81 FR 68062 - Notice of Final Determination Regarding the Proposed Revision of the List of Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or Indentured Child Labor Pursuant to Executive Order 13126
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary of Labor Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 191 (October 3, 2016)
Office of the Secretary of Labor
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 191 (October 3, 2016)
| Page Range | 68062-68064 | |
| FR Document | 2016-23500 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 68062-68064] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-23500] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary of Labor Notice of Final Determination Regarding the Proposed Revision of the List of Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or Indentured Child Labor Pursuant to Executive Order 13126 AGENCY: Bureau of International Labor Affairs ACTION: Notice of final determination. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice announces a final determination that carpets from India will not be added to the List of Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or Indentured Child Labor (EO List) required by Executive Order No. 13126 (``Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor''). The Departments of Labor, State, and Homeland Security (collectively, the Departments) proposed adding carpets from India to the EO List in a Notice of Initial Determination in the Federal Register on December 2, 2014. 79 FR 71448. After a thorough review of the information available and comments received, the Departments have determined that there is not sufficient evidence at this time establishing more than isolated incidents of forced or indentured child labor in the production of carpets in India. With this final determination, the current EO List remains in place. The list identifies products, by country of origin, which the Departments have a reasonable basis to believe might have been mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured child labor. Under a final rule by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, published January 18, 2001, which also implements Executive Order No. 13126, federal contractors who supply products on the EO List are required to certify, among other things, that they have made a good faith effort to determine whether forced or indentured child labor was used to produce those products and that, on the basis of those efforts, the contractor is unaware of any such use of child labor. See 66 FR 5346, 5347; 48 CFR 22.1502(c). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Initial Determination On December 2, 2014, the Departments published a Notice of Initial Determination in the Federal Register proposing to add carpets from India to the List of Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or Indentured Child Labor (EO List). 79 FR 71448. The Departments issued the initial determination because they had a reasonable basis to believe that there was forced or indentured child labor in the production of carpets from India in more than isolated incidents. This initial determination can be accessed on the Internet at https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-27624. II. Public Comment Period When the initial determination was issued, the public was invited to submit comments until January 30, 2015 on whether carpets from India should be added to the EO List, as well as any other issues related to the fair and effective implementation of Executive Order No. 13126. During the public comment period, three comments were submitted. Those comments are available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov (reference Docket ID No. DOL-2014-0004). During this comment period, the comments received called into question whether all the criteria required for adding a good to the EO List had been met. One of the three comments was from the Carpet Export Promotion Council (CEPC), which opposed the addition of carpets from India to the EO List. The CEPC's submission included a survey it had commissioned in 2104 on labor practices in the Indian carpet industry. Based on the findings of the survey, the CEPC stated that while there are cases of child labor, there is no evidence of forced child labor in the production or manufacture of this good. However, the CEPC survey methodology had sampling and questionnaire design limitations that affected its ability to capture forced labor or collect data on a representative sample of the carpet industry. The two other comments received did not provide enough specificity on the conditions or prevalence of children's work in order to be able to make a final determination that forced or indentured child labor in India's carpet industry is occurring in more than isolated incidents. GoodWeave submitted a comment in support of including carpets produced in India on the EO List, along with two newspaper articles reporting two rescue operations during which children were removed from carpet production facilities where they were forced to work. However, GoodWeave's submission did not discuss the prevalence of forced child labor in carpet production; rather, it only discussed the prevalence of child labor within the industry. While the newspaper articles do discuss forced child labor, they do not demonstrate that forced child labor is prevalent in the industry. Siddharth Kara, a Harvard University researcher and faculty member, also submitted a public comment in support of adding Indian carpets to the EO List. Kara cited the findings of his research study, which was one of the sources cited by the Departments in making their initial determination. Even though Kara's submission stated that his research found a significant prevalence of forced labor and child labor in India's carpet industry, neither the comment nor the study itself specifically addresses the prevalence of forced child labor in the industry. While Kara clarified in a separate correspondence that all children categorized as engaged in child labor were in fact engaged in forced labor as defined by international standards, the Departments were not able to determine whether child labor victims discussed in Kara's research study were exposed to specific indicators of forced labor, as defined by international standards. III. Gathering, Receipt, and Analysis of Additional Information In light of the inconsistency in the information received during the initial public comment period, the Departments gathered and received twenty additional comments on forced child labor in India's carpet industry. [[Page 68063]] The information gathered and received can be found at http://www.regulations.gov (reference Docket ID No. DOL-2014-0004). This information received did not provide sufficient evidence that there are more than isolated incidents of forced child labor in India's carpet industry. Department of Labor (DOL) officials interviewed several international and Indian non-governmental organizations about forced child labor in the carpet industry following the initial determination, including during a visit to India in May 2015. While some of these entities stated that there is forced child labor in this industry, they were unable to provide specific information on the number of children involved. One stated that such practices occurred, but that the prevalence had decreased. However, this assessment was not based on a reliable data collection exercise and the commenter was not able to provide information about the prevalence of forced child labor that may remain in the sector. DOL also collected several articles from local Indian newspapers reporting on the rescue of children from hidden carpet production facilities where they were making carpets and unable to leave. While these newspaper articles provide evidence that forced child labor occurs in the production of carpets, they do not demonstrate that forced child labor is occurring in more than isolated incidents. These types of incidents have been reported infrequently in local newspapers, have involved a small number of children, and have been limited to one administrative district within India. Following the initial determination and during the May 2015 trip to India, the Government of India and the CEPC submitted additional comments and met with DOL officials explaining why carpets produced in India should not be added to the EO List. The CEPC also submitted an additional study it had commissioned in 2015 in which children working in the carpet industry were interviewed. The study concluded that there were no instances of forced child labor among the children interviewed because there was no restriction on ability to leave employment, nor any underpayment of minimum wage. Based on the findings of this study, the CEPC maintained that there is no evidence of forced child labor in the production or manufacture of this good. However, the survey methodology of this study also had sampling and questionnaire design limitations that affected its ability to capture forced labor or collect data on a representative sample of the carpet industry. During the trip to India, DOL officials also traveled to carpet production facilities with non-governmental organizations and to others that participate in a CEPC monitoring program. During those visits, the DOL officials observed industry practices and did not uncover any specific evidence of forced child labor in India's carpet industry. IV. Extended Public Comment Period On June 17, 2016, DOL reopened and extended the period for public comments until July 15, 2016, to allow the public to view and comment on all information submitted or gathered since the initial determination, and to comment generally on whether carpets from India should be added to the EO List. 81 FR 39714. DOL received one comment during the extended public comment period. The comment was submitted by the CEPC and explained why carpets from India should not be added to the EO List. The comment is available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov (reference Docket ID No. DOL-2014-0004). V. Final Determination The Departments have carefully reviewed, analyzed, and considered the evidence available in determining whether to add carpets from India to the EO List. In so doing, the Departments considered and weighed the factors identified in the Procedural Guidelines for the Maintenance of the List of Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or Indentured Child Labor (available at http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=18024), including the nature of information presented, the source of information, the date of the information, the extent of corroboration of the information by appropriate sources, whether the information involved more than isolated incidents, and whether recent and credible efforts are being made to address forced or indentured child labor in the country and industry. 66 FR 5352. The Departments therefore conclude that the available evidence at this time does not meet the criteria required to add this product to the EO List. While there is evidence of forced child labor in the industry, there is not sufficient evidence at this time demonstrating that children are subject to forced labor in circumstances that represent more than isolated incidents. We will continue to monitor this situation and gather information through our ongoing research process. The initial determination, the extension of request for public comments, and the public comments can also be obtained from: Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking (OCFT), Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Room S-5317, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693- 4843; fax: (202) 693-4830. VI. Background The first EO List was published on January 18, 2001. 66 FR 5353. The EO List was subsequently revised on July 20, 2010, 75 FR 42164; on May 31, 2011, 76 FR 31365; on April 3, 2012, 77 FR 20051; and on July 23, 2013, 78 FR 44158. Executive Order 13126, which was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 1999, 64 FR 32383, declared that it was ``the policy of the United States Government . . . that the executive agencies shall take appropriate actions to enforce the laws prohibiting the manufacture or importation of goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part by forced or indentured child labor.'' Pursuant to Executive Order 13126, and following public notice and comment, DOL published in the January 18, 2001, Federal Register a list of products, identified by their country of origin, that DOL, in consultation and cooperation with DOS and the Department of the Treasury (relevant responsibilities now within DHS), had a reasonable basis to believe might have been mined, produced or manufactured by forced or indentured child labor. 66 FR 5353. Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order 13126, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council published a final rule in the Federal Register on January 18, 2001, providing, amongst other requirements, that federal contractors who supply products that appear on the EO List must certify to the contracting officer that the contractor, or, in the case of an incorporated contractor, a responsible official of the contractor, has made a good faith effort to determine whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce, or manufacture any product furnished under the contract and that, on the basis of those efforts, the contractor is unaware of any such use of child labor. 48 CFR Subpart 22.15. DOL also published on January 18, 2001, ``Procedural Guidelines for the Maintenance of the List of Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or Indentured Child Labor'' (``Procedural Guidelines''), [[Page 68064]] which provide for maintaining, reviewing, and, as appropriate, revising the EO List. 66 FR 5351. The Procedural Guidelines provide that the EO List may be revised either through consideration of submissions by individuals or on the initiative of DOL, DOS and DHS. In either event, when proposing to revise the EO List, DOL must publish in the Federal Register a notice of initial determination, which includes any proposed alteration to the EO List. DOL, DOS and DHS consider all public comments prior to the publication of a final determination of a revised EO List. III. Definitions Under Section 6(c) of EO 13126: ``Forced or indentured child labor'' means all work or service-- (1) Exacted from any person under the age of 18 under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily; or (2) Performed by any person under the age of 18 pursuant to a contract the enforcement of which can be accomplished by process or penalties. Signed at Washington, DC, this 22th day of September, 2016. Carol Pier, Deputy Undersecretary for International Affairs. [FR Doc. 2016-23500 Filed 9-30-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-28-P
![68062 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2016 / Notices
To submit establishing more than isolated industry. Based on the findings of the
Send them to:
comments: incidents of forced or indentured child survey, the CEPC stated that while there
labor in the production of carpets in are cases of child labor, there is no
By email ....... pubcomment-ees.enrd@ India. With this final determination, the evidence of forced child labor in the
usdoj.gov. current EO List remains in place. The production or manufacture of this good.
By mail ......... Assistant Attorney General,
list identifies products, by country of However, the CEPC survey methodology
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC origin, which the Departments have a had sampling and questionnaire design
20044–7611. reasonable basis to believe might have limitations that affected its ability to
been mined, produced, or manufactured capture forced labor or collect data on
During the public comment period, by forced or indentured child labor. a representative sample of the carpet
the proposed Consent Decree may be Under a final rule by the Federal industry.
examined and downloaded at this Acquisition Regulatory Council, The two other comments received did
Justice Department Web site: https:// published January 18, 2001, which also not provide enough specificity on the
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. implements Executive Order No. 13126, conditions or prevalence of children’s
We will provide a paper copy of the federal contractors who supply products work in order to be able to make a final
proposed Consent Decree upon written on the EO List are required to certify, determination that forced or indentured
request and payment of reproduction among other things, that they have made child labor in India’s carpet industry is
costs. Please mail your request and a good faith effort to determine whether occurring in more than isolated
payment to: Consent Decree Library, forced or indentured child labor was incidents. GoodWeave submitted a
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, used to produce those products and comment in support of including
that, on the basis of those efforts, the carpets produced in India on the EO
Washington, DC 20044–7611.
contractor is unaware of any such use of List, along with two newspaper articles
Please enclose a check or money order
child labor. See 66 FR 5346, 5347; 48 reporting two rescue operations during
for $6.25 (25 cents per page
CFR 22.1502(c). which children were removed from
reproduction cost) payable to the United
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: carpet production facilities where they
States Treasury.
were forced to work. However,
Thomas P. Carroll, I. Initial Determination GoodWeave’s submission did not
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental On December 2, 2014, the discuss the prevalence of forced child
Enforcement Section, Environment and Departments published a Notice of labor in carpet production; rather, it
Natural Resources Division. Initial Determination in the Federal only discussed the prevalence of child
[FR Doc. 2016–23738 Filed 9–30–16; 8:45 am] Register proposing to add carpets from labor within the industry. While the
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P India to the List of Products Requiring newspaper articles do discuss forced
Federal Contractor Certification as to child labor, they do not demonstrate
Forced or Indentured Child Labor (EO that forced child labor is prevalent in
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR List). 79 FR 71448. The Departments the industry.
issued the initial determination because Siddharth Kara, a Harvard University
Office of the Secretary of Labor they had a reasonable basis to believe researcher and faculty member, also
that there was forced or indentured submitted a public comment in support
Notice of Final Determination child labor in the production of carpets of adding Indian carpets to the EO List.
Regarding the Proposed Revision of from India in more than isolated Kara cited the findings of his research
the List of Products Requiring Federal incidents. This initial determination can study, which was one of the sources
Contractor Certification as to Forced be accessed on the Internet at https:// cited by the Departments in making
or Indentured Child Labor Pursuant to federalregister.gov/a/2014-27624. their initial determination. Even though
Executive Order 13126 Kara’s submission stated that his
II. Public Comment Period research found a significant prevalence
AGENCY: Bureau of International Labor When the initial determination was of forced labor and child labor in India’s
Affairs issued, the public was invited to submit carpet industry, neither the comment
ACTION: Notice of final determination. comments until January 30, 2015 on nor the study itself specifically
whether carpets from India should be addresses the prevalence of forced child
SUMMARY: This notice announces a final added to the EO List, as well as any labor in the industry. While Kara
determination that carpets from India other issues related to the fair and clarified in a separate correspondence
will not be added to the List of Products effective implementation of Executive that all children categorized as engaged
Requiring Federal Contractor Order No. 13126. During the public in child labor were in fact engaged in
Certification as to Forced or Indentured comment period, three comments were forced labor as defined by international
Child Labor (EO List) required by submitted. Those comments are standards, the Departments were not
Executive Order No. 13126 available for public viewing at http:// able to determine whether child labor
(‘‘Prohibition of Acquisition of Products www.regulations.gov (reference Docket victims discussed in Kara’s research
Produced by Forced or Indentured Child ID No. DOL–2014–0004). study were exposed to specific
Labor’’). The Departments of Labor, During this comment period, the indicators of forced labor, as defined by
State, and Homeland Security comments received called into question international standards.
(collectively, the Departments) proposed whether all the criteria required for
adding carpets from India to the EO List adding a good to the EO List had been III. Gathering, Receipt, and Analysis of
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
in a Notice of Initial Determination in met. One of the three comments was Additional Information
the Federal Register on December 2, from the Carpet Export Promotion In light of the inconsistency in the
2014. 79 FR 71448. After a thorough Council (CEPC), which opposed the information received during the initial
review of the information available and addition of carpets from India to the EO public comment period, the
comments received, the Departments List. The CEPC’s submission included a Departments gathered and received
have determined that there is not survey it had commissioned in 2104 on twenty additional comments on forced
sufficient evidence at this time labor practices in the Indian carpet child labor in India’s carpet industry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_68253/page/1.svg)
![68064 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2016 / Notices
which provide for maintaining, requirements on respondents can be shaft, and whether all or part of the
reviewing, and, as appropriate, revising properly assessed. Currently, the Mine work will be performed by a contractor;
the EO List. 66 FR 5351. The Procedural Safety and Health Administration the elevation, depth and dimensions of
Guidelines provide that the EO List may (MSHA) is soliciting comments on the the slope or shaft; the location and
be revised either through consideration information collection for Slope and elevation of the coalbed; the general
of submissions by individuals or on the Shaft Sinking Plans, 30 CFR 77.1900 characteristics of the strata through
initiative of DOL, DOS and DHS. In (pertains to surface work areas of which the slope or shaft will be
either event, when proposing to revise underground coal mines). developed; the type of equipment which
the EO List, DOL must publish in the DATES: All comments must be received the operator proposes to use; the system
Federal Register a notice of initial on or before December 2, 2016. of ventilation to be used; and safeguards
determination, which includes any ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the for the prevention of caving during
proposed alteration to the EO List. DOL, information collection requirements of excavation.
DOS and DHS consider all public this notice may be sent by any of the II. Desired Focus of Comments
comments prior to the publication of a methods listed below.
final determination of a revised EO List. • Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: MSHA is soliciting comments
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the concerning the proposed information
III. Definitions collection related to Slope and Shaft
on-line instructions for submitting
Under Section 6(c) of EO 13126: comments for docket number MSHA– Sinking Plans, 30 CFR 77.1900 (pertains
‘‘Forced or indentured child labor’’ 2016–0034. to surface work areas of underground
means all work or service— • Regular Mail: Send comments to coal mines). MSHA is particularly
(1) Exacted from any person under the USDOL–MSHA, Office of Standards, interested in comments that:
age of 18 under the menace of any Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th • Evaluate whether the collection of
penalty for its nonperformance and for Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA information is necessary for the proper
which the worker does not offer himself 22202–5452. performance of the functions of the
voluntarily; or • Hand Delivery: USDOL-Mine Safety agency, including whether the
(2) Performed by any person under and Health Administration, 201 12th information has practical utility;
the age of 18 pursuant to a contract the Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA • Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA’s
enforcement of which can be 22202–5452. Sign in at the receptionist’s estimate of the burden of the collection
accomplished by process or penalties. desk on the 4th floor via the East of information, including the validity of
Signed at Washington, DC, this 22th day of elevator. the methodology and assumptions used;
September, 2016. • Suggest methods to enhance the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: quality, utility, and clarity of the
Carol Pier,
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of information to be collected; and
Deputy Undersecretary for International
Affairs.
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, • Minimize the burden of the
MSHA, at collection of information on those who
[FR Doc. 2016–23500 Filed 9–30–16; 8:45 am]
MSHA.information.collections@dol.gov are to respond, including through the
BILLING CODE 4510–28–P (email); 202–693–9440 (voice); or 202– use of appropriate automated,
693–9441 (facsimile). electronic, mechanical, or other
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: technological collection techniques or
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
I. Background other forms of information technology,
Mine Safety and Health Administration e.g., permitting electronic submission of
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine responses.
[OMB Control No. 1219–0019] Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine The information collection request
Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes will be available on http://
Proposed Extension of Information MSHA to collect information necessary
Collection; Slope and Shaft Sinking www.regulations.gov. MSHA cautions
to carry out its duty in protecting the the commenter against providing any
Plans, 30 CFR 77.1900 (Pertains to safety and health of miners.
Surface Work Areas of Underground information in the submission that
Title 30 CFR 77.1900 requires should not be publicly disclosed. Full
Coal Mines) underground coal mine operators to comments, including personal
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health submit for approval a plan that will information provided, will be made
Administration, Labor. provide for the safety of workmen in available on www.regulations.gov and
ACTION: Request for public comments. each slope or shaft that is commenced www.reginfo.gov.
or extended from the surface to the The public may also examine publicly
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as underground coal mine. Each slope or available documents at USDOL-Mine
part of its continuing effort to reduce shaft sinking operation is unique in that Safety and Health Administration, 20
paperwork and respondent burden, each operator uses different methods 12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA
conducts a pre-clearance consultation and equipment and encounters different 22202–5452. Sign in at the receptionist’s
program to provide the general public geological strata which make it desk on the 4th floor via the East
and Federal agencies with an impossible for a single set of regulations elevator.
opportunity to comment on proposed to ensure the safety of the miners under Questions about the information
collections of information in accordance all circumstances. This makes an collection requirements may be directed
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of individual slope or shaft sinking plan
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This necessary. The plan must be consistent INFORMATION section of this notice.
program helps to assure that requested with prudent engineering design. Plans
data can be provided in the desired include the name and location of the III. Current Actions
format, reporting burden (time and mine; name and address of the mine This request for collection of
financial resources) is minimized, operator; a description of the information contains provisions for
collection instruments are clearly construction work and methods to be Slope and Shaft Sinking Plans, 30 CFR
understood, and the impact of collection used in construction of the slope or 77.1900 (pertains to surface work areas
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:56 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_68253/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-13 14:11:17
Document Modified: 2018-02-13 14:11:17
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of final determination. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 68062 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR