67896 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Notices

Under the first of the three Consent

Decrees, nine corporate defendants

(Bayer Corp.; Dupont; Grower Service

Corp.; Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical

Corp.; Mobil Oil Corp.; Novartis Crop

Protection (formerly Ciba-Geigy); Olin

Corp. Shell Oil Co.; and Union Carbide

Corp.) agree to implement the remedial

design and remedial action for EPA’s

selected remedies for contaminated soil

and groundwater at all five Areas

comprising the Site and to pay

$8,568,686.01 of the United States’ past

response costs, plus future oversight

costs. This decree is referred to as the

‘‘RD/RA Decree.’’

Under the second Consent Decree,

Yadco of Pinehurst will pay $125,000 in

partial reimbursement of the United

States’ response costs. This second

Decree is referred to as the ‘‘Yadco

Decree.’’

Under the third Consent Decree, Dan

Maples, Partners in the Pits; Pits

Management Corp. and Maples Golf

Construction will collectively pay

$600,000 in partial reimbursement of

the United States’ response costs. This

third Decree is referred to as the

‘‘Maples Decree.’’

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments concerning the proposed

Consent Decrees. Comments should be

addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General, Environment and Natural

Resources Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington,

D.C., 20044, and should refer to United

States v. Estate of J.M. Taylor, et al., D.J.

Ref. 90–11–3–323.

The proposed Consent Decrees may

be examined at any of the following

offices: (1) The Office of the United

States Attorney for the Middle District

of North Carolina, 101 South

Edgeworth, Greensboro, North Carolina;

(2) the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, 100 Alabama Street,

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia; and (3) the

Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street,

N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C.

20005 (telephone (202) 624–0892).

A copy of the proposed Consent

Decrees may be obtained in person or by

mail from the Consent Decree Library,

1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor,

Washington, D.C. 20005. Please refer to

the reference case and identify the

particular decrees desired. There is a

photocopying charge of $0.25 per page.

All checks should be made payable to

‘‘Consent Decree Library.’’

For a copy of the RD/RA Consent

Decree with all attachments, please

enclose a check for $136.00. For a copy

of the RD/RA Decree without the

attachments, enclose a check for $43.25.

For a copy of the Yadco Consent

Decree, please enclose a check for $6.75.

For a copy of the Maples Consent

Decree enclose a check for $8.75. There

are no attachments to the Yadco or

Maples Consent Decrees.

Joel M. Gross,

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section,

Environment & Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 97–33821 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

[Civil Action No. 497–CF 564 E]

Public Comment and Response on

Proposed Final Judgment; United

States and State of Texas v. Allied

Waste Industries, Inc.

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures

and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16 (b)–(h),

the United States of America hereby

publishes below the comment received

on the proposed Final Judgment in

United States and State of Texas v.

Allied Waste Industries, Inc., Civil

Action No. 497–CV 564 E, filed in the

United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, together with

the United States’ response to the

comment.

Copies of the comment and response

are available for inspection in Room 215

of the U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 325 7th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20530, telephone: (202)

514–2481, and at the office of the Clerk

of the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Texas, Room

310, 501 W. 10th Street, Fort Worth, TX

76102. Copies of any of these materials

may be obtained upon request and

payment of a copying fee.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

Independent Environmental Services, Inc.,

October 10, 1997.

J. Robert Kramer II

Chief, Litigation II Section

Antitrust Division

United States Department of Justice

1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 3000

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Mr. Kramer: This letter addresses our

company’s concerns regarding the merger or

takeover of USA Waste Services, Inc., Fort

Worth by Allied Waste Industries, Inc., Fort

Worth. Our company, Independent

Environmental Services, Inc. (IESI), is an

independent hauler located and doing

business in Tarrant County. To my

knowledge, we are the only independent

hauler in the municipal residential business

in Tarrant County and one of a very few

competing in the commercial and industrial

business in Tarrant County. As I am sure you

are aware, Allied Waste Industries controls

all of the assets that were owned by USA

Waste Services, Triple A Waste Services,

Consolidated Waste Services, Laidlaw Waste

Industries, Sanifill, and Tarrant County

Waste. This combination has reduced

competition in our market and has resulted

in higher landfill disposal fees to

independent competitors like IESI. As you

are no doubt aware, the large public solid

waste companies often seek to control their

markets and eliminate competition by

charging excessive disposal rates to

independent operators like IESI.

IESI received a letter from Laidlaw

advising us of the opportunity to purchase air

space at their newly acquired Crow Landfill

as well as additional space at their existing

Turkey Creek Landfill. We submitted a

proposal to buy air space at the Crow

Landfill. My concern is that I also received

a letter and phone call from Allied/Laidlaw,

which raises our cost of disposal 23% for

residential and compacted industrial waste. I

have also been advised that my front load

commercial disposal rates have been

increased 63.4%.

When David Bickel from the US Justice

Department interviewed me, I expressed a

concern that only Waste Management and

Sanifill/USA Waste owned landfills that

were strategically and economically located

for disposal in Tarrant County. It is also

interesting to point out that, prior to the

Allied acquisition, Sanifill was not a

competitor in the hauling business and was

very competitive and accommodating and

desirous of our disposal business. These

recent price increases by Allied/Laidlaw

represent a strategic plan to leverage this

capacity and utilize it against us,

particularly, since our disposal alternatives

are extremely limited.

Allied/Laidlaw has seen fit to measure our

front loader trucks differently than the truck

manufacturer and the 2 previous landfill

owners. I cannot help but think the term

‘‘anti-competitive, monopolistic, unfair

practices, price gouging, and driving the little

guy out of business’’ all aptly describe the

action taken by Allied/Laidlaw. It is also

rumored that BFI would be purchasing the

air space at Crow. The rumor is supported by

the fact that Allied/Laidlaw needs disposal

capacity in another market where BFI can

accommodate their needs. From an

accounting perspective, you can imagine the

‘‘pencil whipping’’ that can take place in that

type of an arrangement. A deal could easily

be structured or better yet, two deals easily

structured in which anyone reviewing the

merits would have no idea of the actual

accommodations that have taken place. It

also further enhances my belief of the desire

by the Laidlaw management to drive us out

of business.

I’m sure that your decision to approve

(subject to conditions) the Allied acquisition

did not contemplate the current activities

demonstrated by Allied/Laidlaw. If your final

judgment is not yet final, we would like to

discuss our concerns so that our company

may continue to survive.

Your immediate concern to this problem is

appreciated.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Notices 67897

Respectfully yours,

Charles ‘‘Mickey’’ Flood,

President and CEO.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division, 1401 H Street, City Center

Building, Washington, DC 20530,

December 8, 1997.

Mr. Charles ‘‘Mickey’’ Flood

President and CEO

Independent Environmental Services, Inc.

3330 North Beach Street

Haltom City, TX 76111

Re: United States, et al., v. Allied Waste

Industries, Inc., C.A. No. 497–CV 564 E

(N.D. TX)

Dear Mr. Flood: This letter responds to

your letter dated October 10, 1997

commenting on the proposed Final Judgment

in the above-captioned civil antitrust case

challenging the acquisition by Allied Waste

Industries, Inc. (‘‘Allied’’) of the Crow

Landfill in Tarrant County, Texas owned by

USA Waste Services, Inc. The Complaint

alleges that the acquisition violates Section 7

of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18,

because it is substantially likely to lessen

competition for the disposal of municipal

solid waste (‘‘MSW’’) generated in Tarrant

County. Under the proposed Final Judgment

Allied is required to divest 880,000 cubic

yards of disposal space at the Crow Landfill

to a purchaser(s) who would have the right

to use this airspace for five years or the life

of the Crow Landfill, whichever is longer.

Allied is also required to divest 560,000

cubic yards of disposal space at the Turkey

Creek Landfill to a purchaser(s) who would

have the right to use the airspace for a tenyear period.

In your letter you expressed concern that

since acquiring the Crow Landfill Allied has

increased disposal rates and changed the way

trucks are measured that dispose of waste.

You indicated in a telephone conversation

with the staff that when USA Waste owned

the Crow Landfill that the front-load hopper

on the truck was not measured for waste

being deposited. Your letter indicates that

your disposal rates increased by 23% and the

change in the method of measuring trucks

has resulted in a total 63.4% increase to IESI.

Additionally, your letter states that before the

acquisition, USA Waste was not a competitor

in the hauling business and therefore the

Crow Landfill was desirous of IESI’s disposal

business. As Allied is also in the hauling

business, you believe the acquisition

represents a plan to raise prices for disposal

which will place IESI at a disadvantage in

competing with Allied for hauling business

since there are few disposal alternatives to

IESI. Your letter indicates that large waste

companies seek to control markets by

charging ‘‘excessive’’ disposal rates to

independent haulers, and you believe BFI, a

large waste company, will be sold the

airspace in return for assets by Allied in

another location.

We have looked into the concerns

expressed in your letter. We can report that

Allied has increased the rates at the Crow

Landfill (now called Mill Valley) and claims

that the increase is necessary because of

capital costs for the upkeep and maintenance

of the landfill. We understand the rates at the

Crow Landfill are now $6 for compacted

MSW and $4.70 for loose MSW. Our

investigation has revealed that these prices

are set at levels which are generally

comparable to prices charged at other

landfills in the Tarrant County area. With

regard to the measuring of trucks, it is our

understanding that the other landfill

operated by Allied specified in the

Complaint, Turkey Creek, and the landfills in

the Tarrant County area not owned by Allied

all measure trucks in the same fashion as

now used by Allied at Mill Valley.

Although the price increases instituted by

Allied do not appear out of line with

prevailing prices in the Tarrant County area,

the increase reinforces the belief of the

United States that a Final Judgment requiring

Allied to sell airspace at the Crow Landfill

(now Mill Valley) and the Turkey Creek

Landfill is necessary to protect competition

both in landfills and hauling in the Tarrant

County area. Divestiture will allow one or

more purchasers to obtain airspace rights that

they can use to compete directly for local

solid waste contracts or to resell to other

local haulers. As you know, Allied has

started the process of obtaining bids for

airspace rights. As we understand the

bidding process so far, the prices being

offered for the airspace are at levels which

could allow the winning bidder(s) to resell

space at prices below those being currently

charged by Allied. Your company has an

opportunity to bid on that airspace and we

understand it has done so.

Your letter also expresses a concern that

BFI, a large national waste company, is

bidding for and may win the airspace rights.

Should BFI be a bidder in the process or

become the winning bidder, this

development would not necessarily

constitute an anticompetitive effect of the

merger. The antitrust laws are not designed

to promote the interests of any one

competitor but to protect competition as a

whole. We will, however, examine any

proposed sale to ensure that it complies with

the terms of the Final Judgment.

The Antitrust Division appreciates you

bringing your concerns to our attention and

hopes this response will alleviate them.

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and

Penalties Act, a copy of your letter and this

response will be published in the Federal

Register and filed with the Court. Thank you

for your interest in the enforcement of the

antitrust laws.

Sincerely yours,

J. Robert Kramer II,

Chief, Litigation II Section.

[FR Doc. 97–33810 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

United States v. Tom Paige Catering,

Inc. and Valley Foods Inc., Proposed

Final Judgment and Competitive

Impact Statement

Notice is hereby given pursuant to the

Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,

15 U.S.C. 16(b) through (h), that a

proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation,

and Competitive Impact Statement have

been filed with the United States

District Court for the Northern District

of Ohio in United States v. Tom Paige

Catering, Inc. and Valley Foods Inc.,

Civil Action No. 1:97CV3268.

The Complaint in this case alleges

that the defendants formed a joint

venture in order to lessen and eliminate

competition for food service contracts

with the Cleveland, Ohio, Head Start

program, in violation of Section 1 of the

Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.

The proposed Final Judgment orders

the defendants to dissolve their joint

venture and enjoins them from (A)

agreeing with any other food service

contractor to fix prices on food service

contracts; (B) participating in future

discussions or communications about

the prices they quote on food service

contracts; (C) agreeing with other food

service contractors on the customers or

territories they bid for or serve; (D)

entering into any agreement with any

non-defendant food service contractor

before notifying the plaintiff. Each

defendant is also required to appoint an

antitrust compliance officer and

establish an antitrust compliance

program with specified requirements.

Public comment is invited within the

statutory 60-day comment period. Such

comments, and responses thereto, will

be published in the Federal Register

and filed with the Court. Comments

should be directed to William J.

Oberdick, Acting Chief, Great Lakes

Field Office, Antitrust Division,

Department of Justice, Plaza 9 Building,

55 Erieview Plaza, Suite 700, Cleveland

OH 44114 (Telephone: 216/522–4074).

Rebecca P. Dick,

Director, Civil Non-Merger Enforcement.

Stipulation

It is stipulated by and between the

undersigned parties, by their respective

attorneys, that:

(1) The parties consent that a final

judgment in the form hereto attached

may be filed and entered by the Court

at any time after the expiration of the

sixty (60) day period for public

comment provided by the Antitrust

Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C.

16(b)–(h), without further notice to any

party or other proceedings, either upon

the motion of any party or upon the

Court’s own motion, provided that

plaintiff has not withdrawn its consent

as provided herein;

(2) The plaintiff may withdraw its

consent hereto at any time within said

period of sixty (60) days by serving

notice thereof upon the other party