[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67647-67650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32544]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-047]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Elemental Sulphur From 
Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Review: Elemental Sulphur 
from Canada.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On August 3, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review (63 FR 41227) of the 
antidumping finding on elemental sulphur from Canada pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On 
the basis of a notice of intent to participate and substantive comments 
filed on behalf of the domestic industry, and inadequate response (in 
this case no response) from respondent interested parties, the 
Department determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result of 
this review, the Department finds that revocation of antidumping 
finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping at the levels located in the Appendix to this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & 
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-3207 
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1998.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to section 751(c) and 752 of the 
Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of the sunset reviews 
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Order, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''). Guidance on methodological 
or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset 
reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies 
Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 
1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping finding is elemental 
sulphur from Canada. This merchandise is classifiable under Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings 2503.10.00, 2503.90.00, and 
2802.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and for U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of 
this finding remains dispositive.
    This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of elemental 
sulphur from Canada other than the following for which the finding has 
been revoked: Shell Canada Resources, Ltd., Canadian Superior Oil, 
Ltd., Chevron Standard, Ltd., Gulf Oil Canada, Ltd., Hudson's Bay Oil & 
Gas, Ltd.,1 Sulconan, Inc., Irving Oil, Ltd.,2 
Tiger Chemicals Ltd., Pan Canadian Petroleum Ltd., Amoco Canada 
Petroleum Company, Ltd., Imperial Oil Ltd./Exxon Chemical Americas, 
Inc., Canterra Energy Ltd.(formerly Aquitaine Company of Canada, Ltd.), 
CDC Oil & Gas Ltd., Dome Petroleum Ltd.,3 PetroGass 
Processing, Ltd., Cities Service Oil & Gas, Imperial Oil Limited, and 
Texaco Canada Ltd.,4 BP Resources Oil, Cornwell Chemical 
Ltd., Home Oil Ltd., Suncor,5 InterRedec,6 Petro 
Canada,7 and Sulco Chemicals Ltd.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Partial Revocation of Antidumping Finding; 
47 FR 3811 (January 27, 1982) (revocation with respect to Shell 
Canada, Ltd. and Canadian Superior Oil, Ltd.); Elemental Sulphur 
From Canada; Partial Revocation of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 40760 
(September 9, 1983) (revocation with respect to Chevron); Elemental 
Sulphur From Canada; Revocation of Antidumping Finding in Part; 49 
FR 1920 (January 16, 1984) (revocation with respect to Hudson's Bay 
Oil & Gas Company Limited and Gulf Oil Canada Limited); Elemental 
Sulphur From Canada; Reinstatement in Part of Antidumping Finding; 
51 FR 19580 (May 30, 1986) (reinstatement of finding with respect to 
Shell Canada Resources, Ltd., Canadian Superior Oil, Ltd., Chevron 
Standard, Ltd., Gulf Oil Canada, Ltd., and Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas, 
Ltd.); and Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 53 FR 
1048 (January 15, 1988) (revocation with respect to Shell Canada 
Resources, Ltd., Canadian Superior Oil, Ltd., Chevron Standard, 
Ltd., Gulf Oil Canada, Ltd., and Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas, Ltd.).
    \2\ Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Partial Revocation of Antidumping Finding; 
47 FR 31716 (July 22, 1982) (revocation with respect to Sulconam, 
Inc. and Irving Oil, Ltd.).
    \3\ Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding and Revocation in Part; 
50 FR 37889 (September 18, 1985) (revocation with respect to Tiger 
Chemicals, Ltd., Pan Canadian Petroleum, Ltd., Amoco Canada 
Petroleum Company, Ltd., Imperial Oil, Ltd./Exxon Chemical Americas, 
Inc., Canterra Energy (formerly Aquitaine Company of Canada, Ltd.), 
CDC Oil & Gas, Ltd., and Dome Petroleum, Ltd.).
    \4\ Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 55 FR 13179 
(April 9, 1990) (revocation with respect to PetroGass Processing, 
Cities Service Oil & Gas, Imperial Oil, and Texaco Canada).
    \5\ Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty; Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 55 FR 43152 
(October 26, 1990) (revocation with respect to B.P. Resources 
Canada, Cornwall Chemical, Home Oil, and Suncor).
    \6\ Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 56 FR 5391 
(February 11, 1991) (revocation with respect to InterRedec Sulphur 
Corporation).
    \7\ Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 56 FR 15068 
(April 19, 1991) (revocation with respect to Petro-Canada).
    \8\ Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 57 FR 1452 
(January 14, 1992) (revocation with respect to Sulco Chemicals, 
Ltd.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background:

    On August 3, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty finding on elemental sulphur from Canada (63 FR 41227) 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930. On August 18, 
1998, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from 
Freeport-McMoRan Sulphur Inc. (``Freeport''). Freeport claimed 
interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. 
manufacturer of elemental sulphur. Freeport stated that it acquired the 
sulphur production operations of Pennzoil Company (``Pennzoil'') and 
Duval, a subsidiary of Pennzoil. Duval was the original petitioner in 
this proceeding in 1972 and has actively participated in several 
administrative reviews. We received a complete substantive response 
from Freeport on September 2, 1998, within the 30-day deadline 
specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). 
Noting that it has requested revocation of the finding, on

[[Page 67648]]

September 1, 1998, Husky Oil Ltd., waived its right to participate in 
the Department's sunset review. We did not receive a substantive 
response from any respondent interested parties to this proceeding. As 
a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and our 
regulations (19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), the Department determined 
to conduct an expedited review.

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping. Section 752 of the Act provides that, in making this 
determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-average 
dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews 
and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period 
before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping finding, 
and shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the 
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail 
if the finding is revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are addressed 
within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

    Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically 
the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt.1 
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the 
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on 
methodological and analytical issues, including the bases for 
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on 
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.3). In addition, the Department 
indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an 
antidumping order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping where (a) dumping continued at any level above de minimis after 
the issuance of the order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise 
ceased after the issuance of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated 
after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject 
merchandise declined significantly (see section II.A.3).
    The antidumping finding on elemental sulphur from Canada was 
published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 74-1 (38 FR 
34655, Dec. 17, 1973). Since that time, the Department has conducted 
numerous administrative reviews.\9\ The finding remains in effect for 
all imports of elemental sulphur from Canada other than those for which 
the finding has been revoked, as discussed previously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Partial Revocation of Antidumping Finding; 
47 FR 3811 (January 27, 1982); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final 
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 14507 
(April 25, 1982); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Administrative Review and Partial Revocation of Antidumping Finding; 
47 FR 31716 (July 22, 1982); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final 
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 31911 
(July 23, 1982); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Partial Revocation 
of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 40760 (September 9, 1983); Elemental 
Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Administrative Review of 
Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 53592 (November 28, 1983); Elemental 
Sulphur From Canada; Revocation of Antidumping Finding in Part; 49 
FR 1920 (January 16, 1984); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final 
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding and 
Revocation in Part; 50 FR 37889 (September 18, 1985); Elemental 
Sulphur From Canada; Reinstatement in Part of Antidumping Finding; 
51 FR 19580 (May 30, 1986); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 51 FR 43954 
(December 5, 1986); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 51 FR 45153 (December 17, 
1986); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 41601 (October 29, 1987); 
Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 53 FR 1048 (January 
15, 1988); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 15257 (April 28, 
1988); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 55 FR 13179 
(April 9, 1990); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 55 FR 28794 (July 13, 1990); 
Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty; 
Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 55 FR 43152 (October 
26, 1990); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 56 FR 
5391 (February 11, 1991); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in 
Part; 57 FR 1452 (January 14, 1992); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; 
Final Results of Antidumping Finding Administrative Review; 61 FR 
8239 (March 4, 1996); Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; 62 FR 37970 (July 15, 
1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, Freeport applied the criteria 
contained in the Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin and concluded that 
revocation of the finding would result in continued and increased 
dumping. Freeport provided in its comments a table which identified 
dumping margins, by company, over the life of the finding. Freeport 
claimed that this evidence demonstrated that, in practically every 
case, dumping not only continued, but that the margin of dumping 
remained steady or increased. In addition, Freeport provided a table 
presenting Census data on the total quantity of sulphur imported into 
the United States from Canada and stated that imports have decreased 
every year since 1992, when the domestic industry began requesting 
administrative reviews.
    We find that the existence of dumping margins after the issuance of 
the finding is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates above de minimis levels continue 
in effect for exports by several Canadian manufacturers and exporters 
of elemental sulphur (for example Allied Signal Inc., Brimstone Export, 
Mobil Oil Canada, Ltd., Norcen Energy Resources, Petrosul 
International). As discussed in Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if companies 
continue dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the 
Department may reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the 
discipline were removed. Therefore, given that dumping has continued 
over the life of the finding, and absent argument and evidence to the 
contrary, the Department determines that dumping is likely to continue 
if the finding were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, in a 
sunset review of an antidumping finding for which no company-specific 
margin or ``all others'' rate is included in the Treasury finding 
published in the Federal Register, the Department normally will provide 
to the Commission the company-specific margin from the first final 
results of administrative review published in the Federal Register by 
the Department. Additionally, if the first final results do not contain 
a margin for a particular company, the Department normally will provide 
the Commission, as the margin for that company, the first ``new 
shipper'' rate established by the Department for that finding. (See 
section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Exceptions to this 
policy include the use of a more recently calculated margin, where 
appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption

[[Page 67649]]

determinations. (See section II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin.)
    Because Treasury did not publish weighted-average dumping margins 
in its finding, and such margins are not otherwise publicly available, 
the margins determined in the original investigation are not available 
to the Department for use in this sunset review. Under these 
circumstances, the Department normally will select the margin from the 
first administrative review conducted by the Department as the 
magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the finding is 
revoked. We note that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty 
absorption findings in this case.
    In its substantive comments, Freeport suggests that the Department 
use the margins from both the first (which covered 33 companies) and 
second (which covered 17 companies) final results of administrative 
review because both determinations established company-specific margins 
for the period in the 1970s immediately following the issuance of 
Treasury's 1973 antidumping finding. For companies covered in either of 
these first two reviews for which margins have increased over the life 
of the finding, Freeport recommends that the Department select the 
highest rate applied to those companies. Finally, for companies covered 
by neither of these two reviews, but covered in subsequent reviews, 
Freeport recommends either the first ``all others'' rate calculated by 
the Department, the highest company-specific rate calculated by the 
Department, or, in the case to two manufacturer/exporter combinations, 
the only rate ever calculated for the combination. Other than its 
discussion related to the appropriate margin for Husky, Freeport merely 
suggests that the Department's policy provides for the selection of the 
highest rate for companies where the Department has calculated a margin 
higher than the original.
    With respect to Husky Oil, Ltd. (``Husky'') (a company that was 
first reviewed by the Department during the 1991-1992 administrative 
review), Freeport argues that, if the finding were revoked, the 
magnitude of the margin likely to prevail would be the highest rate 
calculated for Husky. Freeport notes that the margins determined by the 
Department for Husky in the 91-92, 92-93, 93-94, and 94-95 
administrative reviews have been 7.17%, 40.38%, 3.38% and 0.33%, 
respectively. Freeport argues that the enormous increase in Husky's 
margin between the 91-92 and 92-93 administrative reviews reflects 
Husky's choice to increase dumping in a effort to maintain market 
share, particularly during a period when U.S. market prices declined 
significantly. Freeport further argues that Husky's margins from the 
93-94 and 94-95 administrative reviews are aberrationally low and 
reflect dramatic reduction in Husky's U.S. sales volumes and reversible 
changes in its operations designed to minimize the margins calculated 
by the Department.
    Using the non-confidential ranged figures reported by Husky during 
the course of the administrative reviews, Freeport states that Husky's 
U.S. sales volumes decreased from the 91-92 administrative review high 
to a 92-93 all time low, and then increased during the 94-95 
administrative review. Freeport adds that in the course of the ongoing 
administrative review of the 96-97 administrative review, Husky again 
decreased the volume of its exports of sulphur to the U.S. market.
    Freeport notes that the overwhelming majority of Husky's (and 
Canada's) sulphur is produced at major sour gas processing plants. 
Freeport then states that, under the discipline of the finding, Husky 
made changes in its operations by limiting its U.S. exports to sulphur 
produced at an unrepresentative facility (the Lloydminster heavy oil 
upgrader, as opposed to sour gas processing plants) and shifted to 
production of formed sulphur at its sour gas facilities. Freeport adds 
that these changes had a major impact on Husky's reported cost of 
production and constructed value and the resultant dumping margins 
calculated by the Department.
    Freeport concludes that in the absence of the constraints imposed 
by the antidumping finding, Husky would again export much larger 
volumes of sulphur to the United States, would resume exporting to the 
U.S. from its major sour gas production facilities and would otherwise 
revert to its normal commercial operations.
    On April 5, 1982, the Department issued the final results of review 
of this finding covering 47 of the 52 known exporters and, generally, 
the period July 1, 1978 through November 30, 1980 (47 FR 14507). On 
November 28, 1983, the Department issued the final results of review of 
this finding covering 43 of the 49 manufacturers and/or exporters and, 
generally, the period December 1, 1980 through November 30, 1981 (48 FR 
53592). We note, however, that for some companies, the November 1983 
notice covered an earlier review period than did the April 1982 notice. 
For example, the November 1983 notice covered entries dating back to 
1973 for certain companies. Therefore, we agree with Freeport and have 
selected, as the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail, the margin 
for the first period reviewed for each company, regardless of which 
Federal Register notice contained the review results.
    With respect to selecting the highest rate calculated by the 
Department for companies whose dumping margins have increased over 
time, we do not agree with Freeport. In the Sunset Policy Bulletin the 
Department stated that ``a company may choose to increase dumping in 
order to maintain or increase market share'' and that ``the Department 
may, in response to argument from an interested party, provide to the 
Commission a more recently calculated margin for a particular company, 
where, for that particular company, dumping margins increased after the 
issuance of the order.'' (See section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin.) The Department's intent was to establish a policy of using 
the original investigation margin as the starting point, thus providing 
interested parties the opportunity and incentive to come forward with 
data which would support a different estimate. Freeport, however, 
merely asserts that the highest rate calculated should be selected 
based on ``the `increasing margins' criterion'' established in the 
Sunset Policy Bulletin. (See Freeport's September 2, 1998, Substantive 
Response, p. 9.) Freeport did not, however, present arguments with 
respect to changes in margin levels as related to market share. The 
statistics provided by Freeport, 1991-1997 annual volume and value of 
imports from Canada, do not show an increase in imports concurrent with 
an increase in dumping, nor does it present the Department with a 
picture of the relative market shares held by Canada manufacturers and 
exporters. Given the information available to the Department, it is not 
possible to discern whether any increases or decreases in margins 
reflect an effort to maintain or increase market share. Similarly, 
Freeport did not offer any reason for its request that the Department 
select the highest margin or ``all others'' rate, whichever is higher, 
for those companies that were not reviewed in either of the first or 
second administrative reviews conducted by the Department.
    Finally, with respect to the magnitude of the margin likely to 
prevail with respect to Husky, we are not persuaded by Freeport's 
arguments. While we agree that the volume of Husky's exports declined 
significantly after the 91-92 review, and never reached the 91-92 
level, the level of Husky's exports increased between 92-93 and 93-94. 
Further, we have no reason to believe that Husky will, if the finding 
is

[[Page 67650]]

revoked, revert to producing sulphur for export to the United States at 
its other facilities. Therefore, as discussed previously, we have 
determined that the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail for Husky 
is the first ``new shippers'' rate determined by the Department (see 
Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Administrative Review 
of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 53592 (November 28, 1982)).
    Our review of the margin history over the life of this finding 
demonstrates that there have, with respect to some companies, been 
fluctuations in the level of the margins. We do not, however, view them 
as demonstrating a consistent patter of behavior. Therefore, the 
Department finds no reason to deviate in this review from our stated 
policy of using the first rates calculated by the Department. We 
determine that the original margins calculated by the Department are 
probative of the behavior of Canadian manufacturers and exporters of 
elemental sulphur. (See Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 14507 (April 5, 
1982 and Elemental Sulphur From Canada; Final Results of Administrative 
Review of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 53592 (November 28, 1983)). We 
will report to the Commission the company-specific and ``all others'' 
rate included in the Appendix to this notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Appendix to this 
notice.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or 
conversation to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with section 751(c) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: December 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

                                Appendix
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amerada Minerals..........................  28.90.
Amoco Canada..............................  Revoked.
Brimstone Export/all other mfgs...........  87.65.
Canadian Bright Sulphur...................  26.95.
Canadian Reserve..........................  19.06.
Canadian Reserve/Canamex..................  87.65.
Canamex Commodity.........................  3.20.
Canterra Energy (formerly Aquitaine Co. of  Revoked.
 Canada Ltd.
Canterra/Brimstone........................  87.65.
Canterra/Canamex..........................  5.56.
CDC Oil & Gas.............................  Revoked.
Cornwall Chemicals........................  Revoked.
Dome Petroleum............................  Revoked.
Home Oil..................................  Revoked.
Home Oil-Canamex..........................  2.86.
Imperial Oil..............................  Revoked.
Imperial Oil/Exxon........................  Revoked.
Irving Oil................................  Revoked.
Koch Oil..................................  26.95.
Marathon Oil..............................  28.90.
Pacific Petroleum.........................  26.95.
Pacific Petroleum-Canamex.................  20.28.
Pan Canadian..............................  Revoked.
Pan Canadian/Canamex......................  0.
Petro Canada Exploration..................  Revoked.
Petrofina.................................  28.90.
Petrogas Processing.......................  Revoked.
Petrosul..................................  0.
Rampart Resources/Sulbow Minerals.........  0.
Real Int'l Marketing......................  0.21.
Sulbow Minerals...........................  26.95.
Sulconam (formerly Laurentide Sulphur &     Revoked.
 Chemicals, Ltd.).
Sulmar Canada.............................  26.95.
Sulpetro (formerly Candel Oil)............  28.90.
Suncor, Inc. (formerly Sun Oil Company of   Revoked.
 Canada, Ltd. and Great Canadian Oil
 Sands, Ltd.).
Suncor/Canamex............................  20.28.
Texaco Canada.............................  Revoked.
Tiger Chemicals...........................  Revoked.
Union Texas...............................  0.
West Decalta..............................  28.90.
West Coast Transmission...................  28.90.
All others................................  5.56.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-32544 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P