36224 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

[Civil No. 99–1962]

United States v. Allied Waste

Industries, et al.; Response to Public

Comments on Antitrust Consent

Decree and Joint Motion for Entry of a

Modified Judgment

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that on May 10,

2000, the United States filed its

responses to public comments on the

proposed Final Judgment in United

States v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc., et

al. (‘‘Allied’’), Civil No. 99–1962 (D.D.C.

filed July 20, 1999), with the United

States District Court in Washington, DC.

On July 20, 1999, the United States

filed a civil antitrust complaint, which

alleged that the proposed acquisition by

Allied of Browning-Ferris Industries,

Inc. (‘‘BFI’’) would violate section 7 of

the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, by

substantially lessening competition in

waste collection and/or disposal

services, or both, in a number of markets

around the country, including the

greater Chicago metropolitan market.

The proposed Final Judgment, filed

on July 20, 1999, requires Allied and

BFI to divest commercial waste

collection and/or municipal solid waste

disposal operations in each of the

geographic areas alleged in the

Complaint. This includes the divestiture

of commercial routes that serve the City

of Chicago and Cook, DuPage, Will,

Kane, McHenry and Lake counties, IL.

These routes included municipal

franchise waste business. Because of

comments received objecting to the

divestiture of the municipal franchises,

the United States determined and Allied

agreed that instead of the municipal

franchise contract work being divested,

Allied would be permitted to retain the

municipal franchise contracts and

divest instead additional assets which

are not required to be divested by the

proposed Final Judgment. These

additional assets consist of residential

and rolloff waste hauling business in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market. A

modified version of the proposed

Judgment (Modified Final Judgment),

filed on May 11, 2000, permits Allied to

retain the municipal franchise business

and to divest instead the residential and

rolloff waste hauling business.

Public comment on the proposed

Judgment was invited within the

statutory 60-day comment period. The

public comments and the United States

responses thereto are hereby published

in the Federal Register and have been

filed with the Court. Copies of the

Complaint, Hold Separate Stipulation

and Order, proposed Final Judgment,

Competitive Impact Statement, the

United States Certificate of Compliance

with Provisions of the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act (to which

the public comments and the United

States responses are attached), proposed

Modified Final Judgment, and the

Memorandum of the United States in

Support of Entry of the Proposed

Modified Final Judgment are available

for inspection in Room 215 of the

Antitrust Division, Department of

Justice, 325 7th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–

514–2481), and at the office of the Clerk

of the United States District Court for

the District of Columbia, Third Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20001.

Copies of any of these materials may

be obtained upon request and payment

of a copying fee.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations & Merger Enforcement,

Antitrust Division.

Note: The letter dated October 5, 1999 from

Peter Anderson of Recycle Worlds Consulting

was not able to be published in the Federal

Register but a copy can be obtained from the

U.S. Department of Justice, Document Group,

325 7th Street, NW., Room 215, Washington,

DC 20530 or you may call and request a copy

at (202) 514–2481.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Peter Anderson,

Recycle Worlds, 4513 Vernon Blvd., Suite 15,

Madison, WI 53705–4964.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Mr. Anderson: This letter responds to

your letter of October 5, 1999 commenting on

the Final Judgment in this case on behalf of

Recycle Works. The Complaint in this case

charged, among other things, that Allied’s

acquisition of BFI would substantially lessen

competition in the collection or disposal of

small container commercial waste in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market. The

proposed modified Final Judgment, now

pending in federal district court in

Washington, DC, would settle the case by

requiring the defendants to divest a number

of waste collection routes and waste disposal

facilities in the greater Chicago metropolitan

market. This relief, if approved by the Court,

would establish one or more new competitors

in this market for which relief was sought.

In your letter, you urged the United States

not to approve any asset divestiture under

the proposed Final Judgment to one of the

major integrated waste collection and

disposal firms. In your view, these firms may

be more inclined to cooperate with the

defendants in raising prices in some markets

in order to avoid potential price wars with

the defendants elsewhere. You state that

selling the assets to a major integrated

company could reduce competition and

result in increased prices.

The United States could not categorically

conclude that selling the assets required to be

divested under the proposed Final Judgment

to a large national waste collection and

disposal firm would be less competitive than

a sale to a municipal agency or small

independent firm, or that large waste

companies are more prone to collude, when

given the opportunity, than small

independent firms. Also, large waste

collection and disposal companies may enjoy

some competitive advantages, such as better

access to capital and more extensive

experience. These advantages would make

them in some respects more formidable

competitors than small independent firms.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

October 5, 1999.

J. Robert Kramer II, Esq.,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, United States Department of

Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 3000,

Washington, DC 20530.

Re United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

No. 99 CV 01962.

Dear Mr. Kramer: On August 6, 1999, the

Department of Justice published a Tunney

Act notice of a proposed final judgment in

the above referenced case. 64 Fed. Reg. 42962

(August 6, 1999). As required by the Act, the

Department has invited public comment on

the proposed final judgment.

I have received correspondence from the

DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference,

representing most of the local governments in

my district, and the Village of Lisle

requesting, certain changes to the proposed

final judgment. A copy of this

correspondence is attached for your review.

In essence, the Conference asks that the

consent decree not require local governments

to rebid their waste collection contracts in

the middle of the contract terms. I

understand that these contracts tend to run

from three to six years and that the current

contracts are generally viewed as

advantageous to the communities. By

allowing current contracts to run their term,

local governments will receive substantial

savings, and the potentially procompetitive

benefits of the consent decree will be delayed

for only a short period. This strikes me as a

reasonable short term accommodation, and I

recommend it to you.

I appreciate your attention to my views and

those of the local governments in my district.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36225

Please place this letter in whatever public

files are appropriate under applicable law.

Please feel free to contact me if I may be of

further assistance.

Sincerely,

Henry J. Hyde, 

Chairman.

cc: Mr. Ronald S. Ghilardi, DuPage Mayors

and Managers Conference; Ms. Barbara J.

Adamec, Village of Lisle.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Honorable Henry J. Hyde,

U.S. House of Representives, 2138 Rayburn

Building, Washington, DC 20515–6216.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999)

Dear Congressman Hyde: This letter

responds to your letter of October 5, 1999

commenting on the final Judgment in this

case on behalf of the DuPage Mayors and

Managers conference (‘‘Conference’’) and

Village of Lisle. The Complaint in this case

charged, among other things, that Allied’s

acquisition of BFI would substantially lessen

competition in the collection or disposal of

small container commercial waste in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market. The

proposed modified Final Judgment, now

pending in federal district court in

Washington, DC., would settle the case by

requiring the defendants to divest a number

of waste collection routes and waste disposal

facilities in the greater Chicago metropolitan

market. This relief, if approved by the Court,

would establish one or more new competitors

in this market for which relief was sought.

In your letter, you state that the Conference

and the Village of Lisle express concern that

the Final judgment, by ordering divestiture of

BFI’s small container commercial waste

business, may interfere with BFI’s existing

government franchise contracts which also

includes the disposal of the communities’

residential waste. The local communities fear

that requiring Allied to divest only the

franchise commercial waste collection

business would, in effect, split the collection

business between two firms—the purchaser

who would have the franchise commercial

waste business; and Allied, which would

retain the residential and recycling waste

collection services. The communities believe

that this will result in the purchaser

providing a lower level of service, or result

in additional trucks being sent down city

streets.

In light of this concern raised by you and

others, the United States and Allied reached

agreement that instead of the municipal

franchise contracts being divested, Allied

would be permitted to retain the municipal

franchise contracts and divest instead

additional assets which are not required to be

divested by the proposed modified Final

Judgment. These additional assets include

residential and rolloff waste hauling

business. These assets have been acquired by

Superior Services Inc., a purchaser approved

by the United States. The United States has

filed a motion with the Court to modify the

proposed Final Judgment which would

permit Allied to retain the municipal

franchise contracts initially required to be

divested. Allied has agreed to keep separate

the municipal franchise contracts, which

were required to be divested, until the

Court’s acceptance of the modification to the

proposed Final Judgment.

I have responded directly to the

Conference and the Village of Lisle

addressing their concerns. Copies of my

responses are enclosed.

Thank you for bringing your concerns and

theirs to our attention, and we hope this

information will help alleviate them.

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and

Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your

comments and those of the Conference and

Village of Lisle, and this response will be

published in the Federal Register and filed

with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Kramer II, 

Chief, Litigation II Section.

DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference

September 22, 1999.

Anthony Harris,

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, 1401 H Street, Northwest, Suite

3000, Washington, DC 20530.

Re United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries,

Inc.—Case No. 1:99 CV 01962.

Dear Mr. Harris: The DuPage Mayors and

Managers Conference, an association of the

35 municipalities located in DuPage County,

Illinois, respectfully submits the following

comments related to the proposed Final

Judgment Order issued in United States v.

Allied Waste Industries and Browning-Ferris

Industries (BFI)

The proposed Final Judgment Order

requires BFI to sell their small container

commercial waste collection operations in

several highly concentrated markets,

including the Chicago region. BFI’s

divestiture of these operations will have the

following adverse impacts on communities

that have exclusive contracts with BFI for the

provision of commercial and/or multi-family

collection services;

(1) Since the proposed Final Judgment

Order would allow BFI to maintain its hand

pick-up collection services, it is likely that

one company would be responsible for

collecting small container solid waste from

commercial and multi-family customers

while BFI would still be responsible for the

hand pick-up of recyclables from the same

customers. This will undermine the policy

decision made by many communities to have

an exclusive contract with a single company

to provide all waste collection services in the

community.

(2) Many communities will have to re-bid

their existing contracts to identify a new

provider for small container commercial

waste collection services.

The DuPage Mayors and Mangers

Conference requests that the Department of

Justice consider amending the proposed

Final Judgment Order in a manner that

would protect BFI’s existing franchise

agreements with units of local government.

The Conference supports consideration of

the following suggestions previously

submitted to the Department of Justice by the

West Cook County Solid Waste Agency:

(1) Modify the definition of ‘‘Collection of

small container solid waste’’ to exclude from

the definition ‘‘any collection of waste from

customers that is being provided subject to

the terms of a properly executed, legally

binding contract or franchise agreement with

a unit of local government,’’ or

(2) Modify the proposed Final Judgment

Order to limit the divestiture of commercial

routes that ‘‘serve any non-franchised or

open competition ares.’’

Implementing either of these two

suggestions will avoid the adverse impacts to

local governments that currently have

franchise agreements with BFI, while also

preserving the Department of Justice’s goal of

promoting competition in waste hauling

services.

Sincerely,

Ronald S. Ghilardi,

President, DuPage Mayors and Managers

Conference.

cc: House Speaker Dennis Hastert; U.S.

Senator Dick Durbin; U.S. Senator Peter

Fitzgerald; Congresswoman Judy Biggert;

Congressman Henry J. Hyde.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Ronald S. Ghilardi,

DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference,

1220 Oak Brook Road, Oak Brook, IL

60523–2203.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Mr. Ghilardi: This letter responds to

your letter of September 22, 1999

commenting on the Final Judgment in this

case on behalf of DuPage Mayors and

Managers Conference. The Complaint in this

case charged, among other things, that

Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, DC., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your letter, you expressed concern that

the Final Judgment, by ordering divestiture of

BFI’s small container commercial waste

business, may interfere with BFI’s existing

government franchise contracts which also

includes the disposal of the communities’

residential waste. The local communities fear

that requiring Allied to divest only the

franchise commercial waste collection

business would, in effect, split the collection

36226 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

business between two firms—the purchaser

who would have the franchise commercial

waste business, and Allied, which would

retain the residential and recycling collection

services. The communities fear that this will

result in the purchaser providing a lower

level of service, or result in additional trucks

being sent down city streets.

In light of this concern raised by you and

others, the United States and Allied reached

agreement that instead of the municipal

franchise contracts being divested, Allied

would be permitted to retain the municipal

franchise contracts and divest instead

additional assets which are not required to be

divested by the proposed modified Natural

Final Judgment. These additional assets

include residential and rolloff waste hauling

business. These assets have been acquired by

Superior Services Inc., a purchaser approved

by the United States. The United States has

filed a motion with the Court to modify the

proposed Final Judgment which would

permit Allied to retain the municipal

franchise contracts intially required to be

divested. Allied has agreed to keep separate

the municipal franchise contracts, which

were required to be divested, until the

Court’s acceptance of the modification to the

proposed Final Judgment.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

Solid Waste Association of North America

October 5, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Anti Trust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, NW, Suite 3000,

Washington, DC 20530.

Re Proposed Consent Decree in United States

v. Allied Waste Industries, Inc. and

Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.—Case

No. 1:99 CV 01962

Dear Mr. Kramer: With over 6,700

members, and 47 chapters in the U.S. and

Canada, the Solid Waste Association of North

America (SWANA) is the largest professional

association in the solid waste management

field. Our mission is to advance the practice

of environmentally and economically sound

municipal solid waste management. On

behalf of SWANA, I am writing to offer

comments regarding the draft Final Judgment

order that has been filed with the U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia in

the above referenced case.

SWANA supports, in principle, the

proposed Final Judgment directive which

requires Allied Waste Industries, Inc.

(‘‘Allied’’) to divest itself of the Relevant

Disposal Assets and Relevant Hauling Assets.

One of SWANA’s members, the West Cook

County Solid Waste Agency (representing 36

local governments in Cook County, Illinois),

has begun the process of pursuing its own

interest in purchasing a portion of the

Relevant Disposal Assets. The purchase of

these assets by a unit of local government

such as the Agency would enhance and foster

competition in the marketplace. Yet the

proposed timeline for the ordered

divestitures in this case would make it

virtually impossible for the Agency to

successfully compete for this asset.

Requiring Allied to divest itself of these

assets within 60 days after the approval of

the Final Judgment by the Court creates an

unfair and unreasonable bias towards large,

highly liquid, waste hauling firms and denies

smaller companies and local governments

(either individually or in the form of a

consortium) sufficient time to conduct proper

due diligence and arrange for the necessary

financing to be able to effectively bid on the

available assets.

The proposed Final Judgment as drafted,

would serve to exacerbate the decline in the

number of local government agencies and

independent solid waste companies that are

able to compete in the marketplace. This

would be especially true if, as according to

recent press reports, Allied were to sell all

assets in the Chicago area to only one entity.

This would reduce competition to only three

significant competitors—all of which would

be vertically integrated and in a position to

control pricing within the market. Such an

event could create an anti-competitive

market environment that could lead to

increased prices that would clearly be

harmful to municipalities and to the general

business community.

Therefore, in order to ensure that all

interested parties are provided a fair and

equal opportunity to bid on one or more of

the assets, SWANA strongly recommends

that the proposed Final Judgment be

modified to require Allied to take bids on the

assets individually. Furthermore, SWANA

recommends that the proposed Final

Judgment be modified to require Allied to

receive bids to acquire Relevant Disposal

Assets and Relevant Hauling Assets for 180

days after the Final Judgment has been

approved by the Court (rather than within a

60 day limit as specified in the proposed

Final Judgment).

SWANA appreciates the opportunity

provided by the Court to file these comments

and looks forward to your favorable

consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

John H. Skinner Ph.D.,

Executive Director and CEO.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

John H. Skinner,

SWANA, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 700,

Silver Spring, MD 20910.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Mr. Skinner: This letter responds to

your letter of October 5, 1999 commenting on

the Final Judgment in this case on behalf of

SWANA. The Complaint in this case charged,

among other things, that Allied’s acquisition

of BFI would substantially lessen

competition in the collection or disposal of

small container commercial waste in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market. The

proposed modified Final Judgment, now

pending in federal district court in

Washington, DC., would settle the case by

requiring the defendants to divest a number

of waste collection routes and waste disposal

facilities in the greater Chicago metropolitan

market. This relief, if approved by the Court,

would establish one or more new competitors

in this market for which relief was sought.

In your letter, you urged the United States

not to approve any asset divestiture under

the proposed Final Judgment to one of the

major integrated waste collection and

disposal firms. In your view, these firms may

be more inclined to cooperate with the

defendants in raising prices in some markets

in order to avoid potential price wars with

the defendants elsewhere. You state that

selling the assets to a major integrated

company could reduce competition and

result in increased prices.

The United States could not categorically

conclude that selling the assets required to be

divested under the proposed Final Judgment

to a large national waste collection and

disposal firm would be less competitive than

a sale to a municipal agency or small

independent firm, or that large waste

companies are more prone to collude, when

given the opportunity, than small

independent firms. Also, large waste

collection and disposal companies may enjoy

some competitive advantages, such as better

access to capital and more extensive

experience. These advantages would make

them in some respects more formidable

competitors than small independent firms.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

Village of Lisle

August 24, 1999.

Anthony Harris,

Anti Trust Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, 1401 H. Street, Northwest, Suite

3000, Washington, DC 20503.

Re United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries,

Inc.—Case No. 1:99 CV 0192.

Dear Mr. Harris: I am writing to you on

behalf of the Village of Lisle Mayor and

Board of Trustees, with regard to the above

captioned matter.

With a population of 21,000, the Village of

Lisle, Lisle, Illinois, is considered small

compared to neighboring municipalities in

the Chicago region. However, we are well

known in this region and other parts of the

United States as a leader in developing user

fee based programs designed to significantly

reduce solid waste to be landfilled. The

Village has spent many hours and dollars

developing creative, innovative programs

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36227

based on sound economic theories. Our

programs have greatly reduced the municipal

solid waste stream in Lisle and, when other

communities have copied our programs,

those communities have experienced similar

starting results.

To demonstrate a few of the many ways we

have impacted solid waste programs across

the nation, please note the following

accomplishments:

1. Signed the first user-fee based,

comprehensive solid waste program for

refuse, recyclable and yard waste in the State

of Illinois. Developed the program in 1989

and implemented it in 1990. Subsequently,

the majority of communities in northern

Illinois have adopted similar plans with great

results. The success in Illinois was parroted

in neighboring states and as word spread, our

program was copied in states across the

county. Attached please find a copy of an

article published in Resource Recycling

magazine shortly after our program in Lisle

began. We handled hundreds of calls from

people requesting information on the

program and, in fact, received requests for

information from as far away as Great Britain

and Brazil.

2. Lisle is unique in that over 53% of the

living units in the Village are multi-family

residences. Once the single family program

was up and running smoothly, we developed

a pilot multi-family recycling program and

experimented with ways to encourage waste

reduction through on-site recycling centers.

After analyzing the results of our

experiments, we developed a comprehensive;

user fee based system for all of the multifamily units in Lisle, meaning townhouses,

coach homes, apartments and

condominiums. Typically these units have

dumpsters (small containers) on the site for

refuse disposal along with mini-recycling

centers for recyclable. One waste hauler

collects both materials from the property As

you can see from the attached brochure, the

program has been extremely successful.

The proposed Final Judgment Order,

which requires BFI to sell for their small

container commercial waste collection

operations, would destroy our LEAP MultiFamily Program and would severely impact

our LEAP Curbside Program. BFI currently

holds an exclusive contract with the Village

of Lisle to service all of our residential living

units, both single-family and multi-family,

and those services are intertwined. If BFI

must diversify itself or just the container

business, then our contract will be

challenged.

The suggestion that we can re-bid the

existing contract to identify a new provider

will be a severe hardship for the Village of

Lisle. We just spent several months this year

completing a Request For Competitive

Proposals For Solid Waste Services, which

resulted in an exclusive contract with BFI

effective June 1, 1999. Subsequently, we

incurred the expense of mailings to our

residents, the time taken to re-educate

residents on changes to our programs, and

the exposure to higher prices for services for

our residents.

As far as competition is concerned,

attached please find a copy of my analysis of

the three proposals received. Note the wide

gap in prices between the Waste Management

and ARC bids. If the Village of Lisle’s

contract is voided, and BFI/Allied is removed

from bidding process, it is very likely that

Waste Management will submit similar

prices or higher prices on dumpsters which

would represent an increase over the current

contract costs.

The proposed Final Judgment Order will

have a negative impact on both of our

programs and will probably increase costs to

our residents because fewer vendors will be

proposing/bidding on our contract. In past

bidding sessions, Waste Management and BFI

were the only bidders in close competition

with respect to prices and equivalent

services. With BFI out of the picture, the

opportunity to secure the same or lower

prices appears less likely.

With increased costs aside, the greatest loss

of all will be the loss of a very innovative,

comprehensive program for Lisle residents

whereby the pickup of refuse, recyclables

and yard waste are collected by one vendor

in a smooth, seamless manner. This user fee

based program has influenced solid waste

programs across the country and the damage

done to our program in Lisle will be a loss

others communities as well because we will

not be able to continue to fine tune and

experiment with our program as designed.

Historically speaking, the waste industry

has defined residential service as curbside

service whereby residents place garbage in

bags or cans at the curb. They also defined

commercial service as service whereby refuse

is placed in a dumpster. We decided to

change the definition in 1993 to suit our own

needs. Therefore, in Lisle we define

residential service as service for our

residents, to include all living units (singlefamily homes or multi-family homes).

Commercial service is defined as nonresidential service. Perhaps you should

consider applying our definitions to the Final

Judgment Order and force BFI/Allied to

diversify their ‘‘non-living unit’’ accounts.

Opening competition up in the commercial/

business arena would allow small waste

hauler to compete fairly, particularly

considering the fact that most small waste

haulers do not have the equipment and

manpower needed to handle large-scale

community programs.

To reduce municipal garbage, programs

must offer recycling opportunities, and the

convenience factor of both activities must be

very high before people will participate.

Thus, most municipal solid waste officials

will tell you that refuse removal/collections

and recycling programs should not be

separated from each other, either by physical

location or by different vendors. Programs

that fall to address this ‘‘marriage’’ lack

continuity and more often than not fall.

We would appreciate it if you would find

way to protect our current franchise

agreement with BFI so that our current single

family and multi-family programs remain

intact and the Village of Lisle can continue

to develop additional methods to reduce the

municipal solid waste stream.

Sincerely,

Village of Lisle,

Barbara J. Adamec,

Assistant Village Manager.

Enclosures:

LEAP Curbside Program brochure

LEAP Multi-Family Program brochure

Illinois Recycling Association newsletter—4–

9–93

Analysis A—Overview Analysis of Solid

Waste Services

Village of Lisle Mayor & Board of Trustees

Carl Doerr, Village Manager

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Barbara J. Adamec,

Assistant Village Manager, Village of Lisle,

1040 Burlington Avenue, Lisle, IL 60532–

1898,

Re Comment on Proposed final Judgment

in the (United States v. Allied Waste

Industries, Inc. and Browning-Ferris

Industries, Inc., No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C. July

21, 1999).

Dear Ms. Adamec: This letter responds to

your letter of August 24, 1999 commenting

on the Final Judgment in this case on behalf

of the Village of Lisle. The Complaint in this

case charged, among other things, that

Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, DC., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, is

approved by the Court, would establish one

of more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

Final Judgment, by ordering divestiture of the

BFI’s small container commercial waste

business, may interfere with BFI’s existing

government franchise contract which also

includes the disposal of the village’s

residential waste. The Village of Lisle fears

that requiring Allied to divest only the

franchise commercial waste collection

business would, in effect, split the collection

business between two firms—the purchaser

who would have the franchise commercial

waste business; and Allied, which would

retain the residential and recycling waste

collection services. You believe that this will

result in the purchases providing a lower

level of service, or result in additional trucks

being sent down city streets.

In light of this concern raised by you and

others, the United States and Allied reached

agreement that instead of the municipal

franchise contracts being divested, Allied

would be permitted to retain the municipal

franchise contracts and divest instead

additional assets which are not required to be

divested by the proposed modified Final

Judgment. These additional assets include

residential and rolloff waste hauling

business. These assets have been acquired by

Superior Services Inc., a purchaser approved

36228 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

by the United States. The United States has

filed a motion with the Court to modify the

proposed Final Judgment which would

permit Allied to retain the municipal

franchise contracts initially required to be

divested. Allied has agreed to keep separate

the municipal franchise contracts, which

were required to be divested, until the

Court’s acceptance of the modification to the

proposed Final Judgment.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

Department of the Navy

September 17, 2000.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, NW, Suite 3000,

Washington, DC 20530.

Dear Mr. Kramer: I am forwarding

information for your consideration in making

a Final Judgment regarding the merger

between Allied Waste Industries (Allied) and

Browning Ferris Industries (BFI). The

Department of the Navy contracts for the

collection and disposal of residential and

commercial solid waste generated at the

Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, Illinois.

This installation has a population of some

40,000 sailors, families and civilian

employees. Current solid waste services are

provided by BFI under two separate

contracts.

The proposed Final Judgment requires that

BFI divest the Zion landfill, commercial

waste collection routes within Lake County,

and transfer stations in Northern Cook

County. Historically, the Navy has received

only two competitive proposals for our waste

service at this location—Waste Management

and BFI. I am concerned that divesting the

transfer and commercial collection routes

from the Zion landfill operations will

significantly reduce the competitive position

of one of only two regional service providers.

This concern could result in increased cost

and decreased service quality due to a lack

of competition.

Your consideration of this information in

making a Final Judgment is appreciated. For

further information, contact Mr. Mark

Schultz, Environmental Director at (847)

688–5999, extension 40.

Sincerely,

E.J. Katzwinkel,

Captain, Civil Engineer Corps, U.S. Navy,

Commanding Officer, Navy Public Works

Center and Engineering Field Activity,

Midwest.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

E.J. Katzwinkel,

Captain, Civil Engineer Corps, U.S. Navy,

Navy Public Works Center, Bldg. 1–A,

201 Decatur Avenue, Great Lakes, IL

60088–5600.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.,

No. CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999)

Dear Captain Katzwinkel: This letter

responds to your letter of September 17, 1999

commenting on the Final Judgment in this

case on behalf of the Department of the Navy.

The Complaint in this case charged, among

other things, that Allied’s acquisition of BFI

would substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, DC., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

Final Judgment, by ordering divestiture of

BFI’s small container commercial waste

business, may interfere with BFI’s existing

government franchise contract which also

includes the disposal of the Great Lakes

residential waste. You fear that requiring

Allied to divest only the franchise

commercial waste collection business would,

in effect, split the collection business

between two firms—the purchaser who

would have the franchise commercial waste

business; and Allied, which would retain the

residential and recycling waste collection

services. You believe that this will result in

the purchaser providing a lower level of

service, or result in additional trucks being

sent down the streets of Great Lakes.

In light of this concern raised by you and

others, the United States and Allied reached

agreement that instead of the municipal

franchise contracts being divested, Allied

would be permitted to retain the municipal

franchise contracts and divest instead

additional assets which are not required to be

divested by the proposed modified Final

Judgment. These additional assets include

residential and rolloff waste hauling

business. These assets have been acquired by

Superior Services Inc., a purchaser approved

by the United States. The United States has

filed a motion with the Court to modify the

proposed Final Judgment which would

permit Allied to retain the municipal

franchise contracts initially required to be

divested. Allied has agreed to keep separate

the municipal franchise contracts, which

were required to be divested, until the

Court’s acceptance of the modification to the

proposed Final Judgment.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

City of Naperville

September 15, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief Litigation II Section, Anti-Trust

Division, United States Department of

Justice, 1401 H Street, Northwest, Suite

3000, Washington, DC 20530.

Regarding United States vs. Allied Waste

Industries, Inc. and Browning-Ferris

Industries Inc.; Case 199 CV 01962.

Dear Mr. Kramer: The City of Naperville,

as one of the largest municipalities in

Illinois, contracts for waste services for the

majority of our 125,000 residents. We

competitively bid our refuse and landscaping

service contract in 1998 and awarded a fiveyear contract to Browning-Ferris Industries,

Inc. (also known as BFI.) In reviewing the

proposed final judgment, we are concerned

that the proposed final judgment in the

antitrust action against BFI will have an

adverse impact on the City’s five-year

contract with BFI. The City is also concerned

that if BFI is unable to find a successor to

parts of its Naperville contract under the

specific terms and conditions of the contract,

the City may be forced to re-bid all or

portions of the City’s largest monetary

contract within an unacceptably short time

frame of sixty days. I believe that the final

judgment, if implemented as presented, will

create serious problems for the City of

Naperville.

The City has three specific concerns

related to the final judgment:

1. The final judgment dictates that BFI

must sell the only transfer station within

DuPage County. Three years ago, the City

considered siting a transfer station when the

nearest landfill closed. We declined because

industry experts assured us that private

haulers would site transfer stations. BFI was

the only company in the area that pursued

this goal and it took them until a few months

ago to open a transfer station. As part of our

contract with BFI, we receive collection

service at a guaranteed rate per ton utilizing

this transfer station. We are concerned that

the sale of BFI’s transfer station and its

possible unavailability for Naperville’s solid

waste, may result in longer driving distances

and increased disposal costs. The City needs

written assurance that any successor to

Naperville’s contract with BFI will be bound

by the terms and conditions of the contract,

particularly the cost of $34.75 per ton for the

cost of landfill, incinerator, or transfer station

tipping fees.

2. The proposed divestiture of all small

container collection services may require the

City to waive its no-subcontract provision of

its contract with BFI to accommodate BFI’s

commitments contained within the final

judgment. We believe that to bid small

container collection service separately from

the rest of our services in the future will

work to our economic disadvantage. That

yard waste is not included in the decision

and is collected at several City sites in small

containers further complicates this situation.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36229

3. If successors to BFI’s small container

collection service will not be bound by the

terms and conditions already present in our

contract with BFI, the sixty-day divestiture

time frame does not provide the City with

adequate time to prepare, release and

evaluate bids on the services voided by the

final judgment.

Finally, as you determine the wisest course

of action to ensure competitiveness

throughout the United States, please consider

that municipalities such as Naperville face

the possibility of rebidding entire collection

agreements. If Naperville’s agreement with

BFI is re-bid, the proposed final judgment

may impair Allied/BFI’s ability to compete,

and we believe invalidate the Justice

Department’s goal by resulting in an

environment where there is less competition

than currently exists.

If you or your staff would like to discuss

the issues raised in this letter further please

contact Mr. David Barber, Director of Public

Works, 630/420–6096.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

A. George Pradel,

Mayor, City of Naperville.

cc: U.S. Senator Richard Durbin,

Congressman William O. Lipinski,

Congressman Rod Blagojevich,

Congressman Danny Davis,

Congresswoman Judy Biggert, Mr. Peter

T. Burchard, City Manager, U.S. Senator

Peter Fitzgerald, Congressman Luis

Gutierrez, Congressman Henry Hyde,

Congressman Dennis Hastert, City

Council Members.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

A. George Pradel,

Mayor, City of Naperville, 400 South Eagle

Street, Naperville, IL 60566–7020.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment

in (United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. No.

99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Mr. Pradel: This letter responds to

your letter of September 15, 1999

commenting on the Final Judgment in this

case on behalf of the City of Naperville. The

Complaint in this case charged, among other

things, that Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, DC., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

Final Judgment, by ordering divestiture of

BFI’s small container commercial waste

business, may interfere with BFI’s existing

government franchise contract which also

includes the disposal of the city’s residential

waste. The city fears that requiring Allied to

divest only the franchise commercial waste

collection business would, in effect, split the

collection business between two firms—the

purchaser who would have the franchise

commercial waste business; and Allied,

which would retain the residential and

recycling waste collection services. The city

believes that this will result in the purchaser

providing a lower level of service, or result

in additional trucks being sent down city

streets.

In light of this concern raised by you and

others, the United States and Allied reached

agreement that instead of the municipal

franchise contracts being divested, Allied

would be permitted to retain the municipal

franchise contracts and divest instead

additional assets which are not required to be

divested by the proposed modified Final

Judgment. These additional assets include

residential and rolloff waste hauling

business. These assets have been acquired by

Superior Services Inc., a purchaser approved

by the United States. The United States has

filed a motion with the Court to modify the

proposed Final Judgment which would

permit Allied to retain the municipal

franchise contracts initially required to be

divested. Allied has agreed to keep separate

the municipal franchise contracts, which

were required to be divested, until the

Court’s acceptance of the modification to the

proposed Final Judgment.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

Fulton County Board

September 14, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, NW, Suite 3000,

Washington, DC 20005.

Re Allied/BFI Consent Decree Case No.

1:99CV01962.

Dear Mr. Kramer: The purpose of this letter

is provide comment on the proposed Consent

Decree which requires Allied Waste

Industries, Inc. to sell certain assets in

connection with its acquisition of Browning

Ferris Industries, Inc. Specifically, the

County of Fulton objects to the Department

of Justice requirement that Allied divest itself

of the Spoon Ridge Landfill located in

Fairview, Fulton County, Illinois.

In your analysis of the Chicago market, it

is stated that Allied’s divestiture of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill would insure that the

benefits of competition, lower prices and

better service would be preserved. It is the

opinion of the County of Fulton that the

Spoon Ridge Landfill is not an important

waste disposal operation for the Chicago

market. Requiring the divestiture of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill would eliminate an

opportunity for Allied to send waste from

New York City to Spoon Ridge Landfill as

previously planned by BFI. As such, the

divestiture removes an important potential

economic development opportunity for the

County of Fulton.

Spoon Ridge Landfill/BFI is the second

largest tax payer in the County of Fulton. It

has a current assessed valuation of

$2,292,970.00. It pays and annual tax to the

various taxing districts in the County of

Fulton slightly in excess of $232,077.00.

It is the understanding of the County of

Fulton that Spoon Ridge Landfill was

designated as a primary landfill site for waste

from the City of New York. Spoon Ridge

Landfill has been closed for the approximate

last year. The New York contract previously

secured by BFI would have caused the

reopening and continued operation of Spoon

Ridge Landfill.

It is the understanding of the County of

Fulton that Allied was to receive benefit of

the New York contract and would have

continued with the plan to dispose of the

New York waste at the Spoon Ridge Landfill.

It is the Country’s understanding that the

Spoon Ridge Landfill is proposed to be

conveyed to another landfill/waste disposal

firm known as Republic. It is the

understanding of the County that Republic, if

it acquires this site, would have no

immediate plans to reopen the facility and

would not be accepting any waste from New

York.

The Spoon Ridge Landfill has previously

entered into an agreement with the County of

Fulton for payments of certain sums to the

County of Fulton as and for or in lieu of a

solid waste tippage fees. The County of

Fulton is required by state law to have a solid

waste management plan and implement its

terms. The agreement between Spoon Ridge

Landfill and the County of Fulton has

generated for the County of Fulton since

April of 1995; $180,000.00 to implement

such plan.

If the Spoon Ridge Landfill is required by

the proposed Consent Decree to go to another

landfill operator, such as Republic, there

does not appear to be much of a likelihood

that Spoon Ridge Landfill will open, operate,

or generate funds for the County of Fulton to

implement its Solid Waste Management Plan.

The County of Fulton would disagree with

a premise upon which the proposed Consent

Decree has been based. The City of Chicago

is 200 miles or more away from the Spoon

Ridge Landfill site in Fulton County, Illinois.

There is no direct rail access from Chicago

to Spoon Ridge Landfill. Further, there is no

direct interstate highway from Chicago to

Spoon Ridge Landfill.

As previously indicated in this letter,

Spoon Ridge Landfill has been closed for the

approximate last year or so, except for

opening for a day or two during the summer

of 1999 to accept waste. If this facility was

part of the Chicago geographic area, it would

seem that there would be a steady stream of

waste coming from Chicago to this site in

Fulton County. Real economic facts have

made the transportation of waste from the

Chicago market to the County of Fulton cost

prohibitive.

The County of Fulton and a number of

affected taxing districts will likely suffer

36230 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

extreme if not devastating economic

consequences if the proposed Consent Decree

requires Allied to divest this property to a

concern such as Republic. This landfill

facility is the second largest tax payer in the

County. If this facility is not reopened,

certainly a fair argument could be made that

its assessed valuation is over valued. If the

assessment is reduced, the County of Fulton

and a certain school district will see adverse

financial consequences. Finally, if this

facility can not have a ready stream of waste,

then, the County of Fulton will be without

sufficient funds to meet a state mandate

requiring further implementation of a Solid

Waste Management Plan.

It is respectfully requested that the

Department of Justice reconsider and amend

its Consent Decree with regard to the

requirement that Allied divest itself of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill. I remain.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. Bernard Oaks,

Chairman of the Fulton County Board.

cc: U.S. Senator Richard J. Durbin, U.S.

Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald, Congressman

Lane Evans, Governor George H. Ryan,

State Senator George P. Shadid, State

Representative Michael K. Smith, Mr.

Thomas VanWeelden, President, Allied

Waste Industries, Inc.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Bernard Oaks,

Chairman, Fulton County Board, Fulton

County Courthouse, 100 North Main

Street, Lewistown, IL 61542.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Mr. Oaks: This letter responds to your

letter of September 14, 1999 commenting on

the Final Judgment in this case on behalf of

Fulton County. The Complaint in this case

charged, among other things, that Allied’s

acquisition of BFI would substantially lessen

competition in the collection or disposal of

small container commercial waste in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market. The

proposed modified Final Judgment, now

pending in federal district court in

Washington, DC., would settle the case by

requiring the defendants to divest a number

of waste collection routes and waste disposal

facilities in the greater Chicago metropolitan

market. This relief, if approved by the Court,

would establish one or more new competitors

in this market for which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

Final Judgment, by requiring Allied to divest

the Spoon Ridge landfill, is unnecessary for

effective relief and might undermine the tax

base of the local communities. The Spoon

Ridge landfill is a relatively new site and the

largest landfill in the State of Illinois. BFI

recently closed the landfill because it found

that the landfill was unable to attract enough

waste from the Chicago area to make it

viable. By closing the landfill, BFI reduced

its assessed value, and thus, the taxes it paid

to local communities. BFI intended to reopen

the landfill if it obtained a long-term contract

to dispose of New York City’s residential

waste.

You stated that the future viability of

Spoon Ridge depends on its ability to attract

waste from New York City. By requiring

Allied to divest this landfill to an

independent competitor, ostensibly to help

alleviate competitive problems in the

Chicago market, the Final Judgment

unnecessarily limits Allied’s ability to

compete for the contract to dispose of New

York City’s waste, and undermines the

chances of Spoon Ridge ever opening again.

The fact is that requiring Allied to divest

Spoon Ridge to a new competitor in no way

prevents Allied or any other firm from later

contracting with the new owner to dispose of

any New York City’s waste. Indeed, the new

owner would be free to make the landfill’s

disposal capacity available to any person

who wishes to bid and enhance competition

for the contract to dispose of New York City’s

waste. If the new owner believes, however,

that the space in the landfill is much more

valuable to use in competing for the disposal

of waste from the city of Chicago, then the

new owner can choose to commit the landfill

to competing in that market. Leaving Spoon

Ridge with Allied, which already controls

nearly 35% of all disposal capacity in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market, would

ensure that a single firm could dominate

waste disposal, and therefore, set the price of

disposal in the Chicago market. While this

may make the landfill more valuable to the

local community, it would adversely affect

the prices paid by consumers for the disposal

of their municipal solid waste.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

Spoon River Valley Schools

September 13, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer, II,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, NW, Suite 3000,

Washington, D.C. 20005.

In Re Allied/BFI Consent Decree Case No.

1.99CV01962.

Dear Mr. Kramer: The purpose of this letter

is to provide comment on the proposed

consent decree which requires Allied Waste

Industries, Inc. to sell certain assets in

connection with its acquisition of Browning

Ferris Industries, Inc. Specifically the Spoon

River Valley Community Unit School District

No. 4 Board of Education wishes to comment

on the requirement that Allied divest itself of

the Spoon Ridge Landfill located in Fairview,

Illinois.

Spoon River Valley CUSD No. 4 Overview

Spoon River Valley CUSD No. 4 is a rural

school district comprised of 157 square miles

in Fulton and Knox Counties. The school

district serves the communities of Ellisville,

Fairview, London Mills, Maquon, and

Rapatee. The enrollment of the school district

in grades K–12 as of August 31, 1999 was

429. The current equalized assessed

valuation of the school district is

$27,665,810. The current tax rate of $5.7774

generates $1,598,365 of local revenue for the

school district. The total budgeted revenue

for the school district is $3,717,512.

Therefore, local property taxes represent 43%

of the total budgeted revenue for the school

district.

Spoon River Valley CUSD No. 4 Concerns

The current assessed valuation of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill is approximately

$2,000,000 or about 7.2% of the total

assessed valuation of the school district. The

landfill generates about $115,548 in property

taxes for the district which is the equivalent

of four (4) full-time teacher salaries. The

Board of Education is naturally concerned

with decisions related to Spoon Ridge

Landfill that could have adverse

consequences for the school district. We are

concerned that the company that owns the

landfill will have the necessary resources

both in operating capital and viable disposal

contracts to adequately maintain and operate

the landfill so that it remains a major source

of property tax income for the school district.

The loss of this source of income would

definitely have adverse affects upon the

quality of education that we now provide to

the students of the Spoon River Valley

School District.

Summary

The Spoon River Valley CUSD No. 4 Board

of Education respectfully requests that the

Department of Justice re-examine its decision

requiring that Allied divest itself of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill. We ask that the

Department re-evaluate its decision based

upon what is best for the residents and

students who would most closely be affected

by this decision.

Sincerely,

David D. Smith,

President, Board of Education.

cc: U.S. Senator Richard J. Durbin, U.S.

Senator Peter G. Fitzjerald, Congressman

Lane Evans, Governor George H. Ryan,

State Senator George P. Shadid, State

Representative Michael K. Smith, Mr.

Thomas VanWeelden, President, Allied

Waste Industries, Inc.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

David D. Smith,

President, Board of Education, Spoon River

Valley Schools, Community Unit Dist.

No. 4, Rt. 1, London Mills, IL 61544.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.,

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Mr. Smith: This letter responds to

your letter of September 13, 1999

commenting on the Final Judgment in this

case on behalf of the Spoon River County

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36231

Schools. The Complaint in this case charged,

among other things, that Allied’s acquisition

of BFI would substantially lessen

competition in the collection or disposal of

small container commercial waste in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market. The

proposed modified Final Judgment, now

pending in federal district court in

Washington, DC, would settle the case by

requiring the defendants to divest a number

of waste collection routes and waste disposal

facilities in the greater Chicago metropolitan

market. This relief, if approved by the Court,

would establish one or more new competitors

in this market for which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

Final Judgment, by requiring Allied to divest

the Spoon Ridge landfill, is unnecessary for

effective relief and might undermine the tax

base of the local communities and the Spoon

River Valley School District. The Spoon

Ridge landfill is a relatively new site and the

largest landfill in the State of Illinois. BFI

recently closed the landfill because it found

that the landfill was unable to attract enough

waste from the Chicago area to make it

viable. By closing the landfill, BFI reduced

its assessed value, and thus, the taxes it paid

to local communities. BFI intended to reopen

the landfill if it obtained a long-term contract

to dispose of New York City’s residential

waste.

The fact is that requiring Allied to divest

Spoon Ridge to a new competitor in no way

prevents Allied or any other firm from later

contracting with the new owner to dispose of

any New York City’s waste. Indeed, the new

owner would be free to make the landfill’s

disposal capacity available to any person

who wishes to bid and enhance competition

for the contract to dispose of New York City’s

waste. If the new owner believes, however,

that the space in the landfill is much more

valuable to use in competing for the disposal

of waste from the city of Chicago, then the

new owner can choose to commit the landfill

to competing in that market. This should

ensure that the landfill remains a major

source of property tax income for the school

district. Leaving Spoon Ridge with Allied,

which already controls nearly 35% of all

disposal capacity in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market, would ensure that a

single firm could dominate waste disposal,

and therefore, set the price of disposal in the

Chicago market. While this may make the

landfill more valuable to the local

community, it would adversely affect the

prices paid by consumers for the disposal of

their municipal solid waste.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

West Cook County Solid Waste Agency

August 13, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Session, Anti Trust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, Northwest, Suite 3000,

Washington, D.C. 20530.

Re United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries,

Inc.—Case No. 1:99 CV 01962.

Dear Mr. Kramer: On behalf of the 36 local

governments represented by the West Cook

County Solid Waste Agency (Cook County,

Illinois) (hereinafter, the ‘‘Agency’’). I am

writing to offer our comments and objections

regarding the draft Final Judgement order

that has been filed with the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia (‘‘Court’’)

in the above referenced case.

The Agency strongly supports, in

principle, the proposed Final Judgement

directive which requires Allied Waste

Industries, Inc. (‘‘Allied’’) to divest itself of

the Relevant Disposal Assets and Relevant

Assets. However, the Agency objects to the

time line by which Allied must divest of the

Relevant Disposal Assets and Relevant

Hauling Assets. The Agency has begun the

process of pursuing its own interest in

purchasing a portion of the Relevant Disposal

Assets—namely the Browning-Ferris

Industries, Inc. (‘‘BFI’’) Melrose Park Transfer

Station, located at 4700 W. Lake Street,

Melrose Park, IL 60160 (‘‘Melrose Park

Facility’’). The purchase of the Melrose Park

Facility by a unit of local government such

as the Agency would enhance and foster

competition in the marketplace. Yet the

proposed time line for the ordered

divestitures in this case would make it

virtually impossible for the Agency to

successfully compete for this asset.

Requiring Allied to divest itself of these

assets within 60 days after the approval of

the Final Judgement by the Court creates an

unfair and unreasonable bias towards large,

highly liquid waste hauling firms and denies

smaller companies (either individually or in

the form of a consortium) and local

governments sufficient time to conduct

proper due diligence and arrange for the

necessary financing to be able to effectively

bid on the available assets. By denying small

waste hauling companies and local

governments fair access to the opportunity to

bid on these assets, the proposed Final

Judgement itself serves to restrict and retard

competition. This is contrary to the intent

and purpose of the proposed Final

Judgement.

This bias is of great concern to the Agency

given that competition in the solid waste

services industry within the Agency’s

jurisdiction has been dramatically reduced in

recent years as a result of previous

consolidation efforts by Allied as well as

Republic Services, Inc. (‘‘Republic’’). For

example, whereas in 1997 there were eight

non-vertically integrated solid waste

companies serving the Agency’s municipal/

residential waste services needs, today there

are only two such firms remaining.

By allowing the proposed Final Judgement

to stand as drafted, the Court would serve to

exacerbate this decline in the number of

local, independent solid waste companies

that are able to compete in the Agency’s

marketplace, thereby reducing competition to

only three significant competitors—all of

which would be vertically integrated and in

a position to control pricing within the

market. This would clearly by harmful to the

Agency and its member local governments by

creating an anti-competitive market

environment. This, in turn, will increase

costs to the Agency, its 36 member

municipalities and to the general business

community.

Consequently, the Agency respectfully

recommends that the proposed Final

Judgement be modified to allow Allied to

divest itself of the Relevant Disposal Assets

and Relevant Hauling Assets in the Chicago

Metropolitan Area (collectively the ‘‘Assets’’)

within 180 days after the Final Judgement

has been approved by the Court (rather than

the current 60-day limit as specified in the

proposed Final Judgement). Furthermore, the

Agency strongly recommends that the

proposed Final Judgement be modified to

require Allied to divest itself of the Assets

individually rather than as a package in order

to ensure that all interested parties are

provided a fair and equal opportunity to bid

on one or more of these assets.

Specific to this objection is the fact that

Republic notified the Agency on August 4,

1999 (only 15 days after the proposed Final

Judgement order was filed with the Court) of

its intent to purchase the Melrose Park

Facility as part of a larger acquisition of all

the Assets from Allied pursuant to the

proposed Final Judgement. The Agency

strongly objects to the sale of all of the Assets

to Republic for all of the reasons stated

above. In addition, the Agency objects to the

fact that Republic has reportedly executed a

definitive letter of intent to purchase the

Assets, including the Melrose Park Facility,

within days after the proposed Final

Judgement was filed with the Court. This has

not allowed the Agency (or any other

prospective purchaser) sufficient time to

pursue its interest in bidding for the Melrose

Park Facility. Given that the Agency, as a

statutory unit of local government in Illinois,

must follow a strict set of procedures which

are designed to protect the public interest

when attempting to purchase fixed assets

such as the Melrose Park Facility, and given

that the Agency must follow strict procedures

in order to secure public debt, it is not fair

or reasonable, nor is it in the best interest of

the public, for the Court to allow Republic to

purchase the Melrose Park Facility in such a

hurried and non-competitive manner.

Therefore, the Agency respectfully requests

that the United States exercise its authority

as provided for in Article IV. Section A. of

the Final Judgement order and withhold its

approval of the sale of the Assets

(particularly the Melrose Park Facility) to

Republic for at least 180 days after the Final

Judgement has been approved by the Court.

This would allow the Agency and any other

interested parties sufficient time to complete

their due diligence process and secure the

necessary financial commitments to fairly

and equitably bid on any or all of the Assets.

The Agency’s third point of comment and

objection to the proposed Final Judgement is

specific to the definition in Article II. Section

H., ‘‘Collection of small container solid

waste.’’ In the context of the use of this

phrase in the proposed Final Judgement, the

definition would serve to force Allied to

36232 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

divest itself of a subset of customers from

which it is now obligated to collect waste.

This subset of customers is part of a larger

group of customers serviced in accordance

with legally binding contracts between BFI/

Allied and nine municipalities within the

Agency’s jurisdiction. This issue is also

relevant to and will affect dozens of other

municipalities throughout the Chicago

Metropolitan Area.

In addition, since this part of the Final

Judgement, as drafted, only applies to

municipal solid waste, the order would have

the effect of causing one company to be

responsible for collecting waste from the

affected customers who are served by the

exclusive municipal contract, while Allied

would still be responsible for collecting

recyclable from those same customers! As a

practical matter, this part of the order will

force each municipality to void its current

valid and binding refuse and recycling

collection contract and rebid the very same

contract or issue two contracts—one for the

collection of small container solid waste

only, and one for hand pick-up waste

collection services and all recycling services.

Philosophically, then, the Final Judgement

would undermine and interfere with local

government’s authority to determine the most

appropriate way to protect the health, safety

and welfare of its community.

This part of the proposed order would not

serve to enhance competition within the

affected communities, but rather would cause

serious disruption to the municipalities’

traditional cost-effective methods of

competitively procuring waste collection

services for their communities. Furthermore,

it would unnecessarily and unduly burden

the affected communities by interfering with

their existing contracts and forcing them to

rewrite and rebid their contracts for solid

waste services. All of this would come at

considerable expense to the communities.

Therefore, the Agency respectfully requests

that the Department of Justice recommend to

the Court that the definition in Article II.

Section H of the proposed Final Judgement

to modified to exclude from the definition

‘‘any collection of waste from customers that

is being provided subject to the terms of a

properly executed, legally binding contract or

franchise agreement with a unit of local

government.’’ Alternatively, in keeping with

the precedent set with respect to the City of

Dallas and Dallas County, TX in Article II.

Section D. Paragraph 5., the proposed Final

Judgement could be modified universally to

limit the divestiture of commercial routes, in

all cases, to only those commercial routes

that ‘‘serve any nonfranchised or open

competition areas.’’

The Agency appreciates the opportunity

provided by the Court to file these comments

and objections. If appropriate, the Agency

would be available to discuss these matters

in more detail.

Sincerely yours,

Timothy R. Hansen,

Chair, West Cook County Solid Waste Agency,

President, Village of LaGrange, IL.

cc: U.S. Senator Richard Durbin, U.S. Senator

Peter Fitzgerald, Congressman William

O. Lipinski, Congressman Luis Guiterrez,

Congressman Rod Blagojevich,

Congressman Henry Hyde, Congressman

Danny Davis, David M. Foster, Esq. (for

BFI) Tom D. Smith, Esq. (for Allied)

West Cook County Solid Waste Agency

December 9, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer, II,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, Northwest, Suite 3000,

Washington, DC 20530.

Re United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries

Inc.—Case No. 1: 99 CV 01962.

Dear Mr. Kramer: The West Cook County

Solid Waste Agency (Agency) is writing to

respectfully request that the Agency be

informed when Allied Waste Industries

submits a potential buyer for approval by the

Department of Justice, concerning the

proposed divested assets located in or

relevant to the Chicago metropolitan areas

marketplace. These assets are:

BFI Orchard Hills landfill

BFI Zion landfill

BFI Spoon Ridge landfill

BFI Active transfer station

BFI Brooks transfer station

BFI Rolling Meadows transfer station

BFI Melrose Park transfer station

BFI DuKane transfer station

All BFI small container commercial

collection routes in Cook, Lake, DuPage

McHenry and Will countries, Illinois

As you may recall, the Agency previously

submitted comments concerning the

proposed Final Judgement of August 13,

1999. Since this time, the proposed sale of

the above assets to Republic Services Inc. has

been terminated and through press accounts,

another sale to Superior Waste Services has

been announced. However, the details of the

proposed sale to Superior were not

disclosed—namely which assets in the

Chicago metropolitan area are included or

excluded.

In order for the Agency to provide

comments to the Department of the potential

impact on the solid waste market place that

a potential sale would have, the details of the

proposed sale or sales of these assets needs

to be known. Therefore, the Agency

respectfully requests that the Department

inform the Agency of all pending sales of the

before mentioned assets prior to the

Department granting approval of these sales.

Sincerely,

Allen P. Bonini,

Solid Waste Director.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10,2000.

Timothy R. Hansen,

Chair, West Cook County Solid Waste

Agency, President, Village of LaGrange,

IL, 1127 S. Mannheim Road, Suite 102,

Westchester, IL 60154–2551.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Mr. Hansen: This letter responds to

your letter of August 13, 1999 and Allen P.

Bonini’s letter of December 9, 1999,

commenting on the Final Judgment in this

case on behalf of the West Cook County Solid

Waste Agency (‘‘Agency’’). The Complaint in

this case charged, among other things, that

Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in the federal

district court in Washington, DC., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

Final Judgment, by ordering divestiture of

BFI’s small container commercial waste

business, may interfere with BFI’s existing

government franchise contracts which also

includes the disposal of the communities’

residential waste. The local communities fear

that requiring Allied to divest only the

franchise commercial waste collection

business would, in effect, split the collection

business between two firms—the purchase

who would have the franchise commercial

waste business; and Allied, which would

retain the residential and recycling waste

collection services. The communities fear

that this will result in the purchase providing

a lower level of service, or result in

additional trucks being sent down city

streets.

In light of this concern raised by you and

others, the United States and Allied reached

agreement that instead of the municipal

franchise contracts being divested, Allied

would be permitted to retain the municipal

franchise contracts and divest additional

assets which are not required to be divested

by the proposed modified Final Judgment.

These additional assets include residential

and rolloff waste hauling business. These

assets have been acquired by Superior

Services Inc., a purchaser approved by the

United States. The United States has filed a

motion with the Court to modify the

proposed Final Judgment which would

permit Allied to retain the municipal

franchise contracts initially required to be

divested. Allied has agreed to keep separate

the municipal franchise contracts, which

were required to be divested, until the

Court’s acceptance of the modification to the

proposed Final Judgment.

Mr. Bonini requests that the Agency be

informed of all pending sales of the assets to

be divested pursuant to the proposed Final

Judgment. These assets include the three BFI

landfills; five BFI transfer stations; an the BFI

small container commercial routes in Cook,

Lake, DuPage, McHenry and Will Counties,

Illinois. He states that the Agency would

evaluate the potential impact the sales may

have on its solid waste marketplace.

Under the terms of the Final Judgment, the

defendants must sell all of the relevant

disposal and hauling assets described in the

Final Judgment to a purchaser or purchasers

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36233

1 If transporting waste 50 miles was economical

in the Chicago area (as the Department of Justice

suggested generally in ¶ 37 of the Complaint) then

BFI would have built one large transfer station

instead of three to reduce capital costs. In fact, BFI’s

Melrose Park transfer station has the capacity to

handle all of the waste transferred through the three

facilities.

2 In addition, the two nearest transfer stations

available for use outside of northern Cook and Lake

Counties would be the to-be-divested BFI DuKane

and BFI Melrose transfer stations, which Republic

also proposes to buy. The closest landfills would be

the Waste Management Woodlands landfill in Kane

County and the Waste Management Pheasant Run

landfill in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. The nearest

fully integrated competitor would be the Allied

National Transfer Station located in the City of

Chicago, over 22 miles away through heavy Chicago

traffic.

acceptable to the United States, in its sole

discretion. In approving a purchase, we

always consider the competitive impact in

the local market of that purchaser’s

acquisition of the hauling or disposal assets.

The Orchard Hills and Zion landfills have

been acquired by Superior Services, Inc. a

purchaser approved by the United States.

Superior has no current hauling or disposal

operations in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. Groot Industries is a

potential purchaser of the Spoon Ridge

landfill and is in the process of conducting

a due diligence evaluation. The five transfer

stations have also been divested with the

approval of the United States—Superior has

acquired four of the transfer stations, and

Groot Industries has acquired one.

The BFI small container commercial routes

in the five counties have been divested to

Superior except for the municipal franchise

contracts. These will be retained Allied if the

court approves a modification to the Final

Judgment. The United States and Allied have

field a motion to have the court modify the

Final Judgment to permit Allied to retain the

franchise work which initially had to be

divested.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention and thank Mr. Bonini for

bringing his concerns to our attention. We

hope this information will help alleviate

them. Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C.16(d), a copy of

your comments and Mr. Bonini’s comments

and this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook

County

September 2, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer II, Esquire,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, Suite 3000, Washington,

DC 20005.

Re Proposed Consent Decree in United States

of America v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

Dear Mr. Kramer: The Solid Waste Agency

of Northern Cook County (SWANCC or the

Agency) is a unit of local government formed

in 1988 by 23 Illinois municipalities having

a total population of 700,000. The Agency’s

role in solid waste management is to provide

for the efficient and environmentally sound

disposal of waste generated by residences

and businesses within its member

municipalities.

SWANCC member municipalities collect

residential waste themselves or by

contracting with private entities. Most of that

residential waste passes through a SWANCCowned transfer station, managed by a private

contractor, that processes over 250,000 tons

of residential waste annually. That waste is

disposed of in a private sector landfill.

The concerns expressed in this letter relate

to the commercial and business waste stream.

We estimate that the commercial and

business sector in the Agency’s territory—in

which over 500,000 persons are employed—

generates over 600,000 tons of waste

annually. Currently a number of private

entities compete for the collection and

hauling of commercial and business waste in

the SWANCC territory. An ever decreasing

number of transfer and disposal locations

process that waste.

The Agency is greatly concerned about the

impact of the proposed consent decree (at

least as Allied-BFI currently plan to satisfy it)

on the commercial hauling and transfer

services offered to the businesses located in

our territory. For the reasons described more

fully below, we ask that the proposed

consent decree be modified (1) to prohibit the

sale of the BFI transfer stations and landfill

assets to any entity that currently operates a

trnasfer station or landfill in northern Cook

or Lake Counties and (2) to permit BFI, or its

successor in the merger, to continue to

provide small container commercial

collection service when it does so as part of

a franchise or contract for residential waste

collection.

I. The Proposed Sale of Transfer Stations and

Landfill Assets to Republic Services Would

Reduce Competition and Likely Lead to

Higher Prices

Unless there is competition in hauling,

transfer and disposal services offered to our

members and to businesses in the Agency’s

territory, the Agency’s interests in a cost

effective system will not be met, and

residents and businesses will pay

unnecessary amounts for this essential

service.

In 1988 twelve private sector firms

provided hauling, transfer and disposal

services in the area; after entry of the

proposed order, it will be four. The

consolidation trend over the last decade has

seen all but one of the independent operators

in the area acquired by national firms. The

proposed merger involves the joinder of two

national firms. The divestiture that the

combined Allied-BFI proposes to make to

satisfy the consent decree merely would

move some of the assets from one large

national firm in the area to another.

Specifically, in metropolitan Chicago, the

proposed consent decree currently would

require that the following divestitures take

place:

—BFI Zion landfill, Zion, Illinois

—BFI Active transfer station, Evanston,

Illinois

—BFI Brooks transfer station, Northbrook,

Illinois

—BFI Rolling Meadows transfer station,

Rolling Meadows, IL

—BFI Melrose Park transfer station, Melrose

Park, Illinois

—BFI DuKane transfer station, West Chicago,

Illinois

—All BFI small container commercial

collection routes in Cook, Lake, DuPage,

McHenry, and Will counties, Illinois.

These proposed divestitures involve

significant assets. Depending on the identity

of the purchaser, they could increase

competition in the solid waste collection and

disposal markets in the Chicago metropolitan

area. On the other hand, the sale of a portion

of these assets to an existing competitor in

the market place could further reduce

competition in the solid waste collection and

disposal market.

According to press accounts, Allied has

entered into an agreement to sell the to-bedivested assets to Republic Services Inc.

(‘‘Republic’’). If the BFI Active transfer

station in Evanston, Illinois, the BFI Brooks

transfer station in Northbrook, Illinois the

BFI Rolling Meadows transfer station in

Rolling Meadows, Illinois and the BFI Zion

landfill in Zion, Illinois are sold to a single

company like Republic that already operates

in northern Chicago metropolitan area will be

negatively impacted through the loss of one

significant competitor. The only other

remaining major competitor in northern Cook

and Lake Counties would be Waste

Management Inc., with Groot Industries

existing as a minor nonintegrated (no landfill

ownership) competitor.

Focusing on the prospective reduction in

the number of competing transfer stations in

the SWANCC territory illustrates the

problems that are likely to result if Republic

buys the disposal assets described above. The

heavy congestion in the Chicago

metropolitan area (specifically including

northern Cook County) reduces to about 10–

15 miles (for FEL trucks) and 8–10 miles (for

roll-off trucks) the distance that a commercial

waste collection firm can travel economically

to a transfer station. Indeed, BFI’s own

transfer station development over the past

two years demonstrates the limited economic

travel distance for REL and FEL trucks. The

three facilities that BFI developed were the

Rolling Meadows transfer station, Melrose

Park transfer station and the DuKane transfer

station. These facilities are all within 15

miles of each other (see attachment A) and

demonstrate the reduced economic travel

time in the Chicago metropolitan area.1

In the attached map (Attachment B), we

have shown the locations and owners of the

privately operated transfer stations and

landfills in northern Cook and Lake Counties.

As shown in Attachment A, if Republic is

allowed to purchase all of the proposed

divested Allied-BFI assets in northern Cook

and Lake Counties, the number of significant

competitors for the disposal of solid waste

would be reduced from three to two; Groot

Industries would remain a minor

nonintegrated competitor.2

With the choices of realistic disposal

options reduced from three to two significant

competitors, price competition will be

36234 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

reduced, and the firms that collect and haul

commercial and business waste in the

SWANCC territory will face the prospect of

substantial price increases as a result.

Significantly, the Complaint in this matter

acknowledges that having only two

significant competitors and one minor

competitor would be unacceptable; see ¶ 50,

complaining that ‘‘In Chicago, the merger

would reduce from four to three the number

of significant competitors in the disposal of

MSW * * *’’

For the above reasons, the Agency

respectfully requests that the divested assets

located in northern Cook and Lake Counties

not be sold to a company that already has a

disposal presence, either a transfer station or

landfill, in that area. Otherwise, the proposed

divestiture is likely to have the perverse

result of itself substantially reducing

competition and increasing costs for business

and commercial customers in northern Cook

and Lake Counties.

II. The Proposed Divestiture of BFI’s Small

Container Commercial Collection Routes

Would Disrupt Current Efficient Residential

Waste Collection in Several Communities

A second and distinct problem would

result from the provision in the proposed

consent decree that would require Allied-BFI

to divest all of BFI’s small container

commercial waste collection service in the

Chicago metropolitan area. The DOJ defines

this service in the Competitive Impact

Statement as ‘‘* * * the collection of MSW

from commercial businesses such as offices

and apartment buildings and retail

establishments * * *’’ .

The divestiture of all of BFI’s small

container commercial collection routes

would have significant impact on the current

franchises and contracts of a number of

municipalities in northern Cook County. All

municipalities in northern Cook County have

either franchises or contracts with a single

hauler to collect residential waste—

including, to varying degrees, waste from

apartment buildings. BFI has four franchises

or contracts with SWANCC municipalities

pursuant to which BFI collects waste from

apartment buildings as part of the

arrangement.

Requiring the divestiture of small container

commercial collection service that includes

residential waste (i.e., from apartment

buildings) that is collected as part of a

franchise or contract for residential waste

would be burdensome to the municipalities

involved—for example, by increasing the

number of solid waste collection vehicles in

the community—and could increase costs

due to the loss of route density. Further, it

is likely that the relatively small amounts of

apartment waste collected separately from

other residential waste after the proposed

divestitures would need to be combined for

further disposal with waste from unknown

sources from outside the municipality. That

is likely to increase the costs of disposal and

the potential environmental liability of these

municipalities.

In addition, two BFI municipal franchises

or contracts in northern Cook County provide

for BFI to collect all residential and

commercial waste in the jurisdiction. The

inclusion of commercial waste as part of a

residential contract provides benefits for

those municipalities by lowering the cost of

residential service and reducing the number

of large solid waste vehicles in the

community. These benefits are likely to be

lost if the commercial component of the

service is divested as proposed in the consent

decree.

As a result, we respectfully request that

small container commercial collection

service that is part of a municipal franchise

or contact in northern Cook County be

excluded from the assets of Allied-BFI to be

divested pursuant to the proposed consent

decree.

The Agency appreciates the opportunity to

provide these comments and would be

pleased to provide any additional

information that may be helpful.

Respectfully submitted,

C. Brooke Beal,

Executive Director.

Note: Attachments A & B of the letter dated

September 2, 1999 from C. Brooke Beal,

Executive Director of Solid Waste Agency of

Northern Cook County was not able to be

published in the Federal Register but a copy

can be obtained from the U.S. Department of

Justice, Document Group, 325 7th Street,

NW., Room 215, Washington, DC 20530 or

you may call and request a copy at (202) 514–

2481.

Solid Waste Agency Of Northern Cook

County

December 9, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer, III, Esquire,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1400 H Street, Suite 3000, Washington

DC 20005.

Re Proposed Consent Decree in United States

of America v. Allied Waster Industries,

Inc. and Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.

Dear Mr. Kramer: The Solid Waste Agency

of Northern Cook County (the Agency) is

writing to request that the Agency be

informed when Allied Waste Industries

submits a potential buyer for approval

concerning the proposed divested assets

located in the Chicago metropolitan area.

These assets are:

—BFI Orchard Hills landfill

—BFI Zion landfill

—BFI Active transfer station

—BFI Rolling Meadows transfer station

—BFI Melrose Park transfer station

—BFI DuKane transfer station

—All BFI small container commercial

collection routes in Cook, Lake, DuPage,

McHenry, and Will counties, Illinois.

As you already know, the Agency

submitted previous comments concerning the

proposed consent decree on September 2,

1999. Since this time, the proposed sale of

the above assets to Republic Services, Inc.

has been terminated and through press

accounts, another sale to Superior Waste

Services has been announced. Furthermore,

the details of the proposed sale to Superior

were not disclosed as to what assets in the

Chicago metropolitan area are included or

excluded.

In order for the Agency to provide

comments to the Department on the potential

impact, either negative or positive, on the

solid waste market place that a potential sale

would have, the details of the proposed sale

or sales of these assets needs to be known.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that

the Department inform the Agency of all

pending sales of the before mentioned assets

prior to the Department granting approval of

these sales.

Sincerely,

C. Brooke Beal,

Executive Director.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

C. Brooke Beal,

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook

County, 1616 East Gold Road, Des

Plains, IL 60016.

Re Common on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999))

Dear Mr. Beal: This letter responds to your

letters of September 2, 1999 and December 9,

1999, commenting on the Final Judgment in

this case on behalf of Solid Waste Agency of

Northern Cook County (‘‘Agency’’). The

Complaint in this case charged, among other

things, that Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, D.C., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your September 2nd letter, you express

concern that the Final Judgment, by ordering

divestiture of BFI’s small container

commercial waste business, may interfere

with BFI’s existing government franchise

contracts which also includes the disposal of

the communities’ residential waste. The local

communities fear that requiring Allied to

divest only the franchise commercial waste

collection business would, in effect, split the

collection business between two firms—the

purchaser who would have the franchise

commercial waste business; and Allied,

which would retain the residential and

recycling waste collection services. The

communities fear that this will result in the

purchaser providing a lower level of service,

or result in additional trucks being sent down

city streets.

In light of this concern raised by you and

others, the United States and Allied reached

agreement that instead of the municipal

franchise contracts being divested, Allied

would be permitted to retain the municipal

franchise contracts and divest instead

additional assets which are not required to be

divested by the proposed modified Final

Judgment. These additional assets include

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36235

residential and rolloff waste hauling

business. These assets have been acquired by

Superior Services Inc., a purchaser approved

by the United States. The United States has

filed a motion with the Court to modify the

proposed Final Judgment which would

permit Allied to retain the municipal

franchise contracts initially required to be

divested. Allied has agreed to keep separate

the municipal franchise contracts, which

were required to be divested, until the

Court’s acceptance of the modification of the

proposed Final Judgment.

In your December 9th letter, you requested

that the Agency be informed of all pending

sales of the assets to be divested to the

proposed Final Judgment. These assets

include the two BFI landfills; five BFI

transfer stations; and the BFI small container

commercial routes in Cook, Lake, DuPage,

McHenry and Will Counties, Illinois. You

further state that the Agency would evaluate

the potential impact the sales may have on

its solid waste marketplace.

Under the terms of the Final Judgment, the

defendants must sell all of the relevant

disposal and hauling assets described in the

Final Judgment to a purchaser or purchasers

acceptable to the United States, in its sole

discretion. In approving a purchase, we

always consider the competitive impact in a

local market of that purchaser’s acquisition of

the hauling or disposal assets.

The Orchard Hills and Zion landfills have

been acquired by Superior Services, Inc. a

purchaser approved by the United States.

Superior has not current hauling or disposal

operations in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The five transfer

stations have been divested with the

approval of the United States—Superior has

acquired four of the transfer stations; and

Groot Industries has acquired one.

The BFI small container commercial routes

in the five counties have been divested to

Superior except for the municipal franchise

contracts. These will be retained by Allied if

the court approves a modification to the

Final Judgment. The United States and Allied

have filed a motion to have the court modify

the Final Judgment to permit Allied to retain

the franchise work which initially had to be

divested.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

Solid Waste Agency of Lake County, IL

September 1, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, United States Department of

Justice, 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 3000,

Washington, DC 20530.

Dear Mr. Kramer: The Solid Waste Agency

of Lake County (Agency) is a joint action

municipal agency formed to manage solid

waste in Lake County Illinois. The Agency is

made up of 36 municipalities and Lake

County. The Agency has contracts for waste

disposal capacity in landfills owned by

Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) and Waste

Management. The landfills are located within

Lake County and nearby in the state of

Wisconsin. The Agency also works with its

members to obtain solid waste collection

services for residents and businesses. In the

past, the Agency had contracts with BFI for

recycling services provided to commercial

accounts with the Village of Gurnee.

The Agency is located within one of the

areas (Chicago) where it is alleged that the

combination of BFI and Allied would lessen

competition. Currently, BFI serves an

estimated 42% of the residential population.

Allied serves approximately 9% of the

residential population. Waste Management

and one independent private hauler serve the

remaining residential population. It is my

opinion that the commercial accounts in

Lake County reflect a similar distribution of

service.

The Agency reviewed the proposed Final

Judgment regarding the merger between

Allied Waste Industries (allied) and BFI.

Within Lake County, the proposed final

judgment will require BFI to divest the Zion

Landfill and its commercial waste collection

routes. In northern Cook County, BFI will

divest transfer stations in Melrose Park,

Rolling Meadows, Brooks-Northbrook and

Active-Evanston. These transfer stations

serve a portion of southern Lake County.

Further, FBI will divest the DuKane transfer

station in DuPage County which serves the

Southwest portion of Lake County.

According to press reports and informal

contacts between the Agency and BFI, these

assets will be sold to Republic Waste

Industries. As part of the sale, Allied will be

allowed to use these divested facilities to

dispose of waste for a period of two years.

This agreement will enable Allied to

maintain waste collection service to over

50% of Lake County residential customers.

This represents a population of over 300,000

residents.

The divestiture brings to Lake County, a

waste company with little operating

experience in the County. It also places that

company in a position to effectively replace

the former Allied/BFI Company at the

expiration of the two-year period. The newly

merged Allied Company will be unable to

retain its current level of service in Lake

County without disposal and transfer assets.

The economic conditions created by the

Final Judgment will also affect the company’s

ability to add new customers because of the

loss of these disposal assets. Allied will be

required to develop new disposal assets in

Lake County to remain competitive. A more

likely scenario is that Allied will sell their

remaining assets to Republic and cease

competitive marketing in Lake County.

The realities of today’s waste market lend

itself to vertical integration of assets. Waste

companies rely upon their assets to manage

the waste collected. Optimization enables

companies to deliver services at the lowest

cost to the customer. A review of the waste

disposal records, at the two landfills in Lake

County, reveals little cross utilization of

assets by competing companies. This means

that companies ‘‘drive by’’ landfill sites

owned by competitors to dispose of waste at

their own disposal sites. Vehicles drive

twenty to thirty additional roundtrip miles to

use their facilities.

The Chicago market is unique to others

within the U.S., because public participation

in the market is facilitated through

contractual arrangements solicited in a

competitive bid process. Public entities, by in

large, do not compete with the private sector

for waste collection opportunities. Public

entities cannot raise the capital necessary to

develop, operate and maintain a waste

collection system. Therefore, the industry

consolidation represents a considerable

threat to a competitive market. The new

Allied Company will be unable to effectively

participate in this process because of a lack

of disposal/transfer capacity.

It is unfortunate that this Final Judgement

requires the divesture of these assets by

Allied. The Melrose Park, DuKane and

Rolling Meadows transfer facilities were

developed within the last two years. They

represent, to BFI, the optimum collection and

disposal configuration to serve their

customer base. While Republic has control of

these facilities, Lake County customers will

lose a choice in waste collection service

provided by the formerly independent BFI

and Allied. The only other waste disposal or

transfer site not controlled by Republic or

Waste Management is located in Racine,

Wisconsin, which is approximately 25 miles

from Lake County. This facility cannot serve

southern Lake County in any competitive

situation without a transfer station asset

located in either Lake or northern Cook

Counties. The travel realities of the

metropolitan Chicago area are that travel over

10 to 15 miles rarely can be achieved in an

efficient manner.

It is noted that the Department of Justice

(DOJ) took unusual pains to describe the

impacts upon the commercial waste

collection market. Yet, the DOJ gave little

consideration to the residential collection

routes which are serviced by essentially the

same type of vehicles in terms of weight and

size. The divestiture will inevitably result in

these Allied assets being sold to Republic

after the two year period. Municipalities,

with contracts formerly with BFI or Allied,

will be faced with renewing or extending

those contracts or re-bidding those contracts

in a competitive environment with one less

competitor.

It is an unintended consequence that the

Final Judgement will not foster a truly

competitive environment. Allied must

develop additional and controversial waste

disposal assets within Lake County or

northern Cook County. The cost of these new

assets will be borne by Allied customers. The

impact of the transfer vehicles and other

assets will be borne by the host communities.

As the Complaint for Injunctive Relief noted

these facilities are expensive and difficult to

site. Local public opposition can be

strenuous and difficult to overcome.

It seems that a re-examination of the Final

Judgement is needed to maintain a

competitive environment. Allied should be

able to maintain at least one or two of its

transfer station assets to allow it to compete.

36236 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

This will diminish the need to develop new

transfer/disposal facilities and optimize its

service to their customer base. Alternatively,

the Final Judgement can be modified to

require that Allied divest its Chicago assets

to at least a third party (in addition to

Republic) to foster competition. If the

divestiture is maintained as proposed,

Republic Waste Industries will effectively

replace two solid waste companies.

Therefore, the proposed settlement is not

‘‘within the reaches of the public interest’’.

This Agency will provide additional

information upon request by the Department

of Justice, Attached is a study of the

divestiture, which was provided to the

Agency Board of Directors on August 25,

1999.

Very truly yours,

Andrew H. Quigley,

Executive Director.

CC: Richard Durbin, U.S. Senator; Peter

Fitzgerald, U.S. Senator; Philip Crane, U.S.

Representative; John Porter, U.S.

Representative; Henry Hyde, U.S.

Representative; Dorothy R. Schofield,

SWALCO Board Chairman, Lake

Barrington; Marilyn Shineflug, SWALCO

Executive Committee Chairman, Antioch;

Bill Pailey, SWALCO Legislative

Committee Chairman, Kildeer; Jim Labelle,

Lake County Board Chairman; Larry Clark,

SWALCO General Counsel.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Andrew H. Quigley,

Executive Director, Solid Waste Agency of

Lake County, IL, 1300 N. Skokie

Highway, Suite 103, Gurnee, IL 60031.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Mr. Quigley: This letter responds to

your letter of September 1, 1999 commenting

on the Final Judgment in this case on behalf

of SWALCO. The Complaint in this case

charged, among other things, that Allied’s

acquisition of BFI would substantially lessen

competition in the collection or disposal of

small container commercial waste in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market. The

proposed modified Final Judgment, now

pending in federal district court in

Washington, DC, would settle the case by

requiring the defendants to divest a number

of waste collection routes and waste disposal

facilities in the greater Chicago metropolitan

market. This relief, if approved by the Court,

would establish one or more new competitors

in this market for which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

divestiture of the disposal assets in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market required

by the Final Judgment will lead to less

competition. You state that the purchaser of

these assets will not be competitive because

of a lack of disposal assets—a landfill and/

or a transfer station. You also express

concern that municipalities, who have

commercial franchise contracts with BFI or

Allied will be placed in a less competitive

environment if Allied is forced to divest

these franchise contracts.

Divestiture of the landfills (Orchard Hills

and Zion) that serve municipalities and

customers in Lake County has been made to

a purchaser approved by the United States—

Superior Services Inc., a company with no

current hauling or disposal operations in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market. The

five waste transfer stations have also been

divested with the approval of the United

States. Superior has acquired four of the

transfer stations and Groot Industries has

acquired one. The divestiture of these

disposal assets should make the new

purchasers major competitive forces in Lake

County and the surrounding countries.

In light of the concern raised by you and

others regarding the possible divestiture of

municipal franchise contracts, the United

States and Allied reached agreement that

instead of the municipal franchise contracts

being divested, Allied would be permitted to

retain the municipal franchise contracts and

divest instead additional assets which are not

required to be divested by the propsoed

modified Final Judgment. These additional

assets include residential and rolloff waste

hauling business. These assets have been

acquired by Superior Services Inc., a

purchaser approved by the United States.

The United States has filed a motion with the

Court to modify the proposed Final Judgment

which would permit Allied to retain the

municipal franchise contracts initially

required to be divested. Allied has agreed to

keep separate the municipal franchise

contracts, which were required to be

divested, until the Court’s acceptance of the

modification to the proposed Final Judgment.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C.16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

House of Representatives

August 13, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer,

Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, 1401 H Street NW, Washington,

DC 20005

Dear Mr. Kramer: I am writing on behalf of

the Village of Fairview regarding the

Department of Justice proposed rules that

Allied Waste Industries must sell certain

landfills in connection with its acquisition of

Browning Ferris Industries (BFI). The Village

of Fairview has expressed objections to the

requirement that Allied divest itself of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill located in Fairview.

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from the

Village of Fairview regarding their concerns

with the proposed Allied consent decree. I

would appreciate the Department of Justice

consideration and review of this issue.

Thank you for your assistance and

attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Lane Evans,

Member of Congress.

Enclosures.

Village of Fairview

August 9, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer, II,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, NW, Suite 3000,

Washington, DC 20005.

In re Allied/BFI Consent Decree, Case No.

1.99CV01962.

Dear Mr. Kramer: The purpose of this letter

is to provide comment on the proposed

consent decree which requires Allied Waste

Industries, Inc. to sell certain assets in

connection with its acquisition of Browning

Ferris Industries, Inc. Specifically, the

Village of Fairview strenuously objects to the

Department of Justice requirement that Allied

divest itself of the Spoon Ridge Landfill

located in Fairview, Illinois.

In your analysis of the Chicago market, it

is stated that Allied’s divestiture of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill would insure that the

benefits of competition, lower prices and

better service would be preserved. It is the

opinion of the Village of Fairview that the

Spoon Ridge Landfill is not an important

waste disposal operation for the Chicago

market. Requiring the divesture removes an

important potential economic development

opportunity for the Village of Fairview.

Fairview and Fulton County Overview

The Village of Fairview is a small west

central Illinois community located in Fulton

County, nearly 200 miles from Chicago.

Fairview has a population of approximately

500 people.

At the turn of this century, Fulton County

was a prosperous, dynamic area. Agriculture

was productive and viable. A large number

of underground coal mines were attracting

immigrant to the area, increasing the

population and wealth of Fulton County.

International Harvester Company was

growing in Canton, the largest city in the

county.

A number of significant changes to the area

occurred in the 1950’s. Most were negative

except for Caterpillar’s expansion in Peoria,

Illinois. The Mining operations changed from

shaft to strip-mining. This mining method

was much more efficient and used a much

smaller work force. During this period,

Caterpillar expanded in the Peoria area and

many Fairview and Fulton County workers

were able to secure work at Caterpillar.

Through the 1960’s and 1970’s, about 2,500

people worked for International Harvester;

about 1,000 people worked for several large

strip mines in Fulton County; and about

1,700 people commuted to work for

Caterpillar in Peoria.

The economic base of the area diminished

in the period between 1980 and 1984. All of

the large strip mines were closed. The

International Harvester Plant in Canton

closed in 1983. Caterpillar reduced

employment by about 15,000 people in the

1980’s. The net effect was that the number of

Caterpillar employees in Fulton County

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36237

dropped from about 1,700 people to about

900 people. Consequently, there was a loss of

over 4,000 well paid jobs in Fulton County

in the 1980’s.

The overall effect of these events was

devastating to the area. The population

declined, property values plummeted, young

people moved away, and the Fairview and

Fulton County area realized that the

prosperity had ended.

Project Background

In 1989, Gallatin National Company

received approval from the Village of the

Fairview to site a landfill within the Village

limits. A siting, or host community,

agreement was signed which secured for the

Village a tipping fee of $1.00 per ton of

garbage disposed at the landfill. The landfill

was sited on a 3,000 acre tract of derelict,

unreclaimed strip-mine property which, at

that time, generated a paltry $5,000.00 in

property taxes. The landfill was permitted by

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

in 1991 and opened for business in May,

1993.

Gallatin planned to take advantage of the

impending closure of Chicago area landfills

and provide a large regional landfill for the

Chicago market. This plan failed when some

of the Chicago market landfills expanded,

garbage volumes dropped due to recycling,

and Gallatin had no market hauling presence.

The failure to competitively transport waste

from the Chicago market to Fairview led to

the demise of Gallatin National Company and

the sale of its landfill to BFI.

BFI purchased the landfill from Gallatin

National Company in December, 1994. It was

understood that BFI needed the landfill

because its sole operating Chicago area

landfill, Mallard Lake, was rapidly filling up.

Further, BFI’s two other Chicago market

landfills located in Davis Junction and Zion

were closed and having difficulty obtaining

siting approval for expansion. The Spoon

Ridge Landfill in Fairview was intended to

be the long term Chicago market disposal site

for BFI.

Chicago market changes occurred shortly

after the purchase of the Spoon Ridge

Landfill by BFI. It was determined that the

Mallard Lake Landfill had more site life than

previously predicted. Also, BFI’s landfills

located in Davis Junction and Zion both

received expansion siting approval.

Additionally, BFI’s competitors obtained

expansion siting approval for landfills close

to the Chicago market. These changes

resulted in a glut of landfill air space in the

Chicago market and rendered Spoon Ridge

Landfill unable to compete.

In June, 19998, BFI decided to close Spoon

Ridge Landfill after reportedly losing

millions of dollars and determining that the

facility could not, at least in the short term,

compete in the Chicago market.

New York City

In 1998, the Department of Sanitation of

the City of New York solicited a request for

proposals for the disposal of approximately

13,000 tons per day of residential garbage.

This request for proposals was made

pursuant to a court order to close the Fresh

Kills Landfill in the borough of Staten Island

in 2001. BFI responded to the request for

proposals and named Spoon Ridge Landfill

as one of the locations at which it would

dispose of the New York waste. Included in

the response to the request for proposals was

an endorsement of the project by the Village

of Fairview. A copy of the letter from the

Village of Fairview to the New York

Department of Sanitation supporting and

endorsing the disposal of New York City

waste at Spoon Ridge Landfill is attached.

The New York Department of Sanitation

awarded BFI the opportunity to negotiate for

the disposal of 3,900 tons per day of New

York garbage. BFI hoped to secure a contract

from the Department of Sanitation at the end

of this year. As BFI further analyzed their

New York proposal, they reported that the

Spoon Ridge Landfill appeared to be the most

efficient and logical location for the disposal

of New York waste.

If New York waste were disposed at the

Spoon Ridge Landfill, the economic benefits

to the VIllage of Fairview and the

surrounding area would be tremendous. The

estimated host community tipping fees

would be approximately $1,000,000.00 per

year. Property taxes approaching $250,000.00

per year and approximately 40 good paying

jobs would also be secured for the area. In

order for Allied to executive the New York

proposal which it inherited from BFI, Allied

must retain ownership of Spoon Ridge

Landfill.

Summary

The Village of Fairview strongly objects to

the Department of Justice requirement that

Allied divest itself of the Spoon Ridge

Landfill. Two companies, Gallatin National

and BFI, have failed to make the landfill

competitive in the Chicago market.

Therefore, Spoon Ridge Landfill should not

be considered important in minimizing the

Department of Justice anti-competitive

concerns for the market.

The economic development opportunity

for the Village of Fairview and surrounding

area from the receipt of New York garbage at

Spoon Ridge Landfill is staggering. With a

population of just 500 in an economically

depressed county, the millions of dollars in

revenue realized from this project would

provide a once in a lifetime financial boost

to the area.

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that

the Department of Justice reconsider and

change its consent decree with regard to the

requirement that Allied divest itself of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill.

Sincerely,

Village of Fairview

Gerald R. Hilton,

President.

cc: U.S. Senator Richard J. Durbin; U.S.

Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald; Congressman

Lane Evans; Governor George H. Ryan;

State Senator George P. Shadid; State

Representative Michael K. Smith; Mr.

Thomas VanWeelden, President, Allied

Waste Industries, Inc.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Honorable Lane Evans,

U.S. House of Representatives, 2335 Rayburn

Building, Washington, DC 20515–1317.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999)).

Dear Congressman Evans: This letter

responds to your letter of August 13, 1999

commenting on the Final Judgment in this

case on behalf of the Village of Fairview. You

enclosed a letter from Gerald R. Hilton,

president of the Village of Fairview. The

Complaint in this case charged, among other

things, that Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, DC., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

I have responded directly to Mr. Hilton

addressing his concerns. A copy of my

response to Mr. Hilton is enclosed. Thank

you for bringing the Village of Fairview’s

concerns to our attention. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

those of Mr. Hilton, and this response will be

published in the Federal Register and filed

with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Gerald R. Hilton,

President, Village of Fairview, P.O. Box 137,

Fairview, IL 61432.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999)).

Dear Mr. Hilton: This letter responds to

your letter of August 9, 1999 commenting on

the Final Judgment in this case on behalf of

the Village of Fairview. The Complaint in

this case charged, among other things, that

Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, DC., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

Final Judgment, by requiring Allied to divest

the Spoon Ridge landfill, is unnecessary for

36238 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

effective relief and might undermine the tax

base of the local communities. The Spoon

Ridge landfill is a relatively new site and the

largest landfill in the State of Illinois. BFI

recently closed the landfill because it found

that the landfill was unable to attract enough

waste from the Chicago area to make it

viable. By closing the landfill, BFI reduced

its assessed value, and thus, the taxes it paid

to local communities. BFI intended to reopen

the landfill if it obtained a long-term contract

to dispose of new York City’s residential

waste.

You stated that the future viability of

Spoon Ridge depends on its ability to attract

waste from New York City. By requiring

Allied to divest this landfill to an

independent competitor, ostensibly to help

alleviate competitive problems in the

Chicago market, the Final Judgment

unnecessarily limits Allied’s ability to

complete for the contract to dispose of New

York City’s waste, and undermines the

changes of Spoon Ridge ever opening again.

The fact is that requiring Allied to divest

Spoon Ridge to a new competitor in no way

prevents Allied or any other firm from later

contracting with the new owner to dispose of

any New York City’s waste. Indeed, the new

owner would be free to make the landfill’s

disposal capacity available to any person

who wishes to bid and enhance competition

for the contract to dispose of New York City’s

waste. If the new owner believes, however,

that the space in the landfill is much more

valuable to use in competing for the disposal

of waste from the city of Chicago, then the

new owner can choose to commit the landfill

to competing in that market. Leaving Spoon

Ridge with Allied, which already controls

nearly 35% of all disposal capacity in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market, would

ensure that a single firm could dominate

waste disposal, and therefore, set the price of

disposal in the Chicago market. While this

may make the landfill more valuable to the

local community, it would adversely affect

the prices paid by consumers for the disposal

of their municipal solid waste.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

Village of Fairview

August 9, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer, II,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, NW, Suite 3000,

Washington, D.C. 20005.

In Re Allied/BFI Consent Decree Case No.

1.99CV01962

Dear Mr. Kramer: The purpose of this letter

is to provide comment on the proposed

consent decree which requires Allied Waste

Industries, Inc. to sell certain assets in

connection with its acquisition of Browning

Ferris Industries, Inc. Specifically, the

Village of Fairview strenuously objects to the

Department of Justice requirement that Allied

divest itself of the Spoon Ridge Landfill

located in Fairview, Illinois.

In your analysis of the Chicago market, it

is stated that Allied’s divestiture of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill would insure that the

benefits of competition, lower prices and

better service would be preserved. It is the

opinion of the Village of Fairview that the

Spoon Ridge Landfill is not an important

waste disposal operation for the Chicago

market. Requiring the divestiture of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill will eliminate an

opportunity for Allied to send waste from

New York City to Spoon Ridge as planned by

BFI. As such, the divestiture removes an

important potential economic development

opportunity for the Village of Fairview.

Fairview and Fulton County Overview

The Village of Fairview is a small west

central Illinois community located in Fulton

County, nearly 200 miles from Chicago.

Fairview has a population of approximately

500 people.

At the turn of this century, Fulton County

was a prosperous, dynamic area. Agriculture

was productive and viable. A large number

of underground coal mines were attracting

immigrants to the area, increasing the

population and wealth of Fulton County.

International Harvester Company was

growing in Canton, the largest city in the

county.

A number of significant changes to the area

occurred in the 1950’s. Most were negative

except for Caterpillar’s expansion in Peoria,

Illinois. The mining operations changed from

shaft to strip-mining. This mining method

was much more efficient and used a much

smaller work force. During this period,

Caterpillar expanded in the Peoria area and

many Fairview and Fulton County workers

were able to secure work at Caterpillar.

Through the 1960’s and 1970’s, about 2,500

people worked for International Harvester;

about 1,000 people worked for several large

strip mines in Fulton County; and about

1,700 people commuted to work for

Caterpillar in Peoria.

The economic base of the area diminished

in the period between 1980 and 1984. All of

the large strip mines were closed. The

International Harvester Plant in Canton

closed in 1983. Caterpillar reduced

employment by about 15,000 people in the

1980’s. The net effect was that the number of

Caterpillar employees in Fulton County

dropped from about 1,700 people to about

900 people. Consequently, there was a loss of

over 4,000 well paid jobs in Fulton County

in the 1980’s.

The overall effect of these events was

devastating to the area. The population

declined, property values plummeted, young

people moved away, and the Fairview and

Fulton County area realized that the

prosperity had ended.

Project Background

In 1989, Gallatin National Company

received approval from the Village of

Fairview to site a landfill within the Village

limits. A siting, or host community,

agreement was signed which secured for the

Village a tipping fee of $1.00 per ton of

garbage disposed at the landfill. The landfill

was sited on a 3,000 acre tract of derelict,

unreclaimed strip-mine property which, at

that time, generated a paltry $5,000.00 in

property taxes. The landfill was permitted by

the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

in 1991 and opened for business in May,

1993.

Gallatin planned to take advantage of the

impending closure of Chicago area landfills

and provide a large regional landfill for the

Chicago market. This plan failed when some

of the Chicago market landfills expanded,

garbage volumes dropped due to recycling,

and Gallatin had no market hauling presence.

The failure to competitively transport waste

from the Chicago market to Fairview led to

the demise of Gallatin National Company and

the sale of its landfill to BFI.

BFI purchased the landfill from Gallatin

National Company in December, 1994. It was

understood that BFI needed the landfill

because its sole operating Chicago area

landfill, Mallard Lake, was rapidly filling up.

Further, BFI’s two other Chicago market

landfills located in Davis Junction and Zion

were closed and having difficulty obtaining

siting approval for expansion. The Spoon

Ridge Landfill in Fairview was intended to

be the long term Chicago market disposal site

for BFI.

Chicago market changes occurred shortly

after the purchase of the Spoon Ridge

Landfill by BFI. It was determined that the

Mallard Lake Landfill had more site life than

previously predicted. Also, BFI’s landfills

located in Davis Junction and Zion both

received expansion siting approval.

Additionally, BFI’s competitors obtained

expansion siting approval for landfills close

to the Chicago market. These changes

resulted in a glut of landfill air space in the

Chicago market and rendered Spoon Ridge

Landfill unable to compete.

In June, 1998, BFI decided to close Spoon

Ridge Landfill after reportedly losing

millions of dollars and determining that the

facility could not, at least in the short term,

compete in the Chicago market.

New York City

In 1998, the Department of Sanitation of

the City of New York solicited a request for

proposals for the disposal of approximately

13,000 tons per day of residential garbage.

This request for proposals was made

pursuant to a court order to close the Fresh

Kills Landfill in the borough of Staten Island

in 2001. BFI responded to the request for

proposals and named Spoon Ridge Landfill

as one of the locations at which it would

dispose of the New York waste. Included in

the response to the request for proposals was

an endorsement of the project by the Village

of Fairview. A copy of the letter from the

Village of Fairview to the New York

Department of Sanitation supporting and

endorsing the disposal of New York City

waste at Spoon Ridge Landfill is attached.

The New York Department of Sanitation

awarded BFI the opportunity to negotiate for

the disposal of 3,900 tons per day of New

York garbage. BFI hoped to secure a contract

from the Department of Sanitation at the end

of this year. As BFI further analyzed their

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36239

New York proposal, they reported that the

Spoon Ridge Landfill appeared to be the most

efficient and logical location for the disposal

of New York waste.

If New York waste were disposed at the

Spoon Ridge Landfill, the economic benefits

to the Village of Fairview and the

surrounding area would be tremendous. The

estimated host community tipping fees

would be approximately $1,000,000.00 per

year. Property taxes approaching $250,000.00

per year and approximately 40 good paying

jobs would also be secured for the area. In

order for Allied to execute the New York

proposal which it inherited from BFI, Allied

must retain ownership of Spoon Ridge

Landfill.

Summary

The Village of Fairview strongly objects to

the Department of Justice requirement that

allied divest itself of the Spoon Ridge

Landfill. Two companies, Gallatin National

and BFI, have failed to make the landfill

competitive in the Chicago market.

Therefore, Spoon Ridge Landfill should not

be considered important in minimizing the

Department of Justice anti-competitive

concerns for the market.

The economic development opportunity

for the Village of Fairview and surrounding

area from the receipt of New York garbage at

Spoon Ridge Landfill is staggering. With a

population of just 500 in an economically

depressed county, the millions of dollars in

revenue realized from this project would

provide a once in a lifetime financial boost

to the area.

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that

the Department of Justice reconsider and

change its consent decree with regard to the

requirement that Allied divest itself of the

Spoon Ridge Landfill.

Sincerely,

Village of Fairview,

Gerald R. Hilton,

President.

cc: U.S. Senator Richard J. Durbin, U.S.

Senator Peter G. Fitzjerald, Congressman

Lane Evans, Governor George H. Ryan,

State Senator George P. Shadid, State

Representative Michael K. Smith, Mr.

Thomas VanWeelden, President, Allied

Waste Industries, Inc.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Gerald R. Hilton,

President, Village of Fairview, P.O. Box 137,

Fairview, IL 61432.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CA 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).,

Dear Mr. Hilton: This letter responds to

your letter of August 9, 1999 commenting on

the Final Judgment in this case on behalf of

the Village of Fairview. The Complaint in

this case charged, among other things, that

Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicage

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, DC, would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

Final Judgment, by requiring Allied to divest

the Spoon Ridge landfill, is unnecessary for

effective relief and might undermine the tax

base of the local communities. The Spoon

Ridge landfill is a relatively new site and the

largest landfill in the State of Illinois. BFI

recently closed the landfill because it found

that the landfill was unable to attract enough

waste from the Chicago area to make it

viable. By closing the landfill, BFI reduced

its assessed value, and thus the taxes it paid

to local communities. BFI intended to reopen

the landfill if it obtained a long-term contract

to dispose of New York City’s residential

waste.

You stated that the future viability of

Spoon Ridge depends on its ability to attract

waste from New York City. By requiring

Allied to divest this landfill to an

independent competitor, ostensibily to help

allievate competitive problems in the

Chicago market, the Final Judgment

unnecessarily limits Allied’s ability to

compete for the contract to dispose of New

York City’s waste, and undermines the

chances of Spoon Ridge ever opening again.

The fact is that requiring Allied to divest

Spoon Ridge to a new competitor in no way

prevents Allied or any other firm from later

contracting with the new owner to dispose of

any New York City’s waste. Indeed, the new

owner would be free to make the landfill’s

disposal capacity available to any person

who wishes to bid and enhance competition

for the contract to dispose of New York City’s

waste. If the new owner believes, however,

that the space in the landfill is much more

valuable to use in competing for the disposal

of waste from the city of Chicago, then the

new owner can choose to commit the landfill

to competing in that market. Leaving Spoon

Ridge with Allied, which already controls

nealry 35% of all disposal capacity in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market, would

ensure that a single firm could dominate

waste disposal, and therefore, set the price of

disposal in the Chicago market. While this

may make the landfill more valuable to the

local community, it would adversely affect

the prices paid by consumers for the disposal

of their municipal solid waste.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Purusant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 169d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

United States Senate

October 22, 1999.

Mr. Joel Klein,

Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department

of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., #3109, Washington, DC 20530.

Dear Mr. Klein: Enclosed you will find a

copy of a letter from a constituent who is

concerned about an order issued by the

Department of Justice that requires the sale

of those Spoonridge landfill to Republic

Waste. The order was issued in conjunction

with the buyout of B.F.I. by Allied Waste.

Please provide an explanation of this

decision to Mr. Taylor, and send a copy of

your respond to David Lieber in my

Washington office.

Thank you for your time and

consideration.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin,

United States Senator.

Barry Taylor

August 11, 1999.

Dear Sir: I am writing you in an effort to

enlist your help in maintaining the financial

stability of the village of Fariview Illinois.

The United States Department of Justice has

issued an order in the buyout of B.F.I. by

Allied Waste which would require the sale of

Spoonridge landfill to Republic Waste. They

claim the retention of Spoonridge by Allied

would create a monopoly situation in the

Chicago market. This is not true, Spoonridge

was originally built to service the Chicago

metro area. But changes in the industry made

this an unprofitable proposition.

B.F.I. then changed their strategy and

decided to seek refuse from all over the

country. This move was endorsed by both the

village and county boards. As it began to look

like the plan was working (B.F.I. hearing a

contract with New York city) the sale took

place and the justice department stepped in.

It now appears Republic Waste will be

purchasing Spoonridge. With Republic

having ample landfill space in the Chicago

market we believe Spoonridge will be

indefinitely mothballed.

Fairview and B.F.I. had been participating

in a public private partnership, which has

been a great help to the village in providing

needed services to the citizens. The fees paid

by B.F.I have enabled the village to install a

new water system. This was made necessary

because the E.P.A. had determined our water

to be unfit to drink. If the landfill is

mothballed and the revenues to the village

are lost it will cause a severe budge crisis.

We are against monopolies and the high

prices they cause. But we feel that the

Department of Justice has not gotten the

correct picture in this case. If the order

stands we feel the only ones to suffer will be

the citizens of he Fairview area. The loss of

the landfill revenue and the possible

reduction in property taxes will endanger the

village, school system and the other taxing

bodies that depend on these funds. It is our

hope that you will help persuade the

Department of Justice to take a closer look at

this situation. As a small village we are trying

to provide quality of life without putting

undo strain on the taxpayers. We hope you

can help us achieve our goal.

36240 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices

Thank You,

Barry Taylor,

Fairview Village Trustee.

Barry Taylor

August 8, 1999.

Subject: J Robert Kramer re Allied/BFI

consent decree.

Dear Sir: I am writing you to protest a

ruling by your agency that was meant to

prevent a monopoly from being formed in the

Chicago area. As a small part of this order

Allied is ordered to sell the Spoonridge

landfill in Fairveiw Illinois. The result of this

action will not effect the price of waste

disposal in the Chicago area, but will instead

devestate a small rural community in west

central Illinois. The Spoonridge landfill was

built to service the Chicago metro area, but

this never became finacialy competitive.

B.F.I. then changed their strategy to attract

waste from other parts of the country. This

move was endorsed by both the village and

county boards. As this process was nearing

completion with a contract from New York

city we are derailed by a ruling from your

agency. The sell of this facility to Republic

Waste will, we fear this will leave the site

mothballed and eliminate the finacial benefit

to the villiage. These funds are being used to

pay for a new water system for the villiage

which was forced upon us by the E.P.A.

Your agency’s ruling is going to force the

village of Fairview into near bankruptcy,

while in no way changing the balance of

waste disposal in the Chicago area. I plead

with you to have your people review and dig

a little deeper into this issue, before they

make the citizens of Fairview pay a high

price for Spoonridge being lumped into the

Chicago area without any basis in fact.

Thank You,

Barry Taylor,

Village Trustee, Fairview Il.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Barry Taylor,

Fairview Village Trustee, 580 Main Street,

Box 261, Fairview, IL 61432..

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Mr. Taylor: This letter responds to

your letters of August 8 and 11, 1999

commenting on the Final Judgment in this

case on behalf of the Village of Fairview. The

Complaint in this case charged, among other

things, that Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, DC., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competitors in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your letter, you express concern that the

Final Judgment, by requiring Allied to divest

the Spoon Ridge landfill, is unnecessary for

effective relief and might undermine the tax

base of the local communities. The Spoon

Ridge landfill is a relatively new site and the

largest landfill in the State of Illinois. BFI

recently closed the landfill because it found

that the landfill was unable to attract enough

waste from the Chicago are to make it viable.

By closing the landfill. BFI reduced its

assessed value, and thus, the taxes it paid to

local communities. BFI intended to reopen

the landfill if it obtained a long-term contract

to dispose of New York City’s residential

waste.

You stated that the future viability of

Spoon Ridge depends on its ability to attract

waste from New York City. By requiring

Allied to divest this landfill to an

independent competitor, ostensibly to help

alleviate competitive problems in the

Chicago market, the Final Judgment

unnecessarily limits Allied’s ability to

complete for the contract to dispose of New

York City’s waste, and undermines the

chances of Spoon Ridge ever opening again.

The fact is that requiring Allied to divest

Spoon Ridge to a new competitor in no way

prevents Allied or any other firm from later

contracting with the new owner to dispose of

any New York City’s waste. Indeed, the new

owner would be free to make the landfill’s

disposal capacity available to any person

who wishes to bid and enhance competition

for the contract to dispose of New York City’s

waste. If the new owner believes, however,

that the space in the landfill is much more

valuable to use in competing for the disposal

of waste from the city of Chicago, then the

new owner can choose to commit to landfill

to competing in that market. Leaving Spoon

Ridge with Allied, which already controls

nearly 35% of all disposal capacity in the

greater Chicago metropolitan market, would

ensure that a single firm could dominate

waste disposal, and therefore, set the price of

disposal in the Chicago market. While this

may make the landfill more valuable to the

local community, it would adversely affect

the prices paid by consumers for the disposal

of their municipal solid waste.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), a copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the Court.

CC: Office of the Honorable Richard J.

Durbin, ATTN.: David Lieber, United

States Senate, 364 Russell Senate Office

Building, Washington, DC 20510–1304.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

McHenry County Department of Planning

and Development

December 14, 1999.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer, III, Esquire,

Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

1401 H Street, Suite 3000, Washington,

DC 20005.

Re Proposed Consent Decree in United States

of America v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.

(Civil No. 1:99CVO1962).

Dear Mr. Kramer: We respectfully request

that the Solid Waste Sector of the McHenry

County Department of Planning &

Development (Department) be informed of all

pending sales of the following assets prior to

your Division granting final approval of the

sales. The details of the proposed sale or

sales of these assets would be used by this

Department to evaluate the potential impact

the sales may have on our solid waste market

place. If an impact has been determined, the

Department would submit comments, either

negative or positive, for your review prior to

final approval. The assets of concern in the

Chicago Metropolitan area are:

• Two (2) BFI Landfills;

• Five (5) Transfer Stations; and

• All BFI small container commercial

collection routes in Cook, Lake, DuPage,

McHenry, and Will counties, Illinois.

Thank you, in advance, for your assistance

in this matter. I may be reached at (815) 334–

4560 or by e-mail at

Imbuckle@co.mchenry.il.us.

Sincerely,

Leonore Buckley,

CPG, Solid Waste Coordinator.

U.S. Department of Justice

Antitrust Division

May 10, 2000.

Leonore Buckley,

Solid Waste Coordinator, Department of

Planning and Development, McHenry

County Government Center, Annex

Building A, 2200 North Seminary

Avenue, Woodstock, IL 60098.

Re Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in

(United States v. Allied Waste Industries,

Inc. and Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.

No. 99 CV 1962 (D.D.C., July 21, 1999).

Dear Ms. Buckley: This letter responds to

your letter of December 14, 1999 commenting

on the Final Judgment in this case on behalf

of the Department of Planning and

Development of McHenry County. The

Complaint in this case charged, among other

things, that Allied’s acquisition of BFI would

substantially lessen competition in the

collection or disposal of small container

commercial waste the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The proposed modified

Final Judgment, now pending in federal

district court in Washington, DC., would

settle the case by requiring the defendants to

divest a number of waste collection routes

and waste disposal facilities in the greater

Chicago metropolitan market. This relief, if

approved by the Court, would establish one

or more new competition in this market for

which relief was sought.

In your letter, you request that the

Department of Planning and Development

(‘‘Department’’) be informed of all pending

sales of the assets to be divested pursuant to

the proposed Final Judgment. These assets

include the two BFI landfills; five BFI

transfer stations; and the BFI small container

commercial routes in Cook, Lake, DuPage,

McHenry and Will Counties, Illinois. Your

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 7, 2000 / Notices 36241

further state that the Department would

evaluate the potential impact the sales may

have on its solid waste marketplace.

Under the terms of the Final Judgment, the

defendants must sell all of the relevant

disposal and hauling assets described in the

Final Judgment to a purchaser or purchasers

acceptable to the United States, in its sole

discretion. In approving a purchase, we

always consider the competitive impact in

the local market of that purchaser’s

acquisition of the hauling or disposal assets.

The Orchard Hills and Zion landfills have

been acquired by Superior Services, Inc. a

purchaser approved by the United States.

Superior has no current hauling or disposal

operations in the greater Chicago

metropolitan market. The five transfer

stations have also been divested with the

approval of the United States—Superior has

acquired four of the transfer stations, and

Groot Industries has acquired one.

The BFI small container commercial routes

in the five counties have been divested to

Superior except for the municipal franchise

contracts. These will be retained by Allied if

the court approves a modification to the

Final Judgment. The United States and Allied

have filed a motion to have the court modify

the Final Judgment to permit Allied to retain

the franchise work which initially had to be

divested.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to

our attention, and we hope this information

will help alleviate them. Pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15

U.S.C. 16(d), as copy of your comments and

this response will be published in the

Federal Register and filed with the court.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

[FR Doc. 00–13019 Filed 06–06–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M