Coverage of Apprenticeship Programs Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

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