44158 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Notices 

Type of review: New information 

collection request. 

OMB Control Number: 1205–0NEW 

Name: Department of Labor Generic 

Clearance for Site Visits 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

Households; Private Sector—businesses 

or other for-profits and not-for-profit 

institutions; and State, local, and Tribal 

governments 

Frequency: Approximately 40 studies 

a year 

Average Annual Respondents: 

Approximately 13,600 to 27,200 

responses a year 

Average Time per Response: Range, 

60 to 120 minutes, 90 minutes 

anticipated midpoint. 

Average Annual Burden Hours: 

Approximately 47,200 to 94,400 hours a 

year over three years. 

Average Annual Other Burden Cost: 

$0 

Comments submitted in response to 

this request will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for Office of 

Management and Budget approval; they 

will also become a matter of public 

record. 

James H. Moore, Jr., 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17524 Filed 7–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–23–P 

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. 

Product Country 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Notices 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 nongovernmental 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44160 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 23, 2013 / Notices 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Proposed Collection, Comment 

Request 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: 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 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c) (2)(A)]. This 

program helps to ensure 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 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments 

concerning the proposed revision of the 

Annual Refiling Survey (ARS). A copy 

of the proposed information collection 

request (ICR) can be obtained by 

contacting the individual listed below 

in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

Addresses section of this notice on or 

before September 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Carol 

Rowan, BLS Clearance Officer, Division 

of Management Systems, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 

Massachusetts Avenue NE., 

Washington, DC 20212. Written 

comments also may be transmitted by 

fax to 202–691–5111 (this is not a toll 

free number). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Rowan, BLS Clearance Officer, 

202–691–7628 (this is not a toll free 

number). (See Addresses section.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Quarterly Census of Employment 

and Wages (QCEW) program is a 

Federal/State cooperative effort which 

compiles monthly employment data, 

quarterly wages data, and business 

identification information from 

employers subject to State 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) laws. 

These data are collected from State 

Quarterly Contribution Reports (QCRs) 

submitted to State Workforce Agencies 

(SWAs). The States send micro-level 

employment and wages data, 

supplemented with the names, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES