[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36224-36241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13019]



[[Page 36223]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Justice





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Antitrust Division



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



United States v. Allied Waste Industries, et al.; Response to Public 
Comments on Antitrust Consent Decree and Joint Motion for Entry of a 
Modified Final Judgment; Notice

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

[[Page 36224]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 36226]]

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

[[Page 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 multi-family 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 Multi-Family 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 (single-family homes or 
multi-family homes). Commercial service is defined as non-
residential 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

[[Page 36228]]

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 five-year 
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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 36230]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 36232]]

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

[[Page 36233]]

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 SWANCC-owned 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-be-divested 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ If transporting waste 50 miles was economical in the Chicago 
area (as the Department of Justice suggested generally in para. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the choices of realistic disposal options reduced from 
three to two significant competitors, price competition will be

[[Page 36234]]

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 para. 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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 36236]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 36238]]

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

[[Page 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.


[[Page 36240]]


    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 
[email protected].

    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

[[Page 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