Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Elemental Sulphur From Canada

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