Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration rule (2022)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) effective November 25, 2022, that rescinded regulations that governed the Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs), as directed by Executive Order 14016. The rule also amended regulations regarding the registration of apprenticeship programs.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration
  • Agency: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor
  • Action: Final rule
  • Type of significant rule: Economically significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    • November 25, 2022: The final rule took effect.[1]
    • September 26, 2022: DOL published the final rule.[1]
    • January 14, 2022: DOL closed the comment period.[2]
    • November 15, 2021: DOL published a proposed rule and opened the comment period.[2]
    • February 17, 2021: President Joe Biden (D) issued Executive Order 14016, directing agencies to consider rescinding rules and other regulatory actions implemented in response to Executive Order 13801, issued by the Trump administration.[3]

    Background

    The National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (NAA) was signed into law in an effort to establish labor standards to protect apprentices and develop apprenticeship programs. The U.S. Department of Labor enacted regulations in 1977 to implement equal employment opportunity in apprenticeship and labor standards for the registration of apprenticeship programs under the NAA.[1]

    President Donald Trump (R) issued Executive Order 13801 on June 15, 2017, titled "Expanding Apprenticeships in America." The order directed the secretary of labor to consider implementing regulations in an effort to encourage third parties to develop Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs), which are a "form of high-quality apprenticeship programs that [provide] individuals with opportunities to obtain workplace-relevant knowledge and progressively advancing skills," according to Apprenticeship.gov. The order also established a task force in an effort to "identify strategies and proposals to promote apprenticeships," according to the rule. In response to the executive order, the department issued a proposed rule on June 25, 2019, to propose amendments to regulations governing Standards Recognition Entities (SREs) and IRAPs. Following the proposed rule, the department issued a final rule on March 11, 2020, to enact the following changes:[1][4]

    “ The 2020 IRAP final rule established a set of standards and procedures under which the Administrator would evaluate and extend recognition to SREs; these recognized SREs, in turn, were authorized under the rule to evaluate and recognize IRAPs. The 2020 IRAP final rule set forth in detail the requirements for third-party entities applying for Departmental recognition as SREs. It also identified certain requirements apprenticeship programs must meet to obtain recognition from SREs as IRAPs. The 2020 IRAP final rule became effective on May 11, 2020.[5] ”


    President Joe Biden (D) issued Executive Order 14016 on February 17, 2021, titled "Revocation of Executive Order 13801." The order directed agencies to consider rescinding rules and other regulatory actions implemented in response to Trump's executive order. In response to the order, the Department of Labor announced a review of the IRAP system and suspended the review of new SRE recognition applications. Following the review, the department issued a proposed rule on November 15, 2021, proposing to rescind the 2020 rule and to adopt changes to the Registered Apprenticeship regulations.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) is issuing this final rule to rescind its 2020 regulation that established a process under which the Department's Office of Apprenticeship (OA) Administrator (Administrator) was authorized to grant recognition to qualified third-party entities, known as Standards Recognition Entities (SREs), which in turn were authorized to evaluate and extend recognition to Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs). This final rule also makes necessary conforming changes to the regulations governing the registration of apprenticeship programs by the Department.[1][5] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “

    The Department is rescinding the 2020 IRAP final rule because it has determined that the Department's efforts and resources should be focused on Registered Apprenticeship, which has proven to be highly successful for both industry and workers and incorporates valuable quality standards and worker protections. This is consistent with the Administration's priority to expand Registered Apprenticeship because of its success as a pathway to the middle class and ability to connect a diverse workforce to family-supporting jobs. Further, it aligns with the Department's priority to use 'Registered Apprenticeship [to] provide pathways to strengthen our workforce and our economy.' 

    In contrast, and as explained in detail in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department now believes the 2020 IRAP final rule does not align with the Department's priorities of providing high-quality training with an emphasis on apprentice safety and welfare. 86 FR 62968–71. This is due to the 2020 IRAP final rule's fewer quality training and worker protection standards as compared to Registered Apprenticeship's on-the-job learning and related instruction requirements and apprentice protections, such as enhanced safety standards, a progressive wage requirement, and EEO regulations. Within the Registered Apprenticeship regulations, there is also greater accountability because the Department can exercise direct oversight to ensure employers provide industry-established prevailing wages, ensure stringent safety standards are in place, and monitor program quality to protect workers. By contrast, the Department's limited, indirect oversight role of IRAPs under the 2020 IRAP final rule constrains its ability to ensure that IRAPs are providing quality training and worker protection, leading to potentially inequitable access to higher quality training and worker protections among program participants. Accordingly, the Department no longer believes the IRAP model is a reasonable or effective alternative to the training standards, worker protection, and oversight that are the cornerstones of Registered Apprenticeship. 86 FR 62968–71.

    The Department also determined that two of the key justifications for issuing the 2020 IRAP final rule—the purported inflexibility in the Registered Apprenticeship system and the administrative burdens hindering Registered Apprenticeship's ability to meet the needs of different industries—are fundamentally flawed. As discussed at length in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the assertion that the Registered Apprenticeship system is inflexible and administratively burdensome is belied by the demonstrated success of Registered Apprenticeship for industry and workers alike, and by Registered Apprenticeship's continued growth and expansion into new industries and occupations. Indeed, Registered Apprenticeship has continued to show strong growth since its establishment, including the latest data reflecting strong growth in 2020 and 2021, during the height of the COVID–19 pandemic. RAPs are a flexible training strategy, with vital quality controls, that can be customized to meet the business needs for a skilled workforce. As the Department discussed in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the most recent data reflects that Registered Apprenticeship has not only continued to grow but has also expanded into 'non-traditional' industry sectors, such as healthcare, cybersecurity, transportation, and advanced manufacturing, through a variety of initiatives (e.g., Department's 2015 American Apprenticeship Initiative (AAI)) and has demonstrated success in those sectors. 86 FR 62971–72.

    The Department also determined that the 2020 IRAP final rule's justification that IRAPs were necessary to address a purported 'skills gap' was based on faulty reasoning. As discussed in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department no longer believes the purported 'skills gap,' as referenced in the 2020 IRAP final rule, to be the major challenge facing the labor market. 86 FR 62971. Rather, the Department now believes that there are additional factors that have a bearing on industry labor needs, such as employer investments in workforce development, competitive and rising wages to attract and retain workers, commitments to opportunity and diversity, and worker empowerment. These are factors that the RAP framework supports and is well-positioned to address, thereby providing a more promising and effective framework for addressing and closing persistent inefficiencies in the labor market. In contrast, the 2020 IRAP final rule is deficient in incorporating these factors, and its deficiencies in job quality and worker protection requirements (particularly with respect to EEO and progressive wages for apprentices) reduce the ability of IRAPs to address any current or future labor shortages. Further, the IRAP final rule's deficiencies in ensuring quality standards for workers undermine both the RAP framework and the Administration's commitment to promoting good quality, family-sustaining jobs for all workers, including apprentices.

    Finally, through the experience of administering the IRAP system, the Department has determined that the IRAP system is redundant of Registered Apprenticeship and that such redundancy creates confusion and reduces resources that would be better used to support the continued success and growth of Registered Apprenticeship across industries and occupations. As discussed in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, the Department observed significant duplication of occupations covered by RAPs and IRAPs. 86 FR 62972. The Department notes that the flexible RAP model has continued to expand into emerging occupations and sectors; accordingly, as discussed above and in the 2021 IRAP Rescission NPRM, there is a significant overlap in the industry sectors served by RAPs and IRAPs. Further, the administration of the IRAP system has generated duplicative work and costs for the Department, created inconsistent standards for quality training, reduced worker protections such as EEO, and committed limited resources that could have been better utilized by the Department to partner with industry to expand the existing Registered Apprenticeship system. 86 FR 62971–72. [5]

    		”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

    Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. Executive Order 14094, issued by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023, made changes to Executive Order 12866, including referring to economically significant rules as section 3(f)(1) significant rules and raising the monetary threshold for economic significance to $200 million or more.[1]


    The text of the rule states that OMB deemed this rule economically significant under E.O. 12866:

    “ Under E.O. 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the E.O. and review by OMB. See 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a 'significant regulatory action' as an action that is likely to result in a rule that: (1) has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affects in a material way a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal Governments or communities (also referred to as economically significant); (2) creates serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the E.O. Id. OIRA has determined that this final rule is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.[5] ”

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    Responses

    The following section provides a selection of responses to the rule issued by DOL to rescind the 2020 IRAP rule.

    Education and Labor Committee Chairman Robert Scott (D-Va.) spoke in support of the rule and its efforts to end the IRAP program, according to SHRM:[6]

    “ IRAPs discarded key features responsible for the success of our registered apprenticeship system, including quality standards and worker protections ... Every dollar spent on IRAPs was a dollar not spent on established, high-quality apprenticeship opportunities that provide apprentices with decent wages, portable skills and nationally recognized credentials.[5] ”


    The U.S. Department of Labor issued a statement arguing that the IRAP system was not in the best interest of workers and that the rule would aid workers in accessing jobs:[7]

    “ By taking this regulatory action, the department reaffirms its commitment to the Registered Apprenticeship system and its value in helping U.S. workers, particularly those from underserved communities, to access good-paying, family sustaining jobs.[5] ”


    Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) wrote a letter to Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh opposing the department's rule and subsequent limitations on training opportunities for workers:[8]

    “ IRAPs are nimble, able to adapt to changing work practices, and match skills needed for modern industries. DOL recognition of IRAPs could also provide these programs access to benefits from the Workforce Investment Opportunity Act (WIOA). By eliminating IRAPs, DOL is creating an unnecessary obstacle for workers to have access to these additional high-quality training opportunities. While the final rule states those participating in the IRAP program can transition to a registered apprenticeship or seek recognition from state programs, this creates a bureaucratic obstacle that is patently unfair and unnecessary to the current IRAP providers and the workers participating in these programs.[5] ”


    Representative Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) released a statement against the rule arguing that workers benefit more from employer-led apprenticeship programs, according to SHRM:[6]

    “ Instead of promoting employer-led apprenticeship programs—which allow job creators to provide workers with the tools for success—the DOL is giving them the axe ... Job creators are on the front lines of their respective industries every day, and understand the exact skills workers need to be successful. It is sheer lunacy to think that Washington bureaucrats, who have never worked in the industries they hope to regulate, would know better.[5] ”

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Federal Register, "Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration," September 26, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Federal Register, "Apprenticeship Programs, Labor Standards for Registration," November 15, 2021
    3. ↑ Federal Register, "Revocation of Executive Order 13801," February 23, 2021
    4. ↑ Apprenticeship.gov, "Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program Frequently Asked Questions," accessed October 4, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 SHRM, "DOL Rescinds Trump's Employer-Led Apprenticeships," September 26, 2022
    7. ↑ U.S. Department of Labor, "US Department of Labor to Refocus on Proven Registered Apprenticeship Model, Rescind Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program," September 23, 2022
    8. ↑ Fox News, "Department of Labor spikes Trump apprenticeship program detested by unions," October 7, 2022
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Apprenticeship_Programs,_Labor_Standards_for_Registration_rule_(2022)&oldid=10361027"