UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Timothy J. Muris, Chairman
Sheila F. Anthony
Mozelle W. Thompson
Orson Swindle
Thomas B. Leary

In the Matter of

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V.,
a foreign corporation,

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY,
acorporation, and

Docket No. 9300
PITT-DES-MOINES, INC.,
a corporation.

SS SSS SS SS SS SH

ORDER

Upon consideration of Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Brief, it is hereby ORDERED that, Respondents’ Motion is hereby GRANTED. Respondents
and Complaint Counsel are granted an additional twenty-one days in which to file their initial

appeal briefs in this matter.

Dated: July __, 2003 ee eS

The Commission


Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Respondents respectfully request that they (and
Complaint Counsel) be granted an extension of twenty-one days in which to file their initial

appeal briefs.

Dated: July 2, 2003

Dissse OW. Flo, [ bep WSs
Duane M. Kelley (J G
Winston & Strawn

35 W. Wacker Drive

Chicago,IL 60601-9703

(312) 558-5600 (voice)

(312) 558-5700 (fax)

Counsel for Respondents
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
and Pitt Des-Moines, Inc.


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nada S. Sulaiman, hereby certify that on this 2nd day of July, 2003, I served a
true and correct copy of RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE APPEAL BRIEF, by hand delivery upon:

Office of the Secretary

Federal Trade Commission
Room H-159

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
(original and twelve copies)

I caused one copy of RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE APPEAL BRIEF, to be served by hand delivery upon the following person:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell
Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

I caused one copy of RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE APPEAL BRIEF, to be served by fax (202-326-2071) and hand delivery upon
the following persons:

Rhett Krulla

Assistant Director

Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission
601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
Room NJ-6109

Washington, D.C. 20580

Steven L. Wilensky we
Federal Trade Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.

Room NJ-6121
Washington, D.C. 20580

ithe LA



CACRTADE CORtiRyS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i >
ee” RECEIVED DOSUMENTS Gr

BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

eR ahh
wo a

COMMISSIONERS: Timothy J. Muris, Chairman ~.
Sronntsst

Sheila F. Anthony
Mozelle W. Thompson
Orson Swindle
Thomas B. Leary

In the Matter of

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V.,
a foreign corporation,

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY,
a corporation, and

Docket No. 9300
PITT-DES-MOINES, INC.,
a corporation.

RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE APPEAL BRIEF

Respondents respectfully request that the Commission grant Respondents an
additional twenty-one days in which to file their initial appeal brief. Respondents respectfully
submit that an extension of time is appropriate due to the complexity of this matter. In support
of their request for an extension of time, Respondents state the following:

Procedural History

1. The complaint in this matter-was issuedon-October-25,-2001. The trial
began on November 12, 2002, and concluded on January 16, 2003. Upon motions by the parties
and by various orders issued, the deadline for filing the Initial Decision was extended to April

28, 2003.


2. Upon request by Judge Chappell and by Order from the Commission
issued on April 24, 2003, the date for the filing of an Initial Decision was again extended until
June 12, 2003. In support of his request for an extension of time in which to file an Initial
Decision, Judge Chappel! noted that there were 34 days of trial spanning over two months which
included testimony of over 40 witnesses, hundreds of admitted exhibits and over 8,000 pages of
trial transcript.

3. On June 12, 2003, Judge Chappell issued an Initial Decision and Order
which found Respondents to be in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and
Section 5 of the FTC Act, in each of the four product markets alleged by Complaint Counsel.
Judge Chappell also ordered the complete divestiture of all of the assets acquired by
Respondents.

4. On June 26, 2003, Complaint Counsel filed a notice of appeal. In
response, Respondents filed a notice of appeal on July 2, 2003.

5. Respondents have asked Complaint Counsel to join in this motion. At this
time, Complaint Counsel is still considering whether to join in this motion.

Request for Extension of Time

6. Despite the fact that Complaint Counsel filed its notice of appeal first,
Respondents must file the initial brief in the appellate process; this brief is due on July 23, 2003.
See Rule 3.52(b). Respondents respectfully submit that a twenty-one day extension of time for
filing an appeal brief is appropriate due to the complexity of this matter, the length of the trial,
the size of the corresponding record, and the length of the initial decision.

7. The current case is analogous to simultaneously reviewing four separate

cases tried under Section 7. Contrary to many cases brought before the Commission, the instant


case involves four separate and distinct product markets: LNG storage tanks; LPG storage tanks;
LIN/LOX storage tanks; and thermal vacuum chambers. Judge Chappell found against
Respondents in each of the four product markets.

8. In addition to the four separate markets, an extension of time is justified
due to the length of the trial and the size of the trial record. As observed by Judge Chappell
himself, this trial took over two months, involved several dozen live witnesses, hundreds of
admitted exhibits, and-thousands of pages of trial transcript. Further the parties submitted over
2,000 pages of proposed findings of fact, reply findings of fact, post-trial briefs, and reply briefs.
Judge Chappell's Initial Decision is 134 pages and contains nearly 600 findings of fact. In order
for Respondents to properly prepare its appeal in this matter, additional time is necessary to
analyze this voluminous record, as well as the Initial Decision.

9. Due to the limited time frame within which Respondents' appeal brief
must be filed, Respondents respectfully request expedited consideration of this motion, pursuant

to FTC Rule of Practice 3.22(d).