capricious, and an abuse of discretion. These questions are:
1. Whether, taking into account plaintiff's discovery materials, the Hamilton Affidavit and whatever other investigation is reasonably necessary:
a) anticompetitive conspiracies such as those found in the reported cases are still ongoing;
b) the members of Chlor/Alkali are involved in such ongoing anticompetitive conspiracies, and
c) the antitrust exemptions provided in Chlor/Alkali's Export Trade Certificate, notwithstanding its terms, would likely be abused as a cover for antitrust violations.
2. Whether existing consent decrees bar the conduct permitted by Chlor/Alkali's certificate.
3. Whether, assuming that existing consent decrees do not bar the conduct permitted by Chlor/Alkali's certificate, the history of reported antitrust cases suggests that there is a high risk that the Chlor/Alkali's decisions, practices, and arrangements will be used to fix domestic prices.
4. Whether VCM and PVC are a significant segment of the chlorine industry rather than different product markets and, thus, whether the FTC proceeding challenging B.F. Goodrich's acquisition of Diamond Shamrock plants provides useful evidence regarding anticompetitive practices in the chlorine and caustic soda industry that bears upon Chlor/Alkali's conformance with the certification standards set forth in Section 303(a) of The Export Trading Company Act.
5. Whether chlorine exports are so minimal that inclusion of chlorine in the certificate granted to Chlor/Alkali is a sham that permits Chlor/Alkali to engage in domestic anticompetitive conduct.
The present administrative record is inadequate with respect to the genuine issues of material fact raised by the foregoing questions. In order to complete the administrative record, it is necessary to remand this case to the agencies for their reasoned analysis of the issues. The issues embrace factors relevant to Chlor/Alkali's eligibility for certification; a failure to consider these factors would be an error of judgment. Certification of Chlor/Alkali without the agencies' consideration of them would be an abuse of discretion, as well as arbitrary and capricious, because important aspects of the matter would have been ignored. Therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED because the concurrence of the Attorney General is required to grant an export trade certificate of review; therefore, the Attorney General's action is subject to review as a part of the determination of the Secretary.