The proposed rulemaking to update 29 CFR part 29 is the most comprehensive effort to modernize the Registered Apprenticeship (RA) system in over 15 years, and we appreciate the Department of Labor’s goals of ensuring quality, strengthening worker protections, and streamlining RA governance as part of these regulations. The increase in federal investments in Registered Apprenticeship has doubled the number of apprentices in the past 10 years.

We appreciate that these proposed regulations pair the goal to scale the system with an emphasis on program and system quality, which are critical to maintaining Registered Apprenticeship’s success in connecting apprentices to annual salaries that average $80,000 and a return on investment for employers of $1.44 for every dollar spent on apprenticeship.

We also appreciate that many of the proposed regulations support consistency and transparency by formalizing practices that have been practically but informally in effect already. New rules, such as the creation of National Occupational Standards, further advance these goals.

At the same time, we share four serious concerns that recur throughout our public comments. First, we do not believe that rulemaking is the most effective strategy to implement many of the proposed changes, particularly those that are still untested or require the cooperation of agencies outside the apprenticeship system. Second, many of these changes are not backed by evidence showing that they will improve system and program quality. Third, given the essential role of the voluntary participation of sponsors and employers in the system, taken as a whole, we are concerned that the regulations add burden and complexity to the National Apprenticeship System (NAS) that will work at cross-purposes with scaling apprenticeship. Fourth, implementing many of these regulations would require significant financial investments by program sponsors, state agencies, and the Office of Apprenticeship, but the regulations do not provide those additional resources.

We offer the following key concerns and considerations regarding the enhancements to the NAS:

1. Consider refining the definition of pre-apprenticeship to emphasize it as an on-ramp that prepares people to be successful registered apprentices and to make the definition consistent with the broader NAS in providing compensation for any productive work on the job.
2. The proposed rule to establish occupational suitability for apprenticeship is not sufficiently objective and data-driven, but it presents an opportunity to make the determination process more empirical and transparent. We strongly encourage the department to adopt a set of metrics to determine whether an occupation is suitable, such as alignment with an existing Standard Occupational Classification code, estimated occupational openings, and median wages provided by the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics program. For existing occupations that fall below the established wage standard, the department could request supplemental justification.
3. While the department's efforts to enhance apprenticeship program quality are commendable, the wholesale elimination of competency-based and time-based approaches appears overly drastic. Collaborative approaches in which stakeholders’ and intermediary organizations’ input is incorporated to better standardize program time ranges and variations could create more nuanced solutions that balance quality assurance with program flexibility and innovation.
4. Taken together, the additions to the program-registration requirements add significant work for sponsors and employers, with uneven benefit for program quality. We recommend that DOL consider which of these new requirements are most critical to program quality and worker protections, and prioritize those changes while removing other new barriers that impede sponsors and employers from participating in RA.
5. The National Occupational Standards proposal is a positive recommendation for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). But the department should be more aggressive in its approach to the expansion and creation of National Occupational Standards programs. It should also be more flexible in how it builds these programs, allowing them to be created by third parties, such as industry intermediaries and Centers of Excellence. Lastly, it should allow these programs to be fast-tracked by providing a 30-day approval period for programs using National Occupational Standards.
6. Objective end-point assessments could add significant value to the NAS and apprentices with the involvement of an independent or third-party entity and standardization across employers. Given the lack of information about the use of end-point assessments in the NAS and the potential costs to program sponsors and employers, we strongly urge the department to gather more evidence about associated costs and feasibility before adopting an end-point assessment requirement. The department should also be clear about what happens to apprentices who do not pass after maximum attempts, and it should listen to diverse stakeholder voices to consider equity implications of end-point assessment failures.
7. We recommend that DOL consider leaning in to using exemptions to test strategies to modernize and improve RA programs rather than complicating the NAS with additional regulations and approaches to apprenticeship, while keeping the exemption process simple with decentralized approvals and explicit guidance about when exemptions are allowed.
8. We recommend that DOL consider an avenue outside rulemaking to expand career-and-technical-education–aligned RA programs within the existing RA model that can both avoid pitfalls—like adding complexity and confusion to the NAS and unintended consequences of an untested system—and offer critical supports for success, such as sufficient funding and reasons for stakeholders to participate in the model.
9. The effort in the NPRM to standardize data collection on apprentices and programs is important for successful administration and evaluation of the apprenticeship system. The department should clarify what entity is responsible for producing the quality metrics and how those metrics will be calculated.
10. The department should create more flexibility in how it recognizes state apprenticeship agencies (SAAs) in the bifurcated NAS. As proposed, the NPRM does not allow for such flexibility and will lead to further fracturing. It should also consider providing more resources to SAAs and the Office of Apprenticeship to become compliant.