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, 68062-68064 [2016-23500]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
68062
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2016 / Notices
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email .......
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O.
Box 7611, Washington, DC
20044–7611.
By mail .........
During the public comment period,
the proposed Consent Decree may be
examined and downloaded at this
Justice Department Web site: https://
www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.
We will provide a paper copy of the
proposed Consent Decree upon written
request and payment of reproduction
costs. Please mail your request and
payment to: Consent Decree Library,
U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611,
Washington, DC 20044–7611.
Please enclose a check or money order
for $6.25 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the United
States Treasury.
Thomas P. Carroll,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2016–23738 Filed 9–30–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
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.
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
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Sep 30, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM
03OCN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2016 / Notices
The information gathered and received
can be found at https://
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 nongovernmental 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Sep 30, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 https://
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 https://
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68063
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’’),
E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM
03OCN1
68064
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2016 / Notices
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
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
[OMB Control No. 1219–0019]
Proposed Extension of Information
Collection; Slope and Shaft Sinking
Plans, 30 CFR 77.1900 (Pertains to
Surface Work Areas of Underground
Coal Mines)
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Request for public comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of Labor, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden,
conducts a pre-clearance consultation
program to provide the general public
and Federal agencies with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
collections of information in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This
program helps to assure that requested
data can be provided in the desired
format, reporting burden (time and
financial resources) is minimized,
collection instruments are clearly
understood, and the impact of collection
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Sep 30, 2016
Jkt 241001
requirements on respondents can be
properly assessed. Currently, the Mine
Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) is soliciting comments on the
information collection for Slope and
Shaft Sinking Plans, 30 CFR 77.1900
(pertains to surface work areas of
underground coal mines).
DATES: All comments must be received
on or before December 2, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Comments concerning the
information collection requirements of
this notice may be sent by any of the
methods listed below.
• Federal E-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments for docket number MSHA–
2016–0034.
• Regular Mail: Send comments to
USDOL–MSHA, Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA
22202–5452.
• Hand Delivery: USDOL-Mine Safety
and Health Administration, 201 12th
Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA
22202–5452. Sign in at the receptionist’s
desk on the 4th floor via the East
elevator.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
MSHA, at
MSHA.information.collections@dol.gov
(email); 202–693–9440 (voice); or 202–
693–9441 (facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 103(h) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act), 30 U.S.C. 813(h), authorizes
MSHA to collect information necessary
to carry out its duty in protecting the
safety and health of miners.
Title 30 CFR 77.1900 requires
underground coal mine operators to
submit for approval a plan that will
provide for the safety of workmen in
each slope or shaft that is commenced
or extended from the surface to the
underground coal mine. Each slope or
shaft sinking operation is unique in that
each operator uses different methods
and equipment and encounters different
geological strata which make it
impossible for a single set of regulations
to ensure the safety of the miners under
all circumstances. This makes an
individual slope or shaft sinking plan
necessary. The plan must be consistent
with prudent engineering design. Plans
include the name and location of the
mine; name and address of the mine
operator; a description of the
construction work and methods to be
used in construction of the slope or
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
shaft, and whether all or part of the
work will be performed by a contractor;
the elevation, depth and dimensions of
the slope or shaft; the location and
elevation of the coalbed; the general
characteristics of the strata through
which the slope or shaft will be
developed; the type of equipment which
the operator proposes to use; the system
of ventilation to be used; and safeguards
for the prevention of caving during
excavation.
II. Desired Focus of Comments
MSHA is soliciting comments
concerning the proposed information
collection related to Slope and Shaft
Sinking Plans, 30 CFR 77.1900 (pertains
to surface work areas of underground
coal mines). MSHA is particularly
interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA’s
estimate of the burden of the collection
of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
• Suggest methods to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
The information collection request
will be available on https://
www.regulations.gov. MSHA cautions
the commenter against providing any
information in the submission that
should not be publicly disclosed. Full
comments, including personal
information provided, will be made
available on www.regulations.gov and
www.reginfo.gov.
The public may also examine publicly
available documents at USDOL-Mine
Safety and Health Administration, 20
12th South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, VA
22202–5452. Sign in at the receptionist’s
desk on the 4th floor via the East
elevator.
Questions about the information
collection requirements may be directed
to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION section of this notice.
III. Current Actions
This request for collection of
information contains provisions for
Slope and Shaft Sinking Plans, 30 CFR
77.1900 (pertains to surface work areas
E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM
03OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68062-68064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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
