13454 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices

Sincerely yours,

Anthony V. Nanni,

Chief, Litigation I Section.

Coastal Carting Limited, Inc.

Garbage and Trash Removal, 2316 S.W. 56th

Terrace, West Hollywood, Florida 33021

February 8, 1995.

Anthony V. Nanni,

Chief, Litigation One Section, Anti-Trust

Division, United States Department of

Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 4000,

Washington, DC 20530

Re: Browning-Ferris Industries, Acquisition

of Attwoods PLC, Civil action No.: 94–

2588, United States of America, State of

Florida, and State of Maryland vs.

Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., United

States District Court for the District of

Columbia

To Whom It May Concern: I am writing

because I am very concerned about the

acquisition of Attwoods by Browning-Ferris

Industries and its effect upon my business.

Finally, BFI has utilized the Contract that

as attached Exhibit ‘‘B’’ of the proposed Final

Judgment as a marketing tool to discredit the

smaller haulers. BFI is out in the market

place telling the customer if he is not happy

with the service provided by BFI, they can

terminate the contract with minimum cost to

the customer.

My suggestion is to terminate all the

existing agreements immediately and then

have BFI compete with us with them using

the new Contract.

Finally, BFI will be able to subsidize their

competitive commercial work by the monies

made on the ‘‘combined’’ franchises of BFI

and Attwoods allowing BFI to subsidize

competitive prices, thereby, keeping the

small hauler from competing in the market

place where they can compete.

Once again, I am concerned about the

effect this transaction will have on the

market place and my business. Please feel

free to contact me at your earliest

convenience regarding these issues and I

hope you will strongly consider my concerns.

Very truly yours,

Frank D’Agostino,

President, Coastal Carting Ltd., Inc.

Department of Justice Antitrust Division

City Center Building, 1401 H Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20530

March 1, 1995.

AVN: NHM

60–4953–0059

Frank D’Agostino,

President,

Coastal Carting Limited, Inc.,

2316 SW. 56th Terrace,

West Hollywood, Florida 33021

Re: United States v. Browning-Ferris

Industries, Inc.; Civ. Action No.:

1:94CV02588 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 1994)

Dear Mr. D’Agostino: This letter responds

to your letter dated February 8, 1995

commenting on the proposed Final Judgment

in the above-referenced civil antitrust case,

which challenges the acquisition of the assets

of Attwoods plc (‘‘Attwoods’’) by BrowningFerris Industries, Inc. (‘‘BFI’’). The Complaint

alleges that the acquisition, as originally

structured, violated Section 7 of the Clayton

Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, because its

effects may be substantially to lessen

competition in small containerized hauling

services in the following relevant markets:

Baltimore, MD; Broward County, FL; Chester

County, PA; Clay County, FL; Duval County,

FL; Polk County, FL; the Southern Eastern

Shore of Maryland; Sussex County, DE; and

Western Maryland. Under the proposed Final

Judgment, BFI would be required to divest

Attwoods’ assets in Chester County, PA; Clay

County, FL; Duval County, FL; the Southern

Eastern Shore of Maryland; Sussex County,

DE; and Western Maryland. BFI would also

be required to offer new, less restrictive

contracts to its small containerized hauling

customers in Broward County, FL; Polk

County, FL; and the greater Baltimore, MD

metropolitan area.

Your letter expresses concern that BFI is

using the less restrictive contracts the

proposed Final Judgment requires it to use in

Broward County, FL as a marketing tool to

discredit the smaller haulers. You suggest

that BFI should be required immediately to

terminate all of its existing, more restrictive

contracts, and compete using only the new

contract. The Department considered

requiring BFI to terminate all existing

contracts immediately and to switch all of its

customers to the new contract at once. The

Department believed that this would result in

much confusion and potentially high cost.

Part VIII D of the proposed Final Judgment

requires BFI to offer the new contract to all

new customers and all customers that sign

contracts effective beginning on the date BFI

acquires a majority of the Attwoods’ ordinary

shares. That paragraph also requires that BFI

offer the new contract to all other customers

by December 1, 1995. As a result, BFI is

required to offer the new contract to all of its

Broward County customers within one year

of the filing of the Complaint and proposed

Final Judgment. The Department believes

that this rapid phase-in of the contracts will

enhance competition by getting the contracts

into use quickly, but without the confusion

and cost of an immediate switch of all

customers to the new contract.

You also state that you are concerned that

BFI will be able to subsidize their

competitive commercial work through

monies obtained from franchises previously

controlled by Attwoods. The Department

understands you to be referring to franchises

for residential (and sometimes residential

and commercial) solid waste hauling

periodically put up for bid by municipal

authorities.

Your concern appears to be that combining

Attwoods’ franchises with those already

controlled by BFI will enable BFI to offer

lower prices to its commercial small

containerized hauling customers,

undercutting your ability to compete with

BFI in the commercial small containerized

hauling market. This assumes that BFI will

be able to obtain supracompetitive profits

from the franchises to undercut other firms

in the commercial small containerized

hauling market. This subsidization could

only happen if the bidding for franchises is

not competitive. The Department is not

aware of any evidence that the market for

bidding on franchises in your area is not

competitive.

While we understand your concerns, we

believe that the proposed Final Judgment

would adequately safeguard competition for

small containerized hauling service in the

markets alleged in the Complaint. 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.

Sincerely yours,

Anthony V. Nanni,

Chief, Litigation I Section.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on this date I have

caused to be served by first class mail,

postage prepaid, a copy of the foregoing

Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment

and the United States’ Responses to the

Comments upon the following persons,

counsel for defendant in the matter of United

States of America v. Browning-Ferris

Industries, Inc.:

Rufus Wallingford, Esquire, Executive Vice

President and General Counsel, 757 North

Eldridge Street, Houston, Texas 77079,

(713) 870–7670

Martha J. Talley, DC Bar No. 246330, Dewey

Ballantine, 1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,

Washington, DC 20006, (202) 862–1014

Dated: March 2, 1995.

Nancy H. McMillen,

Attorney, Litigation I Section, Antitrust

Division, Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 95–6045 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

Drug Enforcement Administration

Robert E. Sylvester, D.O.; Denial of

Application

On June 23, 1994, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator of the Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Robert E. Sylvester,

D.O., (Respondent) of Fairfax, South

Carolina, proposing to deny his

application for a DEA Certificate of

Registration as a practitioner under 21

U.S.C. 823(f). The Order to Show Cause

alleged that Respondent’s registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest based on Respondent’s lack of

authorization to handle controlled

substances in the State of South

Carolina; that Respondent issued

various controlled substances

prescriptions for himself and others and

such prescriptions were not in the usual

course of his professional practice and

not for a legitimate medical reason; that

he had previously surrendered a DEA

Certificate of Registration for cause; that

he materially falsified an application for
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices 13455

a DEA Certificate of Registration; that he

had previously been convicted of a

felony relating to controlled substances;

and that he submitted false medicaid

claims.

The Order to Show Cause was served

on Respondent by registered mail. On

July 14, 1994, Respondent, through

counsel, submitted a written statement

waiving a hearing, admitting all

allegations except those pertaining to

the false medicaid claims and the

material falsification of his DEA

application. The Deputy Administrator

has considered this statement along

with the investigative file. Accordingly,

the Deputy Administrator now enters

his final order in this matter without a

hearing and based on the investigative

file and the written statement submitted

by Respondent. 21 CFR 1301.57.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

effective September 18, 1991,

Respondent’s medical license was

revoked, pursuant to an Administrative

Consent Agreement, by the State of

South Carolina, Department of Health

and Environmental Services (DHES). As

a result of the DHES’s action,

Respondent is no longer authorized to

prescribe, dispense, administer or

otherwise handle controlled substances

in any schedule in the State of South

Carolina.

The Deputy Administrator concludes

that the DEA does not have the statutory

authority under the Controlled

Substances Act to issue or maintain a

registration if the applicant or registrant

is without authority to handle

controlled substances in the State in

which he/she practices. See 21 U.S.C.

832(f). The Deputy Administrator and

his predecessors have consistently so

held. See Howard J. Reuben, M.D., 52 FR

8375 (1987); Ramon Pla, M.D., Docket

No. 86–54, 51 FR 41168 (1986); Dale D.

Shahan, D.D.S., Docket No. 85–57, 51

FR 23481 (1986); and cases cited

therein.

Since Respondent lacks State

authorization to handle controlled

substances, it is not necessary for the

Deputy Administrator to decide the

other issues alleged in the Order to

Show Cause.

Respondent does not contest that he

is not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in South Carolina.

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator

concludes that Respondent’s application

for a DEA Certificate of Registration

must be denied.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that the application for a

DEA Certificate of Registration,

submitted by Robert E. Sylvester, D.O.,

be, and it is hereby denied. This order

is effective March 13, 1995.

Dated: March 7, 1995.

Stephen H. Greene,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6115 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95–20;

Exemption Application No. D–09690, et al.]

Grant of Individual Exemptions; Iron

Workers Pension Trust of Colorado, et

al.

AGENCY: Pension and Welfare Benefits

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Grant of Individual Exemptions.

SUMMARY: This document contains

exemptions issued by the Department of

Labor (the Department) from certain of

the prohibited transaction restrictions of

the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 (the Act) and/or

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the

Code).

Notices were published in the Federal

Register of the pendency before the

Department of proposals to grant such

exemptions. The notices set forth a

summary of facts and representations

contained in each application for

exemption and referred interested

persons to the respective applications

for a complete statement of the facts and

representations. The applications have

been available for public inspection at

the Department in Washington, D.C. The

notices also invited interested persons

to submit comments on the requested

exemptions to the Department. In

addition the notices stated that any

interested person might submit a

written request that a public hearing be

held (where appropriate). The

applicants have represented that they

have complied with the requirements of

the notification to interested persons.

No public comments and no requests for

a hearing, unless otherwise stated, were

received by the Department.

The notices of proposed exemption

were issued and the exemptions are

being granted solely by the Department

because, effective December 31, 1978,

section 102 of Reorganization Plan No.

4 of 1978 (43 FR 47713, October 17,

1978) transferred the authority of the

Secretary of the Treasury to issue

exemptions of the type proposed to the

Secretary of Labor.

Statutory Findings

In accordance with section 408(a) of

the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the

Code and the procedures set forth in 29

CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 FR 32836,

32847, August 10, 1990) and based upon

the entire record, the Department makes

the following findings:

(a) The exemptions are

administratively feasible;

(b) They are in the interests of the

plans and their participants and

beneficiaries; and

(c) They are protective of the rights of

the participants and beneficiaries of the

plans.

Iron Workers Pension Trust of

Colorado (The Pension Plan); and

Colorado Iron Workers (Erection)

Statewide Joint Apprenticeship and

Trust Fund (the Apprenticeship Plan;

together, the Plans) Located in Denver,

Colorado

[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 95–20;

Exemption Application Nos. D–09690 and L–

09691]

Exemption

The restrictions of section 406(a) of

the Act and the sanctions resulting from

the application of section 4975 of the

Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A)

through (D) of the Code, shall not apply

to the loan (the Loan) of $141,601.36 by

the Pension Plan to the Apprenticeship

Plan, under the terms described in the

notice of proposed exemption, provided

the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The Loan represents less than 25%

of the assets of the Pension Plan; (b) the

terms of the Loan are not less favorable

to either Plan than those obtainable in

arm’s-length transactions with unrelated

parties; (c) the trustees of each Plan

approved the Loan as being appropriate

for, and in the best interest of each Plan;

(d) no trustee of either Plan made such

determination on behalf of the other

Plan; and (e) the property securing the

Loan has been appraised by a qualified,

independent appraiser as having a fair

market value in excess of 150% of the

principal amount of the Loan.

For a more complete statement of the

facts and representations supporting the

Department’s decision to grant this

exemption, refer to the notice of

proposed exemption published on

January 4, 1995 at 60 FR 488.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This exemption is

effective August 11, 1992.

WRITTEN COMMENTS: The Department

received two written comments with

respect to the proposed exemption. One

comment sought further information