Marquette Cement Manufacturing Company

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, ETC. 1768

respondent has not stipulated to be bound by the outcome of those proceedings.

However, respondent also raises questions similar to those raised in Lehigh Portland Cement Company, Docket No. 8680, relating to the alleged unfairness resulting from the conduct of legislative-type hearings while adjudicative proceedings are pending. In Lehigh we noted that these questions appear to be. sufficiently substantial to warrant full consideration by the Commission. We, therefore, permitted an interlocutory appeal in that case and stayed all further proceedings pending further order of the Commission. The same procedure should be followed here. Accordingly, It ts ordered, That:

(1) Respondent’s request for an interlocutory appeal is granted insofar as it seeks review of the examiner’s order denying its motion to dismiss the proceeding on the basis of alleged unfairness arising from the Commission’s conduct of hearings on vertical integration in the cement industry while this adjudicative proceeding was pending; in all other respects, respondent’s request for an interlocutory appeal is denied;

(2) Respondent shall have thirty (80) days from the date of this order within which to file a brief in support of its appeal; and upon the filing of such brief by respondent, complaint counsel shall have thirty (30) days within which to file an answering brief. The Commission will thereafter determine whether and when it desires to hear oral arguments and the Secretary will so notify counsel on both sides; and

(3) Pending the Commission’s determination of the appeal, respondent’s time to answer and all other proceedings before the hearing examiner in this matter are hereby stayed until further order of the Commission.

Commissioner MacIntyre not participating.

AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY ET AL.