Diamond Alkali Company

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

DIAMOND ALKALI COMPANY

Docket 8572. Order, Jan. 21, 1965 Order that respondent’s motion for the postponement of oral argument be denied. Orper Denyine Motion ror Postponement or Oral ARGUMENT Respondent has filed a motion to postpone the date of oral argument before the Commission of the appeal in the above-captioned proceeding from January 26, 1965, to April 1, 1965, or any other date in April 1965. The ground for the motion is that respondent’s attorneys are currently required to devote a large amount of time to other pending litigation and investigatory matters. Complaint counsel has filed an answer opposing respondent’s request for a postponement. Section 6(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides: “Every agency shall proceed with reasonable dispatch to conclude any matter presented to it except that due regard shall be had for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives.” A number of provisions of the Commission’s Rules of Practice are designed to assure reasonable dispatch of Commission adjudicatory proceedings. For example, Section 8.16(d) provides that “Hearings shall proceed with all reasonable expedition” and that “all hearings shall be held at one place and shall continue without suspension until concluded.” And Section 3.21 requires the hearing examiner to file his initial decision within ninety days after completion of the reception of evidence in a proceeding. Obviously, the effectiveness of these and other provisions requiring the expeditious handling and reasonable dispatch of Commission proceedings would be vitiated if the Commission were to allow repeated and undue delays in the filing and argument of appeals to the Commission from the hearing examiner's initial decision. The requirement of reasonable dispatch does not terminate with the filing of the initial decision.

The initial decision in the above-captioned proceeding was filed on May 15, 1964 [72 F.T.C. 700], and respondent has requested and been granted extensions of time for the filing of its apppeal and reply briefs. If the Commission were to grant the present motion te postpone the date of oral argument, the result would be that almost a year would be

INTERLOCUTORY, VACATING, AND

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS