,342 (4,792 hours x $86.05).
C. Revision of State Plan
The process of updating a State equal opportunity plan may
potentially involve various different people at different stages of
implementation. Updating the plan will include drafting the new plan,
ensuring conformity and that State laws and practices do not exceeding
the proposed rule, and completing all administrative procedures that
may apply, such as revisions to a State's apprenticeship law or policy
that may require a public notice and comment period, training for SAA
staff on the revised State plan, and outreach to program sponsors to
inform them of the relevant aspects of the revised State plan once it
has been approved by the Department. The updates to State equal
opportunity plans include changing language and existing requirements
such that they align with the regulatory changes herein. To calculate
the costs, the Department assumed that the process to revise the State
plan will take a full year of effort (2,080 hours) to complete.\36\
This is the Department's best estimate for updating the existing State
plan. For simplicity, we assumed that an SAA human resource manager
will complete the task at an hourly compensation rate of $86.05.\37\
This amounts to a one-time cost of $5.9 million in the first year
(2,080 hours x $86.05 x 33 SSA States).\38\ Complaint Referral
Procedures Sec. 30.4 within the proposed rule directs the Registration
agencies to refer complainants alleging illegal discrimination to the
appropriate enforcement agency. Since the complaint process is not a
new process, the Department does not expect that these provisions will
add significantly to the burden on Registration Agencies as these
agencies are currently required to refer complaints to other EEO
agencies under current Sec. 30.14(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Note that this calculation is only the administrative costs
of updating the State EEO plan, as opposed to the costs of
implementing the new plan, or any new burdens on State Agencies.
Since the updated State plan for non-discrimination in
apprenticeship should reflect the Federal regulations, these costs
should be accounted for and addressed elsewhere in the analysis
under discussions of costs.
\37\ We calculated the hourly compensation rate for a human
resource manager at a State agency by multiplying the hourly wage of
$48.07 (GS-13 step 5) by 1.62 for public sector employee benefits
(source: BLS, ``National Compensation Survey, Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation,'' https://www.bls.gov/ecec/data.htm (last
visited May 27, 2025). For State and local government workers, wages
and salaries averaged $38.45 per hour worked in 2024, while benefit
costs averaged $23.81, which is a benefits rate of 62 percent) and
1.17 to account for overhead costs (source: Cody Rice, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage Rates for Economic Analyses
of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,'' June 10, 2002, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0650-0005 (last
visited May 27, 2025)) to account for state and local employee
benefits. The hourly compensation rate for a human resource manager
at a State agency is thus $86.05 (($48.07 x 1.17) + ($48.07 x
1.62)).
\38\ The estimated time to complete the revisions is 12 months
(2,080 hours). The calculation used the hourly compensation rate for
a state human resource manager ($86.05) multiplied by 2,080 (the
assumed number of work hours in a year) and by the total number of
State Apprenticeship Agencies (33) to obtain the total cost. This
cost only accrues in the first year of the ten-year analysis period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Adopting Uniform Procedures Under 29 CFR Parts 29 and 30 for
Deregistration, Derecognition, and Hearings
The proposed rule generally aligns part 30 with part 29 procedures
for deregistration of apprenticeship programs, derecognition of SAAs,
and hearings (Sec. Sec. 30.6 through 30.7). These provisions are not
expected to impose a burden because SAAs are already following these
procedures in part 29.
Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis
Exhibit 2 presents a summary of the first-year benefits and costs
of the proposed rule, as described above. As shown in the exhibit, the
total first-year benefit of the proposed rule is $77.51 million and the
total first year costs are $9.86 million.
Exhibit 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized costs
Provision Entity affected ($ million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No longer posting equal Sponsor............. -0.03
opportunity pledge.
No longer conducting universal Sponsor............. -10.67
outreach.
No longer conducting EO training. Sponsor/Apprentice.. -54.66
No longer conducting Utilization Sponsor............. -0.80
and Workforce Analysis.
No longer Conducting Affirmative Sponsor............. -9.81
Action Program Reviews.
No longer providing an invitation Sponsor/Apprentice.. -1.45
to Self-Identify as an
individual with a disability.
Familiarization with Regulatory Sponsor............. 3.21
Change.
Revision of State Equal SSA................. 5.91
Opportunity Plan.
Updating Standards to Align with Sponsor/Registration 0.74
Revised Part 30 Regulation. Agencies.
----------------
Total First-Year Costs....... .................... -67.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 3 presents a summary of the monetized costs and benefits
associated with the final rule over the 10-year analysis period. The
monetized costs and benefits displayed are the yearly summations of the
calculations described above. Costs and benefits are presented as
undiscounted 10-year totals, and as present values with 7 and 3 percent
discount rates.
Exhibit 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized benefit Monetized cost
Year ($million/year) ($million/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026........................ 77.53 9.86
2027........................ 82.31 ....................
[[Page 28967]]
2028........................ 87.39 ....................
2029........................ 92.78 ....................
2030........................ 98.50 ....................
2031........................ 104.58 ....................
2032........................ 111.03 ....................
2033........................ 117.89 ....................
2034........................ 125.17 ....................
2035........................ 132.90 ....................
-------------------------------------------
Undiscounted............ 1,030.06 9.86
7% Discounted........... 748.76 9.86
3% Discounted........... 891.95 9.86
Annualized 7%........... 74.88 0.99
Annualized 3%........... 89.19 0.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, due to data limitations, the Department did not
quantify several important benefits to society provided by the proposed
rule. The proposed rule is expected to result in several overarching
benefits to apprenticeship programs and specific benefits resulting
from a less legally ambiguous, and more streamlined rule. The proposed
rule will reduce barriers to register and operate a registered
apprenticeship program, allowing the creation of additional programs
that allow more individuals to receive training and benefiting
businesses in meeting their skills needs.
Regulatory Alternatives
In addition to the proposed rule, the Department has considered
three regulatory alternatives: (a) Repeal Part 30 entirely; (b) Only
eliminate the additional affirmative action requirements pertaining to
sponsors with five or more apprentices while retaining the reminder of
the 2016 final rule; (c) Take no action, that is, to leave the 2016
final rule intact.
The Department conducted economic analyses of the three
alternatives to better understand their costs and benefits and the
implied tradeoffs (in terms of the costs and benefits that would be
realized) relative to the proposed rule. Below is a discussion of each
alternative along with an estimation of their costs and benefits. All
costs and benefits use the 2016 final rule as the baseline for the
analysis.
A. Repeal Part 30 Entirely
This alternative yields many of the same benefits as the proposed
rule but would also remove the cost to Registration Agencies (the
Department of Labor's Office of Apprenticeship (OA) or SAAs) related to
the referral of complaints, leading to additional cost-saving benefits.
The Department assumed that, when a Registration Agency receives a
complaint, it takes 15 minutes (0.25 hours) for a public-sector human
resource manager (86.05 per hour) to refer the complaint to the correct
entity. The Department estimates that 421 apprentices file a complaint
in the first year and the number of complaints rises by 9 percent each
year.\39\ Based on this assumption, the Department estimated that the
savings to registration agencies from not having to refer complaints is
$36,227 in the first year. The Department estimates that this has an
annualized savings benefit of $39,413 and $47,337 (at 7 percent and 3
percent discounting, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The EEOC reports that there were 88,531 charges in FY2024
and that the number of complaints between FY2023 to FY2024 rose by
9.22% (Source: Enforcement and Litigation Statistics, EEOC. Accessed
June 20, 2025. https://www.eeoc.gov/data/enforcement-and-litigation-statistics-0). Based on this growth rate, we estimate there will be
105,184 complaints in 2026. We assume apprentices file the same
percentage of complaints as their share of the workforce. We
understand this may be an over or underestimate as apprentices may
be less or more likely to fill complaints than the broader
workforce. Since apprentices make up 0.4% of the workforce, we
assumed that they file 421 complaints a year (105,184 x 0.4%). We
repeat this calculation each year to account for the growth in
complaints each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department assumes sponsors would still have to refer
complaints to the relevant agencies that oversee nondiscrimination laws
to comply with those laws and therefore would receive minimal to no
cost savings from not having to refer these complaints to the
registration agency as well.
Additionally, removing part 30 would remove the costs associated
with deregistering programs and derecognizing SAA that are violating
part 30. However, as mentioned in the preamble, the Department is
unaware of any instance in which a program or an SAA has been
deregistered or derecognized because of failure to comply with part 30
(current Sec. 30.15, Sec. 30.16, and Sec. 30.18(d)). The Department
therefore assumes that removing the deregistration or derecognition
components of the current part 30 rule would create minimal to no cost
savings. The benefits of this alternative would therefore be the same
in each year as the proposed rule, with additional cost-savings from
the elimination of referral requirements.
In estimating costs, the Department believes that the elimination
of part 30 entirely would remove conformity across the registered
apprenticeship system by creating an inconsistent regulatory framework
across states. If some states left their current apprenticeship
affirmative action laws in place, it would be harder for sponsors to
navigate and comply with this system. This lack of conformity would
therefore create confusion and hinder the deregulatory goals of the
rulemaking from being achieved on a nationwide basis. Additionally, if
some states retained the use of race- and gender-based preferences in
apprenticeship selection and advancement decisions, the apprenticeship
system in these states would continue to conflict with the merit-based
principles that the apprenticeship system, and overall American
workforce, should represent.
While the Department believes these costs from a lack of conformity
and conflict with merit principles could be substantial, these costs
are largely intangible and would be difficult to estimate. As a result,
the Department estimates that the only monetized costs would be the
one-time cost of removing references to Part 30 in apprenticeship
program standards, which was estimated to be $741,536, due to data and
other limitations referenced above, there would be no quantifiable
costs to repealing part 30 entirely because states
[[Page 28968]]
would not have to submit updated State plans and sponsors would not
need to familiarize themselves with the rule change. Exhibit 4 presents
a summary of the monetized costs of this alternative option over the
10-year analysis period. Costs are presented as undiscounted 10-year
totals, and as present values, using 7 percent and 3 percent discount
rates.
Exhibit 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized benefit Monetized cost
Year ($million/year) ($million/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026........................ 77.57 0.74
2027........................ 82.35 0.00
2028........................ 87.43 0.00
2029........................ 92.82 0.00
2030........................ 98.55 0.00
2031........................ 104.63 0.00
2032........................ 111.09 0.00
2033........................ 117.95 0.00
2034........................ 125.24 0.00
2035........................ 132.98 0.00
-------------------------------------------
Undiscounted............ 1,030.61 0.74
7% Discounted........... 749.15 0.74
3% Discounted........... 892.42 0.74
Annualized 7%........... 74.88 0.07
Annualized 3%........... 89.24 0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Only Remove Additional Requirements Pertaining to Programs With Five
or More Apprentices
This alternative yields only the cost-savings that come from
eliminating the provisions under the current part 30 that require
sponsors with five or more apprentices to take additional affirmative
action steps. This more limited change would therefore eliminate the
following costs: new sponsors' familiarization with apprenticeship
utilization data tool, cost of the workforce analysis, cost of the
utilization analysis, the additional dissemination of resources for
designated demographic groups if a sponsor is found to be
underutilizing said group, costs related to Affirmative Action Program
reviews, and the cost of inviting apprentices to self-identify as an
individual with a disability (as well as sending email reminders about
this self-identification). Sponsors would still incur the costs of
orientation and information sessions and universal outreach. New
sponsors would also continue to incur the cost of posting EEO pledges.
Under this alternative, the Department assumes that sponsors would
still incur the same rule familiarization costs and SSAs would still
have to submit revised State plans under current Sec. 30.18. Only pre-
existing programs with five or more apprentices would incur costs from
updating standards. The Department estimates that there will be 7,501
pre-existing programs with more than 5 apprentices in FY2026.\40\ Based
on the methodology described above, we estimated sponsors with five or
more apprentices will incur $87,605 from the cost of updating standards
and registration agencies will incur $109,732 in costs from reviewing
updated standards, for a total cost of $197,337 of updating standard
for programs with five or more apprentices. This cost is lower because
fewer sponsors (i.e., only those with five or more apprentices) would
need to update standards. The total cost of this option is therefore
$9.31 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ There were estimated to be 7,902 sponsors with five or more
apprentices in total in FY2026, 401 of which would be new sponsors.
Subtracting new programs, it is estimated that there will be 7,501
pre-existing sponsors with five or more apprentices in FY2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 5 presents a summary of the monetized costs of this
alternative option over the 10-year analysis period. Costs are
presented as undiscounted 10-year totals, and as present values, using
7 percent and 3 percent discount rates.
Exhibit 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized benefit Monetized cost
Year ($million/year) ($million/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026........................ 12.17 9.31
2027........................ 12.82 ....................
2028........................ 13.50 ....................
2029........................ 14.22 ....................
2030........................ 14.98 ....................
2031........................ 15.78 ....................
2032........................ 16.63 ....................
2033........................ 17.52 ....................
2034........................ 18.45 ....................
2035........................ 19.44 ....................
-------------------------------------------
[[Page 28969]]
Undiscounted............ 155.52 9.31
7% Discounted........... 113.54 9.31
3% Discounted........... 134.92 9.31
Annualized 7%........... 11.35 0.93
Annualized 3%........... 13.49 0.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Take No Action
This alternative yields no additional costs or benefits to society
because it does not deviate from the baseline, that is, the 2016 final
rule. However, the Department notes that taking no action would prevent
the benefits that would accrue from this proposed rule. In addition to
decreasing the burden on sponsors and registration agencies, chief
among the benefits from the proposed rule is the elimination of
regulatory provisions that have the effect of encouraging the use of
race- and gender-based preferences in apprenticeship selection and
advancement decisions. By removing these requirements, the proposed
rule promotes a return to individual, merit-based evaluation,
consistent with the principle that all Americans should be treated as
individuals rather than as members of demographic groups. Without this
change, the Department believes the public's confidence in the fairness
of the apprenticeship system could be undermined, that legal
uncertainty would remain for current sponsors, and that prospective
sponsors may be deterred by the prior rule's prescriptive and group-
based mandates.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, and Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration
of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121 (Mar. 29, 1996), hereafter jointly
referred to as the RFA, requires agencies to prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) when proposing, and a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) when issuing, regulations that
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
The Department conducted the analysis below of the burden on small
entities from the proposed rule and, based on that analysis, certifies
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
1. Why Action Is Being Considered
The Department has determined that the proposed deregulatory action
is necessary to remove administrative barriers to participation in
registered apprenticeship. As described throughout the preamble for
this NPRM, in the Department's view, the proposed changes to the
regulation at 29 CFR part 30 would significantly reduce administrative
burdens for existing registered apprenticeship sponsors, and could
alleviate concerns expressed by employers (including small businesses)
regarding the amount of administrative burden they would have to take
on to participate in registered apprenticeship. The Department is
considering this deregulatory action because these outcomes would help
accelerate the expansion of registered apprenticeship, in line with the
Administration and the Department's ambitious goals to grow the system,
including in industries and sectors where registered apprenticeship is
not currently widespread. In addition, the Department is considering
this deregulatory action in light of the Administration's call for
Federal agencies to review their regulations and remove regulations
that impose undue or unnecessary burdens on stakeholders.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule
The primary objective of the proposed rule is to alleviate
administrative burden for registered apprenticeship stakeholders and
promote a more straightforward framework for the regulated community to
participate in the system and maintain compliance with the governing
regulations (at 29 CFR parts 29 and 30). In addition, this proposed
rule seeks to eliminate a duplicative and ineffective (and, in light of
recent case law, legally questionable) regulatory framework for
antidiscrimination protections in registered apprenticeship. These
objectives align with the broader goals of the Administration and the
Department to identify and modify burdensome regulations, preserve
limited enforcement resources, and keep pace with evolving issues in
antidiscrimination law. The National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 stands
as the Department's statutory basis for promulgating regulations on
apprenticeship.
3. Classes of Small Entities
A small entity is one that is independently owned and operated and
that is not dominant in its field of operation. 5 U.S.C. 601(3); 15
U.S.C. 632. The definition of small entity varies from industry to
industry to properly reflect industry size differences. 13 CFR 121.201.
An agency must either use the SBA definition for a small entity or
establish an alternative definition for the industry. Using SBA size
standards, the Department has conducted a small entity impact analysis
on small entities in the five industry categories with the most
registered apprenticeship programs and for which data were available:
Construction, Educational Services, Manufacturing, Other Services, and
Healthcare.\41\ These top five industry categories account for 57
percent of the total number of apprenticeship sponsors who had active
apprenticeships in FY 2018.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ According to RAPIDS, the percent of programs (of all sizes)
in the selected sectors in 2024 were as follows: Construction, 33.5
percent; Educational Services, 24.1 percent; Manufacturing, 4.3
percent; Other Services, 3.7 percent; Health Care and Social
Assistance, 3.6 percent. Public Administration was 24.1 percent and
11.6 percent of programs did not have an industry available.
\42\ RAPIDS includes a portion of all registered apprenticeship
programs and apprentices nationwide because SAAs that are recognized
by the Department of Labor to serve as the Registration Agency may
choose, but are not required, to participate in RAPIDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One industry, Public Administration, made the initial top-five list
but is not included in this analysis because no data on the revenue of
small local jurisdictions were available. Local jurisdictions are
classified as small when their population is less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C.
601(5).
Registered apprenticeship program sponsors may be employers,
employer associations, industry associations, or labor management
organizations and, thus, may represent businesses, multiple businesses,
and not-for-profit organizations. The requirements of the
[[Page 28970]]
proposed rule, however, fall on the sponsor, and therefore we used
sponsor data to create industry breakdowns.
4. Impact on Small Entities
The Department has estimated the incremental costs for small
entities from the baseline of the 2016 Final Rule.\43\ This analysis
reflects the incremental cost of the proposed rule, as it adds to the
requirements of the 2016 Final Rule. Using available data, we have
estimated the costs to sponsors of familiarizing themselves with the
rule change. A significant economic burden results when the total
incremental annual cost as a percentage of total average annual revenue
is equal to or exceeds 3 percent.\44\ Because the estimated annual
burden of the proposed rule is less than 1 percent of the average
annual revenue of each industry category, the proposed rule is not
expected to cause a significant economic impact to small entities.
These entities include individual employers, groups of employers, labor
management organizations, or industry associations that sponsor
apprenticeships. As explained in detail below, the total impact amounts
to approximately $118.89 per affected small entity in the first year.
All costs are incurred in the first year. Because all the proposed rule
provisions will have a similar impact on entities across economic
sectors, we calculated impacts to a representative single entity.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Federal Register: Apprenticeship Programs; Equal Employment
Opportunity.
\44\ See Small Business Association, A Guide for Government
Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 17-19
(June 2010), available at http://www.sba.gov/content/guide-government-agencies-how-comply-with-regulatory-flexibility-act-0
(last accessed Apr. 7, 2011). The Department has used the 3 percent
threshold in previous regulations.
\45\ A large entity could have a single apprentice or a small
entity could have multiple apprentices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
a. Familiarization With Regulatory Change
During the first year after implementation of the eventual final
rule, sponsors will need to learn about the new regulatory
requirements. We estimated this cost for a hypothetical small entity by
multiplying the time required to read the new rule (1 hours) by the
average hourly compensation rate of a human resources manager ($107.04,
as calculated above). Thus, the resulting cost per small entity is
107.04 ($107.04 x 1). This cost occurs only in the year after the final
rule is published.
b. Updating Standards for Compliance
Sponsors of registered apprenticeship programs will also need to
develop language or make adjustments and updates to existing standards
to comply with the proposed changes to part 30. The Department
estimates that updating standards to comply with part 30 will mainly be
removing items currently required by part 30 and therefore estimates
the burden will be minimal. The Department assumes news sponsors will
take a similar amount of time to ensure the standards they develop do
not conflict with part 30. Accordingly, the Department estimates the
average response time for sponsors to ensure standards comply with part
30 is 20 minutes (0.33 hours). Thus, the resulting cost per small
entity is $11.85 (0.33 x $35.91).
For a hypothetical small entity in the top five industry
categories, the first-year cost of this rule is $118.89 ($107.04 +
$11.85). There are no costs in subsequent years.
Total Cost Burden for Small Entities
For a hypothetical small entity in the top five industry
categories, the first-year cost of this rule is $118.89 ($107.04 +
$11.85). There are no costs in subsequent years.
The total cost impacts, as a percentage of revenue, are all well
below the 3 percent threshold for determining a significant economic
impact.
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.\46\ Next the Department obtained data on the number of firms,
number of employees, and annual revenue by industry and firm size
category from the Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses.\47\
Then, the Department divided the estimated first-year cost per sponsor
by the average annual receipts per firm to determine whether the
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on sponsors in
each size category.\48\ Finally, the Department divided the number of
firms in each size category by the total number of small firms in the
industry to determine whether the proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ U.S. Small Business Administration, ``Table of Small
Business Size Standards,'' Mar. 17, 2023, https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. The size standards, which are
expressed in either average annual receipts or number of employees,
indicate the maximum allowed for a business in each subsector to be
considered small.
\47\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Statistics of U.S. Businesses,''
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/data.html.
\48\ For purposes of this analysis, the Department used a 3-
percent threshold for ``significant economic impact.'' The
Department has used a 3-percent threshold in prior rulemakings.
\49\ For purposes of this analysis, the Department used a 15-
percent threshold for ``substantial number of small entities.'' The
Department has used a 15-percent threshold in prior rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results are presented in the following five tables, one for
each major industry sector with the most registered apprenticeship
programs and for which data are available: Construction, Educational
Services, Manufacturing, Other Services, and Healthcare. As shown in
the five tables below, the first-year costs for sponsors in these five
industries are not expected to have a significant economic impact (3
percent or more) on small entities of any size. Therefore, the
Department certifies that the proposed rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
BILLING CODE 4510-FR-P
[[Page 28971]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY25.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY25.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY25.002
[[Page 28972]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY25.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY25.004
BILLING CODE 4510-FR-C
5. Relevant Federal Rules Duplicating, Overlapping, or Conflicting With
the Proposed
The Department has not identified any federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. Instead, this
proposed rule is removing duplication that currently exists because
sponsors will no longer have to refer complaints to the SAAs. Requiring
sponsors to refer complaints to the SAAs is duplicative because, in
practice, SAAs referred complaints to the appropriate non-
discrimination enforcement agencies and employers are already required
to refer such complaints to the relevant non-discrimination enforcement
agency.
6. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
Regarding significant alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplishes the objectives of applicable statutes and minimizes any
significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities, the
Department believes there are limited options. Repealing part 30
entirely would still require sponsors who are small entities to update
their standards to remove reference to part 30, costing $11.85 per
sponsor. There could be lower to no rule familiarization costs for
small entities if part 30 was repealed entirely, since there would be
no rule that entities would have to be familiarized with, however
sponsors would still need to be informed of the change and may review
the Federal Register notice. However, the Department believes that
removing part 30 entirely would prevent conformity across the
Registered Apprenticeship System, as some states may choose to impose
additional requirements for sponsors to conduct legally questionable
affirmative action or other EEO activities that expand beyond the scope
of the Department's proposed part 30 rule. If part 30 was repealed
entirely and states were to impose additional EEO requirements, these
new requirements and the resulting confusion from a patchwork of
different requirements across jurisdictions could ultimately lead to
greater costs for small entities.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ The Department is not able to estimate or monetize the cost
of the additional potential EEO requirements states may pursue if
part 30 is repealed, because it is unknown what requirements states
would impose on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, the Department considered publishing a direct final
rule or an interim final rule to make changes to the part 30
regulation. However, the
[[Page 28973]]
Department determined that these approaches to rulemaking would have
given smaller entities no advanced notice of changes to the part 30
regulation, given that the changes would take effect immediately upon
(or soon after) publication, and would have denied small entities the
opportunity to provide robust feedback on the changes. Accordingly, the
Department believes a proposed rule is more appropriate and will allow
the Department to better account for small businesses' viewpoint and
needs.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The purpose of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., includes minimizing
the paperwork burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain
actions before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of
information, including publishing for public comment a summary of the
collection of information and a brief description of the need for and
proposed use of the information.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment
on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance
with the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(C)(2)(A). Furthermore, the PRA
requires all Federal agencies to analyze proposed and final regulations
for potential time burdens on the regulated community created by
provisions in the regulations that require any party to obtain,
maintain, retain, report, or disclose information. The ICRs also must
be submitted to OMB for approval. Such submissions often accompany a
proposed and final rulemaking that seeks to modify an existing IC,
introduce new ICs, or both.
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. See
44 U.S.C. 3512.
This rulemaking affects specific information collections (OMB
Control Number 1205-0223, which includes OMB-approved forms ETA-671,
ETA-9186, and ETA-9039). Changes to these collections will be
communicated through an upcoming 60-day Federal Register Notice.
1. Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity for Registered
Apprenticeship Programs--Registration and Reporting Requirements
Agency: DOL-ETA.
Title of Collection: Labor Standards and Equal Employment
Opportunity for Registered Apprenticeship Programs--Registration and
Reporting Requirements.
Type of Review: Revision.
OMB Control Number: 1205-0223.
Description:
Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private
Sector; Individuals or Households.
Obligation to Respond: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
Estimated Total Annual Respondents: placeholder.
Estimated Total Annual Responses: placeholder.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: placeholder.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Costs: placeholder.
Estimated Total Annual Other Burden Costs: placeholder.
Regulations Sections: placeholder.
D. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, if finalized, DOL will report to
Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date.
The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with
E.O. 13132 and found that it will have Federalism implications because
it will have substantial direct effects on States. Although matters of
Federalism in the National Registered Apprenticeship System are
primarily established through part 29, Labor Standards for Registration
of Apprenticeship Programs, which establishes the requirements for the
recognition of SAAs as Registration Agencies, the proposed revisions to
part 30 also have direct effect on a State's method of administering
registered apprenticeship for Federal purposes. In particular, the
proposed rule requires an SAA that seeks to obtain or maintain
recognition as the Registration Agency for Federal purposes, submit
State apprenticeship legislation, regulations, policies, and
operational procedures related to the nondiscrimination obligation
conformity requirements of part 30, and requires all program sponsors
registered with the State for Federal purposes to comply with the State
plan. This NPRM also requires OA's Administrator to provide written
concurrence on any subsequent modifications to the State plan, as
provided in proposed Sec. 29.13(b)(9).
The Department has determined that these requirements are essential
to ensure that SAAs conform to the new requirements of part 30, as a
precondition for recognition. OA regularly consults and collaborates
with State partners and organizations, including when developing and
promulgating updates to parts 29 or 30 impacting the National
Apprenticeship System. 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.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1532, requires each Federal agency to prepare a written
statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a final rule
that may result in $100 million or more in expenditures (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The current
threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177 million, using the
most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product.
This proposed rule does not meet or exceed the expenditure
threshold in any one year when adjusted for inflation. The requirements
of title II of UMRA, therefore, do not apply, and the Department has
not prepared a statement under the Act.
G. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with
E.O. 13175 and has determined that it does not have Tribal
implications. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 29
Apprenticeship agreements and complaints, Apprenticeship programs,
[[Page 28974]]
Program standards, Registration and deregistration, Sponsor
eligibility, State Apprenticeship Agency recognition and derecognition,
Suitability for registered apprenticeship criteria.
29 CFR Part 30
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:
PART 29--LABOR STANDARDS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF APPRENTICESHIP
PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 50; 40 U.S.C. 3145; 5 U.S.C. 301; 5 U.S.C.
App. P. 534.
0
2. Amend Sec. 29.3 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.3 Eligibility and procedure for registration of an
apprenticeship program.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) It is in conformity with the requirements of the Department's
nondiscrimination in apprenticeship regulation at 29 CFR part 30, as
amended.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 29.5 by revising paragraph (b)(21) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.5 Standards of apprenticeship.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(21) Compliance with 29 CFR part 30, including a statement that the
program will be conducted, operated, and administered in conformity
with applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 30, as amended, or if
applicable, an approved State plan for nondiscrimination in
apprenticeship.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 29.6 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.6 Program performance standards.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Compliance Reviews; and
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 29.7 by revising paragraph (j) and revising paragraph
(l) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.7 Apprenticeship agreement.
* * * * *
(j) A statement that the apprentice will not be illegally
discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, age (40 or older), genetic information, or disability in
any phase of apprenticeship employment and training.
* * * * *
(l) A request for demographic data about the apprentice.
0
6. Amend Sec. 29.11 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.11 Limitations.
* * * * *
(b) Any special provision for veterans in the standards, apprentice
qualifications or operation of the program, or in the apprenticeship
agreement, which is not prohibited by law, Executive Order, or
authorized regulation.
0
7. Amend Sec. 29.12 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.12 Complaints.
(a) This section is not applicable to any complaint concerning
illegal discrimination; all such complaints received by a Registration
Agency must be submitted to the relevant enforcement authority, as set
forth in 29 CFR 30.4, or according to applicable provisions of the
State Plan for nondiscrimination.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 29.13 by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(4), (h)(2), and
(j)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.13 Recognition of State Apprenticeship Agencies.
(a) * * *
(3) The State Apprenticeship Agency must submit a State Plan for
nondiscrimination in apprenticeship that conforms to the requirements
published in 29 CFR part 30;
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Establish policies and procedures to prohibit illegal
discrimination in registered apprenticeship programs in conformity with
the requirements set forth in 29 CFR part 30;
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) Provide all apprenticeship program standards, apprenticeship
agreements, completion records, cancellation and suspension records,
Compliance Review files, and any other documents relating to the
State's apprenticeship programs, to the Department; and
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) An apprenticeship program submitted to a State Registration
Agency for registration must, for Federal purposes, be in conformity
with the State apprenticeship law, regulations, and with the State Plan
for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship as submitted to, and approved
by, the Office of Apprenticeship pursuant to 29 CFR part 30.
(2) In the event that a State Apprenticeship Agency is not
recognized by the Office of Apprenticeship for Federal purposes or that
such recognition has been withdrawn, or if no State Apprenticeship
Agency exists, registration with the Office of Apprenticeship may be
requested. Such registration must be granted if the program is
conducted, administered, and operated in accordance with the
requirements of this part and the nondiscrimination in apprenticeship
regulation in 29 CFR part 30, as amended.
0
9. Amend Sec. 29.14 by revising paragraphs (a) and (h)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.14 Derecognition of State Apprenticeship Agencies.
* * * * *
(a) Derecognition proceedings for failure to adopt or properly
enforce a State Plan for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship must be
processed in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this part.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Provide all apprenticeship program standards, apprenticeship
agreements, completion records, cancellation and suspension records,
Compliance Review files, and any other documents relating to the
State's apprenticeship programs, to the Department.
* * * * *
0
11. Revise part 30 to read as follows:
PART 30--PROHIBITING ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION IN REGISTERED
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS
Sec.
30.1 Purpose and applicability.
30.2 Definitions.
30.3 Nondiscrimination standards applicable to all sponsors.
30.4 Complaints.
30.5 Nondiscrimination compliance reviews and enforcement.
30.6 Reinstatement of program registration.
30.7 State apprenticeship agencies.
30.8 Exemptions.
Authority: 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.
[[Page 28975]]
Sec. 30.1 Purpose and applicability.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to establish a uniform
Federal standard prohibiting illegal discrimination against apprentices
(including applicants for apprenticeship) in registered apprenticeship
programs. To achieve this purpose, this part sets forth
nondiscrimination requirements for program sponsors and State
Apprenticeship Agencies (SAAs), and clarifies the scope and content of
compliance reviews, compliance assistance, and enforcement actions by
Registration Agencies.
(b) Applicability. This part applies to all sponsors of
apprenticeship programs registered with either the U.S. Department of
Labor or a recognized SAA.
Sec. 30.2 Definitions.
The definitions in Sec. 29.2 of this title also apply to this
part.
Sec. 30.3 Nondiscrimination standards applicable to all sponsors.
Compliance with Federal and State nondiscrimination laws.
Registered apprenticeship program sponsors must comply with all
applicable Federal and State laws and regulations prohibiting illegal
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
sex, age (40 or older), genetic information, or disability. Failure to
comply with such nondiscrimination laws is grounds for deregistration
or the imposition of other enforcement actions in accordance with Sec.
30.5(c), if such non-compliance is related to illegal discrimination
against apprentices or an applicant to an apprenticeship program with
respect to any benefit, term, or condition of employment associated
with an apprenticeship.
Sec. 30.4 Complaints.
Referral of complaints to other agencies. If the Registration
Agency receives any complaints from apprentices (including applicants
for apprenticeship) alleging illegal discrimination, it will
immediately refer the individual to:
(a) The EEOC;
(b) The United States Attorney General; or
(c) For an SAA, to its Fair Employment Practices Agency.
Sec. 30.5 Nondiscrimination compliance reviews and enforcement.
(a) Conduct of compliance reviews. Concurrently with a Registration
Agency's review of a registered apprenticeship program for conformity
with the requirements of 29 CFR part 29, a Registration Agency will
assess a program's compliance with the nondiscrimination requirement of
section 30.3(a) of this part.
(b) Determining compliance. For the purpose of determining
compliance under this part, the Registration Agency may initiate
enforcement actions against a sponsor for failure to comply with the
nondiscrimination requirement at Sec. 30.3(a) in instances where a
final determination of a violation of an applicable nondiscrimination
law, without any remaining right to appeal, has been made by an
enforcement entity or court with jurisdiction over a matter, and
authority to issue a final determination, relating to an apprentice or
an applicant to an apprenticeship program.
(c) Compliance and enforcement actions. Upon learning of a final
determination made by an enforcement entity or court with respect to a
sponsor's violation of an applicable nondiscrimination law (as
described in paragraph (b) of this section), the Registration Agency
may work with the sponsor to develop a compliance action plan that
aligns with the remedy prescribed by the enforcement entity or court
and brings the program into compliance with this part. If the
Registration Agency determines that a compliance action plan is not
being implemented in accordance with the remedy prescribed by the
enforcement entity or court, the Registration Agency may initiate
enforcement actions that will remain in place until the violation is
resolved to the satisfaction of the Registration Agency. Enforcement
actions by the Registration Agency include:
(1) Suspension of the sponsor's right to register new apprentices,
or
(2) The initiation of deregistration proceedings set forth in part
29 of this subtitle.
Sec. 30.6 Reinstatement of program registration.
An apprenticeship program that has been deregistered pursuant to
this part may be reinstated by the Registration Agency upon
presentation of adequate evidence that the apprenticeship program is
operating in accordance with this part.
Sec. 30.7 State apprenticeship agencies.
(a) State laws pertaining to apprenticeship. Within 1 year of the
effective date of this final rule, unless an extension for good cause
is sought and granted by the Administrator, an SAA that seeks to obtain
or maintain recognition under Sec. 29.13 of this title must submit a
State plan for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship, as described in
paragraph (b) of this section, that demonstrates that the State's
apprenticeship laws, regulations, policies, and operational procedures
related to the nondiscrimination obligation conform only to the
requirements of this part.
(b) Elements of the State plan for nondiscrimination in
apprenticeship.
(1) The State plan for nondiscrimination in apprenticeship must--
(i) Include current State statutes, regulations, policies and
operational procedures pertaining exclusively to nondiscrimination in
apprenticeship that conform only to the requirements of this part; and
(ii) Require all apprenticeship programs registered with the State
for Federal purposes to comply with the requirements of the State's
plan within 180 days from the date that OA provides written approval of
the State plan submitted under paragraph (a).
(2) Upon receipt of the State plan, OA will review the plan to
determine if the plan conforms to this part. OA will:
(i) Grant the SAA continued recognition during this review period;
(ii) Provide technical assistance, if necessary, to facilitate
conformity, and provide written notification of the areas of
nonconformity, if any; and
(iii) Upon successful completion of the review process, notify the
SAA of OA's determination that the State plan conforms to this part.
(3) If the State does not submit a revised State plan that
adequately responds to OA's technical assistance within 90 days from
the date that OA provides the SAA with written notification of the
areas of nonconformity, OA is authorized to initiate the process set
forth in Sec. 29.14 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 plan, as
well as any subsequent modification to that plan, as provided in Sec.
29.13(b)(9) of this title.
(c) Recordkeeping requirements. A recognized SAA must keep all
records pertaining to program compliance reviews and any other records
pertinent to a determination of compliance with this part. These
records must be maintained for five years from the date of their
creation.
(d) Retention of authority. As provided in Sec. 29.13 of this
subtitle, OA retains the full authority to:
(1) Conduct compliance reviews of all registered apprenticeship
programs;
(2) Deregister for Federal purposes an apprenticeship program
registered with
[[Page 28976]]
a recognized SAA as provided in Sec. Sec. 29.8(b) and 29.10 of this
chapter; and
(e) Derecognition. A recognized SAA that fails to comply with the
requirements of this section will be subject to derecognition
proceedings, as provided in Sec. 29.14 of this chapter.
Sec. 30.8 Exemptions.
Requests for exemption from these regulations, or any part thereof,
must be made in writing to the Registration Agency and must contain a
statement of reasons supporting the request. Exemptions may be granted
for good cause by the Registration Agency. SAAs must receive approval
to grant an exemption from the Administrator, prior to granting an
exemption from these regulations.
Susan Frazier,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2025-12317 Filed 6-30-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FR-P