12598 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Notices

ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION OF

VOTING AGE FOR EACH STATE AND

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: JULY 1,

1996—Continued

[In thousands]

Area Population

18 and over

Oklahoma .................................. 2,420

Oregon ...................................... 2,395

Pennsylvania ............................. 9,161

Rhode Island ............................. 755

South Carolina .......................... 2,761

South Dakota ............................ 528

Tennessee ................................ 3,997

Texas ........................................ 13,676

Utah .......................................... 1,322

Vermont .................................... 442

Virginia ...................................... 5,044

Washington ............................... 4,096

West Virginia ............................. 1,404

Wisconsin .................................. 3,817

Wyoming ................................... 348

Source: Population Estimates Program,

Population Division, Bureau of the Census,

Washington, D.C. 20233.

For a description of methodology see Current Population Reports, P25–1127.

[FR Doc. 97–6636 Filed 3–12–97; 3:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P

International Trade Administration

[A–588–703]

Certain Internal-Combustion Industrial

Forklift Trucks From Japan: Amended

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results

of antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On February 6, 1997, the

Department of Commerce published the

final results of administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

internal-combustion industrial forklift

trucks from Japan (62 FR 5592). The

review covers three manufacturers/

exporters. The period of review is June

1, 1994, through May 31, 1995. Based on

the correction of a clerical error, we

have changed the antidumping duty rate

for Toyota Motor Corporation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas O. Barlow or Kris Campbell,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 6, 1997, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published the final results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

internal-combustion industrial forklift

trucks from Japan (62 FR 5592) (final

results). The review covers three

manufacturers/exporters and the period

of review (POR) is June 1, 1994, through

May 31, 1995.

After publication of our final results,

we received timely allegations from

NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc.

(petitioners), and respondent, Toyota

Motor Corporation (Toyota), that we had

made clerical errors in calculating the

final results. Based on our analysis of

the clerical-error allegations, we have

made a change to the final margin

calculations for Toyota which resulted

in a change to the weighted-average

percentage margin for the POR (see

Amended Final Results section of this

notice).

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Clerical-Error Allegations and

Responses

Toyota

On February 19, 1997, Toyota alleged

that the Department improperly added

the differences-in-merchandise (difmer)

adjustment (home market variable cost

of manufacturing minus U.S. variable

cost of manufacturing) to normal value

(NV) instead of subtracting it from NV.

Department’s Response

We agree with Toyota that this was a

clerical error. Therefore, we have

subtracted the difmer amount from NV

for these amended final results.

Petitioners

On February 21, 1997, petitioners

alleged that the Department neglected to

implement its twenty-percent difmer

test in the final-results calculations.

Petitioners claim that adding the test to

the calculations will prevent sales that

fail the test from being used in the

margin analysis.

Department’s Response

We disagree with petitioners that we

made a clerical error in our matching

process. For the final results, we

performed the twenty-percent difmer

test using Toyota’s variable cost of

manufacture (VCOM) data from the

sales and concordance listings. We then

used Toyota’s cost information, as

contained in the cost of production

(COP) and constructed value (CV)

portions of its response, to calculate the

difmer adjustment that we made to NV.

We fully addressed this issue in

response to petitioners’ comment 2 in

the final results. Because we made a

decision in our final results that

applying the difmer test at the

concordance stage was appropriate,

given the circumstances of the review,

we reject petitioners’ position that this

is a clerical error.

Amended Final Results

As a result of our correction for the

clerical error, we determine that the

following percentage weighted-average

margin exists for the period June 1,

1994, through May 31, 1995:

Company Rate

(percent)

Toyota ....................................... 47.79

We will direct the Customs Service to

collect cash deposits of estimated

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries in accordance with the

procedures discussed in the final results

of the review (62 FR 5592) and as

amended by this determination.

The amended deposit requirements

are effective for all shipments of the

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice and shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 51 / Monday, March 17, 1997 / Notices 12599

protective orders (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply is a violation of the

APO.

These amended final results of review

and this notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.28 (1996).

Dated: March 7, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–6546 Filed 3–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–122–401]

Red Raspberries From Canada;

Preliminary Results of New Shipper

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

new shipper review antidumping duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

one exporter/processor, Berryhill Foods,

Inc. (Berryhill), the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting a new shipper

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on red

raspberries from Canada. The review

covers sales during the period June 1,

1995 through May 31, 1996. We have

preliminarily determined that Berryhill

sold subject merchandise at less than

normal value (NV) during the period of

review. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument (1) a statement of the issue

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Doyle, Lisa Yarbrough or Abdelai

Elouaradia, AD/CVD Enforcement,

Group III, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–3793.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

Background

By letter dated June 28, 1996,

Berryhill requested a new shipper

review pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)

of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22(h) of the

Department’s interim regulations, which

govern determinations of antidumping

duties for new shippers. These

provisions state that, among other

requirements, a producer or exporter

requesting a new shipper review must

include with its request the date on

which the merchandise was first

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption, or, if it cannot certify

as to the date of first entry, the date on

which it first shipped the merchandise

for export to the United States (interim

regulations, section 353.22(h)(2)(i)).

Berryhill provided a certification

identifying the first date of shipment of

subject merchandise to the United

States. In addition, in accordance with

section 751(a)(2)(B)(i), Berryhill

certified that it is not affiliated with any

other firm nor did it export subject

merchandise to the United States during

the period of investigation. Based on

this information, we determined that the

requirements cited above were

adequately fulfilled.

On September 11, 1996, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of a new shipper review of

Berryhill (61 FR 47872). The

Department is now conducting this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act and section 353.22 of its

interim regulations.

Scope of the Agreement

The products covered by this order

are shipments of fresh and frozen red

raspberries packed in bulk containers

and suitable for further processing.

These products are currently classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS) item

numbers 0810.20.90, 0810.20.10, and

0811.20.20. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we conducted verification of

information provided by the respondent

by using standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the respondent’s facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

version of the verification report.

Export Price

We calculated the export price (EP)

based on the price from Berryhill to

unaffiliated parties where these sales

were made prior to importation into the

United States, in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated

EP based on packed, F.O.B. cold storage

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. We made deductions,

where appropriate, for inland freight,

brokerage and handling, U.S. Customs

duties, and pre-sale warehouse expense,

in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of

the Act. No other adjustments were

claimed or allowed.

We calculated the constructed export

price (CEP) based on the price from

Berryhill to unaffiliated purchasers

where these sales were made after

importation into the United States, in

accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act. We calculated CEP based on

packed, F.O.B. U.S. cold storage prices

to unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made deductions, where

appropriate, for inland freight, brokeage

and handling, U.S. Customs duty, presale warehouse expense, U.S.

commissions, U.S. credit, U.S. inventory

carrying costs, and profit allocable to

the selling and distribution incurred in

the United States in accordance with

sections 772(c)(2), 772(d)(1) and

772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home market and

U.S. sales, and absent any information

that a particular market situation in the

exporting country does not permit a

proper comparison, we determined

pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the

Act that the quantity of foreign like

product sold in the exporting country

was sufficient to permit a proper

comparison with the sales of the subject

merchandise to the United States.

Therefore, in accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based NV on

sales in Canada, the home market.