50556 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Notices

perforator represents is below the level

which the Committee normally

considers to constitute severe adverse

impact. The contractor will continue to

have the opportunity to produce the

other perforator for the Government, so

the equipment and workers on its

dedicated production line will not be

idle.

Addition of this perforator to the

Procurement List will create

employment for several persons with

severe disabilities. These persons as a

group have a very high unemployment

rate, so it is likely that any of the

contractor’s workers who may be

displaced by the Committee’s action

will have a better chance of finding

other work than these persons with

severe disabilities.

The Following Comments Pertain to

Linen Management Service, Norfolk,

Virginia

Comments were received from the

current contractor for this service. The

contractor claimed that the proposed

addition to the Procurement List does

not meet the Committee’s regulatory

requirements on contractor impact and

nonprofit agency capability, and cited

court decisions on these points.

The contractor claimed that the

proposed addition will have a severe

adverse impact on the sales of the local

plant which is performing the service.

However, the Committee’s regulation on

contractor impact requires the

Committee to look at the entire

corporate structure of a contractor,

including parent and affiliated

companies, in making a determination.

This addition to the Procurement List

represents a very small percentage of the

total sales of the corporate structure of

this contractor, which is a very large

business, even when the impact of other

Procurement List additions on the

contractor and its long record as a

contractor for this service are taken into

account.

The contractor also claimed that the

addition would require it to discharge a

number of workers and would result in

a loss in annualized projected revenue.

The number of workers and the

anticipated loss far exceeds the number

of jobs the service is expected to create

for people with severe disabilities, and

the anticipated revenue loss is well

above the annual contract value for the

service. Accordingly, the Committee

does not believe the contractor’s figures

to be credible. Any actual loss suffered

by the contractor in these areas is

outweighed by the creation of jobs for

people with severe disabilities, who

experience very high unemployment

rates.

The contractor cited a 1970 court

decision to the effect that the

Committee’s program was not intended

to have any impact on commercial

businesses. That decision construed an

earlier version of the Committee’s

statute. The statute was substantially

amended in 1971, and the same court in

a 1978 decision noted the legislative

intent of the new statute was to allow

impact on commercial entities. The

contractor impact for this Procurement

List addition is far below the figure

allowed by that court decision.

The contractor also claimed that the

nonprofit agency could not be deemed

capable of providing the service in

compliance with strict requirements

applicable to it, such as local water

quality and discharge standards. The

contractor cited another court decision

which requires the Committee to have

evidence that the particular nonprofit

agency has the capability to provide the

service, rather than relying on

generalized statements about the

capability of people with severe

disabilities. The nonprofit agency is

currently successfully providing the

same service to another Federal

installation in the same area, and the

Government contracting activity which

is responsible for the service now being

added to the Procurement List has

informed the Committee that it has

inspected the nonprofit agency and

found it capable of providing this

service. After consideration of the

material presented to it concerning

capability of qualified nonprofit

agencies to provide the commodities

and services and impact of the additions

on the current or most recent

contractors, the Committee has

determined that the commodities and

services listed below are suitable for

procurement by the Federal Government

under 41 U.S.C. 46–48c and 41 CFR 51–

2.4.

I certify that the following action will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The major factors considered for this

certification were:

1. The action will not result in any

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance requirements for small

entities other than the small

organizations that will furnish the

commodities and services to the

Government.

2. The action will not have a severe

economic impact on current contractors

for the commodities and services.

3. The action will result in

authorizing small entities to furnish the

commodities and services to the

Government.

4. There are no known regulatory

alternatives which would accomplish

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46–48c) in

connection with the commodities and

services proposed for addition to the

Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following

commodities and services are hereby

added to the Procurement List:

Commodities

Office and Miscellaneous Supplies

(Requirements for Lackland Air Force Base,

Texas)

Cross ‘‘Solo’’ Pen and Refill

7520–01–424–4846

7520–01–424–4881

7520–01–424–4860

7520–01–424–4848

7520–01–424–4871

7510–01–425–6802

Perforator, Paper, Desk

7520–00–224–7589

Services

Janitorial/Custodial, Plains High School/

Visitor Center, Jimmy Carter National

Historic Site, Plains, Georgia

Laundry Service, Evans U.S. Army

Community Hospital, (all general

laundry excluding uniforms), Fort

Carson, Colorado

Linen Management Service, Fleet and

Industrial Supply Center, (standard

grade linen), Norfolk, Virginia

This action does not affect current

contracts awarded prior to the effective date

of this addition or options that may be

exercised under those contracts.

Beverly L. Milkman,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 97–25609 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 72–97]

Foreign-Trade Zone 32—Miami, Florida

Application for Foreign-Trade Subzone

Status; Hewlett-Packard Company

(Computer and Related Electronic

Products) Miami, FL

An application has been submitted to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the

Board) by the Greater Miami ForeignTrade Zone Inc., grantee of FTZ 32,

requesting special-purpose subzone

status for the manufacturing and

distribution facilities (computers,

printers, measurement devices, medical

products and related products) of the

Hewlett-Packard Company (HewlettPackard), located in Miami, Florida. The

application was submitted pursuant to

the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Notices 50557

regulations of the Board (15 CFR part

400). It was formally filed on September

17, 1997.

The Hewlett-Packard facilities are

located at two sites (765,438 square feet

on 45 acres) in Miami, Florida: Site 1

(21 acres, 313,438 sq.ft.)—located at

6701/6703 Northwest 7th Street; Site 2

(23 acres, 452,000 sq.ft. (including a

proposed building))—located at 10205

NW 19th Street and 10200 NW 21st

Street.

The facilities (240 employees) are

used for storage, manufacture, and

distribution for import and export of

computers and related devices, printers,

electronic test and measurement

devices, electronic medical products,

and related electronic products and

components. A number of components

are purchased from abroad (an

estimated 40% of value on

manufactured products), including

printed circuit boards, silicon wafers,

rectifiers, integrated circuits, memory

modules, CD–ROM drives, disk drives,

scanners, hard drives, keyboards,

monitors/displays (CRT and LCD type),

LEDs, speakers, microphones, belts,

valves, bearings, plastic materials,

industrial chemicals, sensors, filters,

resistors, transducers, fuses, plugs,

relays, ink cartridges, toner cartridges,

switches, fasteners, cards, transformers,

DC/electric motors, magnets, modems,

batteries, cabinets, power supplies,

cables, copper wire, power cords,

optical fiber, casters, cases, labels, and

packaging materials (1997 duty range:

free-14.2%). (Full zone procedures are

not being sought for certain linear

motion bearings, display tubes and

parts, optical fiber, or photonic

components.)

Zone procedures would exempt

Hewlett-Packard from Customs duty

payments on foreign components used

in export production. On its domestic

sales, Hewlett-Packard would be able to

choose the lower duty rate that applies

to the finished products (free-13.2%) for

the foreign components noted above.

The application indicates that the

savings from zone procedures would

help improve the plant’s international

competitiveness.

In accordance with the Board’s

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff

has been designated examiner to

investigate the application and report to

the Board.

Public comment on the application is

invited from interested parties.

Submissions (original and three copies)

shall be addressed to the Board’s

Executive Secretary at the address

below. The closing period for their

receipt is November 25, 1997. Rebuttal

comments in response to material

submitted during the foregoing period

may be submitted during the subsequent

15-day period to December 10, 1997.

A copy of the application and the

accompanying exhibits will be available

for public inspection at each of the

following locations:

Office of the Executive Secretary,

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Room

3716, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20230.

U.S. Department of Commerce Export

Assistance Center, 5600 Northwest

36th St., Suite 617, Miami, Florida

33166.

Dated: September 18, 1997.

John J. DaPonte, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–25645 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–807]

Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,

Sheet, and Strip From the Republic of

Korea; Notice of Final Court Decision

and Amended Final Determination of

Antidumping Duty Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On February 5, 1997, in the

case of E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

Inc., v. United States, 954 F. Supp. 263

(CIT 1997), the United States Court of

International Trade affirmed the

Department of Commerce’s second

redetermination on remand arising out

of the final determination of sales at less

than fair value in the antidumping duty

investigation of polyethylene

terephthalate film, sheet and strip from

the Republic of Korea. As there is now

a final and conclusive court decision in

this action, we are amending the final

determination in this matter and will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to

change the ‘‘all others’’ cash deposit

rate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd A. Zalok or Kris Campbell at (202)

482–4162 or (202) 482–3813,

respectively, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 5, 1991, the Department of

Commerce (‘’the Department’’)

published the antidumping duty order

and amended final determination of

sales at less than fair value for

polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet,

and strip from the Republic of Korea.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from the Republic of Korea (56 FR

16305, April 22, 1991), as amended (56

FR 25669, June 5, 1991). E.I. DuPont de

Nemours & Company, Inc. Hoechst

Celanese Corp., and ICI Americas, Inc.,

(‘‘petitioners’’), filed an action

challenging the final determination. On

December 6, 1993, the Court of

International Trade (CIT) remanded

certain of the challenged issues to the

Department. The CIT directed the

Department to re-examine the following

issues in light of the Federal Circuit’s

decision in IPSCO, Inc. v. United States,

965 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (‘‘IPSCO

Appeal’’): (1) Methodology for

calculating costs of production of offgrade PET film reported by Cheil

Synthetics, Inc. (‘‘Cheil’’) and SKC

Limited (‘‘SKC’’); (2) methodology for

calculating Cheil’s costs of recycled

scrap film; and (3) SKC’s productspecific cost accounting methodology.

The CIT also directed the Department to

reconsider its methodology for

adjustments to United States price

(‘‘USP’’) for value-added taxes

(‘‘VATs’’). See E.I. DuPont de Nemours

& Co., Inc. v. United States, 841 F.

Supp. 1237 (CIT 1993).

On April 7, 1994, pursuant to the

remand order, the Department

announced its remand results. (See

Final Remand Determination Pursuant

to Court Order, E.I. DuPont de Nemours

& Co., Inc. v. United States, Court No.

91–07–00487.) For calculating Cheil’s

cost of production of off-grade PET film,

the Department adjusted Cheil’s

submitted costs to reflect actual,

product-specific costs. In the case of

SKC, the Department revised its

methodology consistent with the IPSCO

Appeal decision and recalculated SKC’s

costs of production of off-grade PET film

based on quantity rather than value. The

Department did not adjust its cost

methodology for Cheil’s recycled PET

film because it reasoned that the

recycled film was not a co-product, and

therefore, the rationale of the IPSCO

Appeal decision was not applicable.

The Department also accepted SKC’s

submitted costs adjusted to reflect

actual product-specific costs because it

determined that SKC’s verified cost