[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44158-44160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17520]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary of Labor
Notice of Final Determination Revising 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, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of Final Determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final determination is the fourth revision of the list
required by Executive Order 13126 (``Prohibition of Acquisition of
Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor''), in accordance
with the ``Procedural Guidelines for the Maintenance of the List of
Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or
Indentured Child Labor Under 48 CFR Subpart 22.15 and E.O. 13126.''
This notice revises the list by adding six products, identified by
their countries of origin, Cattle from South Sudan, Dried Fish from
Bangladesh, Fish from Ghana, Garments from Vietnam, and Gold and
Wolframite from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that the
Departments of Labor, State and Homeland Security have a reasonable
basis to believe might have been mined, produced or manufactured by
forced or indentured child labor. Under a final rule of the Federal
Acquisition Regulatory Councils, published January 18, 2001, which also
implements Executive Order 13126, federal contractors who supply
products which appear on this 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 mine, produce or
manufacture the item.
DATES: This document is effective immediately upon publication of this
notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Revised List of Products
On September 27, 2012, the Department of Labor (DOL), in
consultation and cooperation with the Department of State (DOS) and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), published a Notice of Initial
Determination in the Federal Register proposing to revise the List of
Products Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or
Indentured Child Labor (``the EO List'') (77 FR 59418). The notice
invited public comment through November 27, 2012. The initial
determination can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/ocft/20120927EO13126FRN.pdf or can 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.
Of the five public comments that were received during the comment
period, three comments--two of them from the same source--disagreed
with the listing of Garments from Vietnam, but did not provide
sufficient information to negate the basis for this proposed revision.
The remaining comments did not discuss the revisions proposed in the
initial determination.
Accordingly, based on recent, credible, and appropriately
corroborated information from various sources, DOL, DOS, and DHS have
concluded that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the
following products, identified by their countries of origin, might have
been mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured child
labor:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Country
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle.................................... South Sudan.
Dried Fish................................ Bangladesh.
Fish...................................... Ghana.
Garments.................................. Vietnam.
Gold...................................... Democratic Republic of
Congo.
Wolframite................................ Democratic Republic of
Congo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bibliographies providing the basis for the three agencies'
decisions on each product are available on the Internet at http://www.dol.gov/ILAB/regs/eo13126/main.htm.
II. 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);
again on May 31, 2011 (76 FR 31365); and again on April 3, 2012 (77 FR
20051). This final determination is the fourth revision to the EO List.
EO 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 EO 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 EO 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
[[Page 44159]]
Requiring Federal Contractor Certification as to Forced or Indentured
Child Labor'' (``Procedural Guidelines''), 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. Summary and Discussion of Significant Comments
The Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) in DOL received
five comments during the public comment period. Of these, one was from
a private citizen, two were from the Government of Vietnam's Ministry
of Labour, Invalids, and Social Affairs, one was from the Vietnam
Textile and Apparel Association, and one was from the Apparel Export
Promotion Council of India. All comments are available for public
viewing at www.regulations.gov (reference Docket ID No. DOL-2012-0005).
All comments have been carefully reviewed and considered, as
discussed below.
A. Comments on Forced Child Labor in the Production of Garments in
Vietnam
One commenter provided information on the laws in place on child
labor and forced labor in Vietnam, the Government of Vietnam's
enforcement of those laws, and other policies and programs in place in
Vietnam to combat forced child labor, and argued that garments from
Vietnam should not be added to the EO List. Enacting laws, meaningfully
enforcing those laws, and establishing policies and programs are
important components of any country's efforts to combat forced child
labor. However, based on the evidence reviewed, there are more than
isolated cases of forced child labor in garment production. These cases
predominately occur in small, unregistered workplaces. In many
countries, laws, policies and programs that are effective for
registered factories are less effective at reaching children and other
exploited workers in unregistered, more hidden work settings, and this
appears to be the case in Vietnam's garment industry. Therefore, DOL,
DOS and DHS continue to have a reasonable basis to believe that forced
child labor is occurring based upon the sources in the bibliography.
The same commenter questioned the use of sources from 2009, stating
that they contain outdated information and should not serve as the
basis for a listing. Under the Procedural Guidelines, ILAB must
consider the ``date of the information'' in evaluating sources
documenting forced or indentured child labor. ILAB has chosen to use
only information no more than 5 years old. More current information has
been generally given priority. ILAB's experience is that the use of
child labor and forced labor in a country or in the production of a
particular good typically persists for many years. Information about
such exploitive activities is often actively concealed. Information
that is several years old therefore can still provide useful context
for more current information. In the case of garments from Vietnam,
ILAB research in 2008 and 2009 revealed a trend of forced child labor
in the sector. Further ILAB research in 2011 and 2012 revealed
additional recent and ongoing cases of forced child labor in the
garment industry, confirming earlier research.
The same commenter expressed the view that the instances of forced
child labor described in the bibliography for the EO List were
individual cases that account for an insignificant portion of the
garment industry workforce. In conducting research on forced child
labor in the production of goods, DOL, DOS and DHS consider whether the
available information suggests that the problem of forced child labor
is significant in the industry and country in question. Among the
criteria in the EO 13126 Procedural Guidelines are whether the
information in the bibliography ``involved more than an isolated
incident'' of forced or indentured child labor and the source of that
information. (66 FR5351.) In placing garments from Vietnam on the EO
List, 18 sources were used, including sources from the International
Labor Organization (ILO), the DOS, and other organizations whose
methodologies, prior publications, degree of familiarity and experience
with international labor standards, and/or reputation for accuracy and
objectivity were found to be relevant and probative. Referencing these
18 sources, the three agencies concluded that the incidents in recent
years and in a number of different establishments were evidence of a
trend of children, some trafficked to large cities from distant
provinces, working under conditions of forced labor. This phenomenon
appears to be occurring in more than an isolated incident.
Several commenters urged that incidents of forced child labor
occurring in small, private manufacturing units should not be
considered for purposes of the EO List. The EO List does not
differentiate between forced child labor in smaller, unregistered work
settings and forced child labor in larger, registered factories. EO
13126 covers all forced labor by children in the production of goods,
including work performed in more hidden work settings and home-based
workshops.
In January 2013, two DOL officials visited Vietnam to assess the
current situation of forced child labor in Vietnam, with a focus on the
garment sector, and gather additional information about the efforts and
systems in place to combat this problem. The DOL officials held
meetings and consultations with government officials, unions, and more
than 15 international and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working
on child protection, trafficking in persons, and worker rights issues.
Discussions with NGOs and Government of Vietnam officials confirmed
that most, but not all, child labor in the garment sector occurs in
small, unregistered workshops. NGOs corroborated the original sources
used for the listing of garments, confirming that child labor,
including child trafficking, still occurs in this industry. Individuals
and groups with whom the DOL officials spoke confirmed that systematic
monitoring of forced or indentured child labor in the garment sector is
limited and largely confined to the larger, registered factories. There
is no evidence of systematic monitoring of child labor in smaller,
unregistered workshops. These discussions are documented in the
bibliography.
B. Comments on Forced Child Labor in the Production of Garments in
India
One commenter requested that garments from India be removed from
the EO List. A product is removed from the EO List if there is a
significant reduction or elimination of forced or indentured child
labor in the manufacture of the listed product in that country. This
commenter provided information on laws, policies, and programs of the
Government of India, as well as industry efforts and NGO initiatives to
combat child labor. As many of these laws and policies were only
recently enacted, there is not yet adequate available information to
evaluate their effectiveness in reducing forced child labor. The three
agencies will continue to monitor the implementation of these new
initiatives
[[Page 44160]]
for possible future revisions of the EO List.
The commenter also requested that Indian garments be removed from
the EO List because a survey by the Government of India's National
Sample Survey Organization found a significant reduction in child labor
in India in recent years. While this survey appears to show an overall
reduction in child labor in India, it does not address whether there
has been a corresponding reduction in forced or indentured child labor,
which is the subject of the EO List. Likewise, the survey does not
address whether the generalized reduction has had an impact on child
labor in the garment industry, or whether the reduction is primarily in
other sectors.
This commenter argued that any use of forced child labor in
garments produced for the Indian market, rather than for export, should
not be considered for purposes of the EO List. The commenter pointed to
third-party certification programs as evidence that forced child labor
does not exist in export-oriented garment factories, and claimed that
the sources used to place garments on the EO List are ``not
applicable'' to the export side of the industry. EO 13126 requires that
goods are placed on the EO List if there is a reasonable basis to
believe that forced child labor might have been used in the industry
and country in question. Whether such labor is occurring in production
of goods destined for export or domestic markets is not taken into
consideration. Governments and other stakeholders have a responsibility
to address forced child labor wherever it occurs.
The commenter asserted that Indian garments were placed on the EO
List because yarn produced in the garment supply chain may have been
made with forced or indentured child labor. This comment appears to
misunderstand the sources in the bibliography. Every source for Indian
garments discusses the use of forced or indentured child labor in the
production of garments, and inclusion of Indian garments on the EO List
was not based on activity in the supply chain.
The commenter argued that the instances of forced child labor
identified in the sources are not representative of the garment
industry in India as a whole. In conducting research on forced child
labor in the production of goods, DOL, DOS and DHS consider whether the
available information suggests that the forced or indentured child
labor documented is more than an isolated incident. In the case of
Indian garments, the sources document the practice of forced child
labor occurring in various locations. Corroborated sources point to a
proliferation of home-based work and small, un-registered production
units that perform outsourced work such as printing and dyeing, where
child labor is prevalent. Many of these children are migrants working
to repay advances given to their parents, an indicator of forced labor.
Many of these children work long hours under poor conditions, are
subject to verbal and physical abuse, and their freedom of movement is
severely restricted--another indicator of forced labor. These sources
are corroborated by other credible sources, giving the three agencies a
reasonable basis to believe that the use of forced child labor in the
garment industry is more than isolated.
The commenter expressed the view that some of the sources are
unreliable. In placing garments from India on the EO List, DOL, DOS and
DHS relied upon sources whose methodologies, prior publications, degree
of familiarity and experience with international labor standards, and/
or reputation for accuracy and objectivity were found to be relevant
and probative. Individual sources are corroborated by other evidence in
the bibliography and should not be viewed in isolation. Taken as a
whole, the bibliography which includes studies conducted by Verite,
Inc., the Fair Labor Association, and the University of Manchester
Chronic Poverty Research Centre, is sufficient to provide the three
agencies a reasonable basis to believe that forced child labor might be
used in the production of Indian garments.
Finally, the commenter noted that it did not have access to two of
the sources cited for Indian garments, namely interviews with certain
key informants. DOL will provide copies of those interviews to the
commenter following the publication of this final notice. All of DOL's
sources are publicly available from DOL upon request and/or from the
original author.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of July, 2013.
Carol Pier,
Acting Deputy Undersecretary, Bureau of International Labor Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-17520 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-28-P