[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 68 (Monday, April 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15374-15378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8513]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
29 CFR Part 1625
Coverage of Apprenticeship Programs Under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act (ADEA)
AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 3, 1995 pursuant to Executive Orders 12067 and 12866,
the Commission approved for inter-agency coordination and subsequent
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would rescind the current
apprenticeship regulation (29 C.F.R. Sec. 1625.13) and replace it with
a legislative regulation providing that apprenticeship programs are
subject to the ADEA. The Commission then published the NPRM in the
Federal Register for public comment on October 3, 1995. See 60 FR 51762
(Oct. 3, 1995). Based on a careful analysis of the comments received in
response to the NPRM, a reassessment of the statutory language and
legislative history of the ADEA, a review of case law and related
statutes, and a thorough examination of the history of apprenticeship
programs, the Commission has determined that a rule covering
apprenticeship programs will better advance the ADEA's objectives of
promoting the employment of older persons based on their ability rather
than age and prohibiting arbitrary age discrimination in employment.
Therefore, pursuant to sec. 9 of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 628, the
Commission is removing sec. 1625.13 from its Interpretive Regulations,
found in 29 C.F.R. Part 1625 and is adding in Part 1625, a new sec.
1625.21 under Subpart B - Substantive Regulations. The new sec. 1625.21
will subject all apprenticeship programs to the prohibitions of the Act
unless otherwise specifically exempted under sec. 9, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 628, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 C.F.R.
1627.15, or if excepted under section 4(f)(1) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 623 (f)(1).
Copies of this final rule are available in the following alternate
formats: large print, braille, electronic file on computer disk, and
audio tape. Copies may be obtained from the Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity by calling (202) 663-4395 (voice) or (202) 663-4399 (TDD).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule takes effect on May 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph N. Cleary, Assistant Legal
Counsel or James E. Cooks, Senior Attorney Advisor, (202) 663-4690
(voice), (202) 663-7026 (TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Historical Background.
The Department of Labor (DOL) was initially given jurisdiction over
the enforcement of the ADEA. In 1969, DOL published an interpretation
that excluded apprenticeship programs from the ADEA. See 34 Fed. Reg.
323 (January 9, 1969). The rationale given by DOL for the ``no-
coverage'' position was that apprenticeship programs had been
traditionally limited to youths under a specified age in recognition of
apprenticeship as an extension of the educational process.
The Commission assumed responsibility for enforcing the ADEA
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978. See 45 Fed. Reg. 19807
(May 9, 1978). In June of 1979, the Commission published a notice in
the Federal Register advising the public that all DOL interpretive
guidelines on the ADEA would remain in effect until such time as the
Commission could issue its own guidelines. See 44 Fed. Reg. 37974 (June
29, 1979). In November of 1979, the Commission published its own
proposed ADEA Guidelines, but did not include a proposal on the
apprenticeship issue. See 44 Fed. Reg. 68858 (Nov. 30, 1979).
On September 23, 1980, the Commission preliminarily approved a
proposed recision of the DOL position on apprenticeship and voted to
replace it with a legislative rule providing for coverage of
apprenticeship programs. The Commission then published for comment a
proposed legislative rule stating that age limitations in
apprenticeship programs would be unlawful under the ADEA unless
[[Page 15375]]
justified as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) or
specifically exempted by the Commission under sec. 9 of the Act. See 45
Fed. Reg. 64212 (Sept. 29, 1980).
After considering the public comments submitted in response to this
proposal, the Commission declined to adopt it by a vote of 2-2. It then
republished the DOL interpretive rule as part of its final ADEA
interpretations. See 46 Fed. Reg. 47726 (Sept. 29, 1981).
In August of 1983, a United States District Court in New York
reviewed the Commission's position on the applicability of the ADEA to
apprenticeship programs in Quinn v. New York State Electric and Gas
Corp., 569 F. Supp. 655 (1983). The Quinn court, inter alia, found the
interpretation invalid because it was not supported by ``the language,
purpose, and legislative history of the ADEA.'' Quinn, 569 F. Supp. at
664. The Commission, however, was not a party in this case, and the
court's decision did not require that the Agency take any action
regarding its apprenticeship interpretation.
In 1984 the Commission revisited the issue, expressing serious
concern about the interpretation. Prompted by this concern, the
Commission voted 4-0 to send a proposal to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) that would rescind the apprenticeship interpretation and
replace it with a legislative rule covering apprenticeship programs
under the Act. However, the proposal was never published in the Federal
Register for public comment. On July 30, 1987, the Commission voted 3-1
to terminate the proposed regulatory action and affirmatively approved
the interpretation excluding apprenticeship programs. See 52 Fed. Reg.
33809 (Sept. 8, 1987).
In 1995, a lawsuit was filed against the Commission challenging the
interpretation as an arbitrary and capricious agency action within the
meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. The
Commission has taken the position that its prior actions with respect
to the difficult issue of the proper relationship between the ADEA and
apprenticeship programs were reasonable, deliberate, and taken in good
faith. The Commission has rejected any claim that it acted in a manner
that is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise inconsistent with law.
The Commission also determined, however, that neither the ADEA nor
its legislative history required the existing position or prohibited
the adoption of a new rule--both are silent on the issue. Therefore,
because of changing circumstances in the workforce and structural
changes in the workplace, the Commission decided to propose for comment
a new legislative rule covering apprenticeship programs under the ADEA.
See 60 FR 51762 (Oct.3, 1995). The Commission took the position that
this action was necessary to insure the most appropriate policy in
light of present circumstances in the country which affect both
employers and employees.1
\1\ An ``[a]dministrative agency concerned with furtherance of
the public interest is not bound to rigid adherence to its prior
rulings.'' Columbia Broadcasting System v. Federal Communications
Commission, 454 F.2d 1018, 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
A. Introduction
Through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought to
examine various factors which contribute to many of the problems facing
older workers, applicants for employment generally, and employers. The
Commission submitted a series of questions for public consideration
which it deemed vital to its assessment of whether apprenticeship
programs should be covered under the ADEA. Members of the public were
given a 60 day period within which to comment, and the Commission has
carefully studied the viewpoints of the commenters.
The comments received represented the views of employers, labor
organizations, state and local government agencies, a legal services
organization, and advocacy groups for older workers, women, and
minorities. A clear majority of commenters, representing the interests
of large constituencies, favor rescinding the current interpretation
and promulgating the proposed rule. However, a large industry
membership organization was among the commenters who favor retaining
the current interpretation. The discussion which follows is a question-
by-question analysis of the comments received.
B. Analysis of Comments
1. The EEOC's Authority to Issue the New Rule
Commenters supporting the proposed rule argue that the ADEA is a
remedial civil rights statute and as such its coverage should be
interpreted broadly by the Commission with exceptions narrowly
construed. They believe that the existing rule exceeded the authority
of the Commission as well as the Department of Labor. They believe that
the Commission has full authority to promulgate a new regulatory
position regarding coverage of apprenticeship programs.
On the other hand, one commenter favoring retention of the current
position states that Congress never intended to cover apprenticeship
programs under the ADEA, and that the Commission is without authority
to change its existing interpretation on coverage of apprenticeship
programs. This commenter cites to statements by individual legislators
to the effect that only ``qualified'' older workers were covered by the
Act, arguing that this supports the view that apprentices are excluded
from coverage. It notes that the present interpretation has gone
unchallenged by Congress in the over 26 years it has been in existence.
The commenter draws an inference in support of its position from the
fact that Congress omitted from the ADEA explicit language covering
apprenticeship programs even though it had included such specific
language in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. See
42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 (d).
The Commission certainly agrees that it would not have authority to
promulgate this rule if it were clear from the statute or its
legislative history that Congress exempted apprenticeship programs from
the ADEA. In the Commission's view, however, nothing in the statute or
its legislative history prevents it from exercising its broad
legislative rulemaking authority under sec. 9 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
628, and promulgating a rule covering apprenticeship programs.
The ADEA is a remedial statute which should be broadly
construed.2 The statute and its history are silent regarding
apprenticeship programs and neither compel nor preclude their coverage.
The references in the legislative history to ``qualified older
workers'' are properly construed to mean only that employers could
reject applicants for apprenticeship programs who were not
``qualified'' for admission. The omission by Congress of specific
language covering apprenticeship programs is not dispositive because
the Act plainly covers employers and unions. Either separately or in
combination these entities sponsor virtually all apprenticeship
programs. Thus, Congress had no need to address apprenticeship programs
explicitly.
\2\ See Oscar Mayer and Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 765 (1979);
United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMann, 434 U.S. 192, 217-18 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the mere fact of the longevity of the previous
interpretation is not a bar to change. Indeed, an agency has a
continuing obligation to insure that its enforcement positions are
[[Page 15376]]
correct, which includes reevaluating them if necessary. An
``(a)dministrative agency concerned with furtherance of the public
interest is not bound to rigid adherence to its prior rulings.'' 3
A contrary view would lock an agency into a prior regulatory position
even when the position is later determined by the agency to be unwise
as a matter of policy or legally incorrect.
\3\ See footnote 1 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Commission concludes that it has authority to promulgate
this rule. The existence of its prior position excluding apprenticeship
programs from the ADEA does not act as a bar to changing that position
pursuant to its regulatory authority under sec. 9 of the ADEA. 29
U.S.C. 628. At the same time, however, the Commission reaffirms its
view that such position was reasonable, deliberate and taken in good
faith.
2. The EEOC's Ability To Establish sec. 9 Exemptions To Meet Legitimate
Needs for Age Limits
All commenters who address this issue are in agreement that the
Commission possesses the authority under section 9 of the Act, 29
U.S.C. 628, to grant exemptions from coverage for apprenticeship
programs when such action is necessary and proper in the public
interest. Commenters favoring a change in the interpretation emphasize
that if there are apprenticeship programs with special needs for age
limitations, the Commission has the flexibility to provide them with
relief under sec. 9. Commenters with this point of view argue that the
Commission's authority to be responsive to specific requests for relief
from the Act when required in the public interest is a compelling
reason to change the existing blanket exclusion of apprenticeship
programs.
A commenter opposed to adoption of the new rule states that if a
new position is implemented, the EEOC should adopt guidelines which set
forth in detail the standards that must be met to establish an
exemption under sec. 9, or a bona fide occupational qualification
(BFOQ) under sec. 4(f)(1) of the ADEA. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 623 (f) (1). The
commenter argues that these guidelines `` should clarify if and to what
extent economic factors will be given weight in establishing an
exemption or BFOQ.''
The Commission agrees with the commenters that it possesses
authority to recognize and accommodate the needs of individual
apprenticeship programs that may have a need for age limitations if to
do so is necessary and proper in the public interest. The Commission
also agrees with those who argue that the existence of this authority,
which can be used on a case-by-case basis, calls into question the need
for the existing interpretation with its sweeping reach.
The Commission does not believe that there is a need to develop
guidance on the sec. 9 exemption process or the BFOQ exemption in
advance of taking action on the apprenticeship interpretation. The
Commission has regulatory guidance in place on both topics. See 29
C.F.R. 1625.6 (BFOQ) and 1627.15 (Administrative Exemptions). There is
also substantial caselaw on the BFOQ topic. However, the Commission
will closely monitor requests for exemptions and will revisit the need
for further guidance as appropriate.
3. What Impact Will a Change in the Interpretation Have on Displaced
Older Workers?
A legal services organization favoring the new rule presented data
showing that ``over the past twenty years dislocations in the American
economy have required millions of American workers to look for new
jobs,'' often resulting in unemployment and underemployment. Numerous
commenters note that such dislocations have had a particularly harsh
impact on mid-life and older workers, and one commenter points to
language in the Act recognizing that older workers are ``especially
disadvantaged in their efforts to regain employment when displaced from
jobs.'' 29 U.S.C. 621(a)(1). The proponents of changing the
interpretation cite employer downsizing at a time of shrinking
opportunities for new employment as a ``compelling reason'' for
adoption of the proposed rule.
Proponents of the proposed rule also argue that lifting age
restrictions would provide employers with a larger pool of qualified
and talented employees. One set of comments offered by a state
government agency points out the tremendous potential of older workers
as a valuable resource for the nation's employers that can and should
be utilized. A number of proponents reason that ``downsizing, changing
technologies, and new growth industries all have created a demand for
workers with more advanced technical skills who can adapt quickly to
changing employer needs.'' Many believe ``that workers who can acquire
these skills will be well positioned to take advantage of the best job
opportunities'' and that older persons are needed to fill the void for
employers.
None of the opposition commenters argue that older workers would
not benefit by the removal of age limitations from apprenticeship
programs. Rather, commenters opposed to adoption of the proposed rule
contend that there are ample government-sponsored training programs to
assist older workers and that apprenticeship programs should not be
compelled to include them.
The Commission believes that eliminating age barriers in
apprenticeship programs will clearly benefit older workers. As noted
above, even opposition commenters do not argue to the contrary. The
Commission also believes that employers will benefit from an enhanced
pool of qualified workers.
The comments make clear that large numbers of older workers have
been laid off. Once laid off, older workers experience particular
problems in finding new employment. In addition to negative
stereotypical assumptions about older workers that make it difficult
for them to find new employment, changing technology has left many
older workers without the necessary skills to reenter the workforce.
The Commission believes that apprenticeship programs can play an
important role in providing the training necessary to overcome these
barriers to reemployment.
Employers would also benefit from an enhanced pool of qualified
persons to fill their needs. Demographic data demonstrates that older
workers comprise a substantial proportion of the potential workforce.
There may not be a sufficient number of younger persons to meet the
needs of America's employers. Older workers can be trained just as
readily as younger ones to handle emerging technologies.
4. What Impact Will Change in the Interpretation Have on Employers and
Future Sponsorship of Apprenticeship Programs?
Opponents of changing the apprenticeship interpretation argue that
a change would make it more difficult for program sponsors to recoup
their investments. They claim that older apprentices do not remain with
a particular employer, or in the workforce, as long as younger ones and
that older persons are less likely to complete an apprenticeship
program. They argue that sponsors of programs who see a diminishing
return on investment will discontinue the programs and turn to
recruitment to fill staffing needs. Opponents express the view that
changing the interpretation would lead to the unintended consequence of
fewer apprenticeship opportunities for all persons.
Supporters of the proposed rule maintain that there is no evidence
to
[[Page 15377]]
support the assertion that eliminating age barriers will make it more
difficult for employers to recoup their investment in apprenticeship
programs. These commenters point to: the continuation of apprenticeship
programs in states that prohibit age discrimination in such programs;
the increased mobility of workers of all ages which diminishes the
likelihood that employers will recoup a training investment through the
lifetime employment of any worker on the basis of age; and the growing
need for employers to invest in retraining for employees of all ages
given rapid advances in technology. Supporters of the proposed rule
also rely on data showing that older workers on average remain with the
same employer longer than younger workers.
The Commission is persuaded by the arguments of those in favor of
changing the interpretation. To begin with, they point to the lack of
objective evidence to support the claim of increased cost or
diminishing opportunities. Indeed, no such data has been presented to
the Commission. This is in spite of the fact that approximately one-
half of the states currently bar age discrimination in apprenticeship
programs. Moreover, opponents argue that older workers will leave the
workforce far sooner than younger workers, that older workers are less
likely to complete an apprenticeship program, and that older workers
will retire at the earliest opportunity. But such arguments fail to
consider research: refuting a link between age and declining
performance; showing that technology has shortened the time within
which a return on investment in apprenticeship for any worker can be
realized; or demonstrating positive virtues and work ethics on the part
of older persons. They also fail to consider information regarding
increased job mobility in the workforce for people of all ages, and
demographics demonstrating that older workers are an important resource
needed to maintain America's competitive position in the world.
In addition, no current useful data was presented regarding the
costs of apprenticeship programs. The only broad-based data submitted
was from a fifteen-year old study. One commenter submitted very high
cost figures regarding its own program but did so without any analysis
or explanation. As a result it was not possible to evaluate this
commenter's assertions. Insofar as the claims of increased costs are
based on stereotypical assumptions about the behavior of older persons,
the Commission is mindful of the fact that a principal purpose for the
enactment of the ADEA was precisely to prohibit employment actions
based on such assumptions. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604
(1993). Accordingly, the Commission rejects as unsupported the claim
that adoption of the proposed rule will harm employers and prevent the
future sponsorship of apprenticeship programs throughout the country.
5. What is the Impact of the Current Interpretation on Groups Such as
Minorities and Women That Have Been Disadvantaged by Historical
Employment Discrimination?
None of the commenters disagree that women and minorities are
underrepresented in craft occupations. Moreover, these employment
patterns have not changed significantly over the past fifteen years.
Supporters of changing the interpretation present data demonstrating
that African-Americans and Hispanics have been particularly hard hit by
job displacements over the past two decades and that permitting age
limitations in apprenticeship programs locks in the effects of past
discrimination and occupational segregation. One commenter supports its
position by pointing to the well documented history of race
discrimination in the crafts. Proponents also point to the fact that
minorities are often the last hired and the first fired in a reduction-
in-force. They state that overall unemployment rates for African-
Americans and other minorities are disproportionately high in
comparison to Whites and attribute much of the problem to minority
members' lack of seniority and lack of acquired skills in the crafts.
They view apprenticeship as a way in which minorities can acquire much
needed training in our rapidly changing workplace and state that older
minorities, especially, stand to benefit from apprenticeship training
in areas experiencing rapid technological change.
Similarly, supporters of the NPRM point to the problems women have
faced in gaining access to non-traditional jobs. Specifically, several
proponents of the proposed rule note that women go into the trades at a
later age than men, often because younger women pursue--and are
encouraged to pursue--more traditionally female occupations. This
commenter asserts that age limits lock in the effects of prior sex
discrimination just as they lock in the effects of prior race
discrimination.
One commenter cites statistics demonstrating a difference between
the weekly earnings for males and females between the ages of 45 and 64
of $221 in favor of males, in support of a need for greater access to
apprenticeship programs for older women. A number of commenters also
argue that access is extremely important for the ``more than 3 million
displaced homemakers--women who have been out of the workforce for some
time and are now seeking employment--[they are] older women between the
ages of 45 and 64.''
According to one proponent of change, statistics reveal that 90% of
single parent families in the United States are maintained by women.
Another supporter references statistics showing that 55% of all
households in West Virginia are headed by women. The commenter notes
that although women occupy this critical responsibility for the
children of America, they are often clustered in low paying
traditionally female jobs.
Another commenter contends that removing age limits from
apprenticeship programs would go hand-in-hand with current welfare
reform efforts. This commenter argues that apprenticeships will lead to
jobs in the trades for many older welfare recipients allowing them to
support themselves and their children--precisely as they will be
required to do.
Finally, proponents of change point to the fact that patterns of
underrepresentation have persisted in the skilled trades, despite the
Commission interpretation. They argue that this demonstrates that
eliminating opportunities for older workers will not work to the
benefit of younger minorities and women--even if it were appropriate to
favor younger workers over older workers, a point they do not concede.
Opponents of changing the interpretation state that age limitations
in apprenticeship programs will create new opportunities for minority
youth and younger women. However, they offer no explanation to support
this claim nor an explanation of why there has not been an expanded
representation of minorities and women in the crafts in the years that
apprenticeship programs have been permitted to limit opportunities to
younger workers.
The Commission is persuaded by the arguments of those favoring a
change in the interpretation. It is clear that minorities and women are
substantially underrepresented in the crafts and that the exclusion of
apprenticeship programs from prohibitions against age discrimination
has not opened up opportunities for these persons.
[[Page 15378]]
6. What Impact Will Changing the Interpretation Have on Opportunities
for Youth?
Responding to the question of whether removing age limits would
diminish training opportunities for youth, several commenters favoring
a change in position note that Congress has created major training
programs designed specifically for youth.4 These commenters state
that Congress has set aside over a billion dollars to fund these
programs. For this reason, these proponents conclude that access to
apprenticeship programs should be available to workers of all ages. One
commenter contends that removal of age limitations would not diminish
training opportunities for youth, but would result in an inter-
generational approach to apprenticeship that promotes greater harmony
in the workplace.
\4\ Commenters referenced such programs as the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Applied Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq. and
the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) as proof of the availability
of opportunities for youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An opponent of the proposed rule argues that apprenticeship
programs should be reserved for youth, citing high unemployment rates
for young people and arguing that they are in great need of educational
and employment opportunities. This commenter states that youth should
not have to compete with older persons who might otherwise have an
advantage over them solely by reason of their having lived longer.
While the Commission believes that apprenticeship programs continue
to be an important source of training for young people, it also takes
the position that apprenticeship programs can operate successfully by
utilizing the talents of individuals of all ages. The Commission was
not provided with any information demonstrating that youth have been
negatively affected in any of the states that prohibit age limits in
apprenticeship programs. Moreover, some apprenticeship programs with a
desire to assist specific disadvantaged groups may be able to do so
under the existing exemption from the ADEA found at 29 CFR 1627.16. In
the alternative, such programs could seek an exemption under the
procedures set out at 29 CFR 1627.15.
7. What is the Relationship of Apprenticeship Programs to Employment
and Education?
A number of those who favor the proposed rule argue that
apprenticeship programs are more in the nature of employment than
education. Some of those opposed to the proposed rule contend that the
contrary is true. These comments support the position, which has been
previously taken by the Commission, that, in fact, apprenticeship
programs have both employment and education components. However, the
Commission is also of the view that the employment and education
aspects of apprenticeship programs are so inextricably interwoven as to
mandate coverage under the Act. As most of the commenters who address
this question note, the indicia of an employer/employee relationship
are almost always present. For example, apprentices frequently perform
functions for the employer that the employer would otherwise have to
pay someone else to perform; apprentices are always or almost always
paid a wage; many apprenticeship programs seek certification from DOL
that permits them to pay apprentices less than the prevailing rate for
journeymen employees on certain jobs.
Findings
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
discussed above, the EEOC has determined that employers and employees
alike will be better served by an interpretation of the ADEA which
covers apprenticeship programs. Therefore, the Commission is rescinding
its current interpretation and issuing a new rule as set forth below.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined under
Executive Order 12866 that this rule is a significant regulatory
action, however, it will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy,
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, or local or tribal
governments or communities. The rule will not create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency.
The rule does not contain any information collection or record
keeping requirements as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96-511). Similarly, the Commission certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b), enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354),
that this rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. For this reason, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
In addition, in accordance with Executive Order 12067, the
Commission has solicited the views of affected Federal agencies.
The final rule appears below.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1625
Advertising, Age, Employee benefit plans, Equal employment
opportunity, Retirement.
Signed at Washington, DC this 2nd day of April 1996.
Gilbert F. Casellas,
Chairman.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, chapter XIV of title 29 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 1625--AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT
1. The authority citation for part 1625 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 81 Stat. 602; 29 U.S.C. 621, 5 U.S.C. 301,
Secretary's Order No. 10-68; Secretary's Order No. 11-68; sec. 12,
29 U.S.C. 631, Pub. L. 99-592, 100 Stat. 3342; sec. 2, Reorg. Plan
No. 1 of 1978, 43 FR 19807.
Sec. 1625.13 [Removed]
2. In Part 1625, Sec. 1625.13 is removed.
Subpart B--Substantive Regulations
3. In Part 1625, Sec. 1625.21 is added to Subpart B--Substantive
Regulations to read as follows:
Sec. 1625.21 Apprenticeship programs.
All apprenticeship programs, including those apprenticeship
programs created or maintained by joint labor-management organizations,
are subject to the prohibitions of sec. 4 of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 623. Age limitations in
apprenticeship programs are valid only if excepted under sec. 4(f)(1)
of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 623(f)(1), or exempted by the Commission under
sec. 9 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 628, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in 29 CFR 1627.15.
[FR Doc. 96-8513 Filed 4-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
