Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices 6801

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Bell Communications

Research, Inc.

Notice is hereby given that, on

November 14, 1996, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Bell

Communications Research, Inc.

(‘‘Bellcore’’) has filed written

notifications on behalf of Bellcore;

Lucent Technologies, Inc. (‘‘Lucent’’);

AT&T Corporation (‘‘AT&T’’); Bell

Atlantic Network Services, Inc. (‘‘Bell

Atlantic’’); Southwestern Bell

Technology Resources, Inc. (‘‘TRI’’);

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.

(‘‘BellSouth’’); and Pacific Telesis Group

(‘‘Pacific’’) simultaneously with the

Attorney General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing certain changes

in its membership. The notifications

were filed for the purpose of extending

the Act’s provisions limiting the

recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual

damages under specified circumstances.

Specifically, Lucent, Murray Hill, NJ;

and TRI, Austin, TX have become

members of the consortium.

No other changes have been made in

the membership, nature and objectives

of the consortium and Bellcore will file

additional written notifications

disclosing all changes in membership.

On November 29, 1994, Bellcore filed

its original notification pursuant to

Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department

of Justice published a notice in the

Federal Register pursuant to Section

6(b) of the Act on April 13, 1995 (60.

Fed. Reg. 18856).

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 97–3638 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

Notice Pursuant to the National

Cooperative Research and Production

Act of 1993—Petroleum E&P Research

Cooperative

Notice is hereby given that, on

January 16, 1997, pursuant to Section

6(a) of the National Cooperative

Research and Production Act of 1993,

15 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., (‘‘the Act’’),

Petroleum E&P Research Cooperative

(‘‘Cooperative’’) has filed written

notifications simultaneously with the

Attorney General and the Federal Trade

Commission disclosing (1) the identities

of the parties and (2) the nature and

objectives of the venture. The

notifications were filed for the purpose

of invoking the Act’s provisions limiting

the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to

actual damages under specified

circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b)

of the Act, the identities of the parties

are: Texas Engineering Experiment

Station, a component of the Texas A&M

University System; Amoco Production

Company, Houston, TX; ARCO

Exploration and Production

Technology, Plano, TX; Exxon

Production Research Company,

Houston, TX; Mobil Technology

Company, Farmers Branch, TX; Shell

E&P Technology Company, Houston,

TX; and Texaco Group Inc., Houston,

TX. The Cooperative was formed by a

written agreement dated October 16,

1996, to develop new and improved

technology to meet the needs of the

exploration and production functions of

the petroleum industry in areas where

joint research is appropriate.

Membership is open to other companies

that (directly or through affiliates)

derive substantial revenues from

petroleum exploration and production

activities and do not receive significant

revenues from involvement in the

petroleum service industry.

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 97–3639 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

Drug Enforcement Administration

Manufacturer of Controlled

Substances, Notice of Registration

By Notice dated July 31, 1996, and

published in the Federal Register on

August 8, 1996, (61 FR 41427), Allen,

Dovensky & Company, Inc., 3529

Lincoln Highway, Thorndale,

Pennsylvania 19372, made application

by renewal to the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) to be registered as

a bulk manufacturer of morphine (9300),

a basic class of controlled substance

listed in Schedule II.

No comments or objections have been

received. DEA has considered the

factors in Title 21, United States Code,

Section 823(a) and determined that the

registration of Allen, Dovensky &

Company, Inc. to manufacture morphine

is consistent with the public interest at

this time. Therefore, pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104,

the Deputy Assistant Administrator,

Office of Diversion Control, hereby

orders that the application submitted by

the above firm for registration as a bulk

manufacturer of the basic class of

controlled substance listed above is

granted.

Dated: January 28, 1997.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3643 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 96–25]

Barbara H. Briner, M.D.; Denial of

Application

On March 19, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) issued an Order

to Show Cause to Barbara H. Briner,

M.D., (Respondent), of Humble and

Houston, Texas, notifying her of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not deny her application

for a DEA Certificate of Registration as

a practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 823(f).

The Order to Show Cause alleged, in

substance, that (1) Respondent’s Texas

Department of Public Safety (DPS)

controlled substance registration

expired on March 31, 1995, and has not

been renewed; and (2) by order dated

June 28, 1995, the Texas State Board of

Medical Examiners (Board) placed

Respondent on probation for five years

and prohibited Respondent from

prescribing, administering or dispensing

any controlled substances.

On April 5, 1996, Respondent filed a

timely request for a hearing, and the

matter was docketed before

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen

Bittner. On April 17, 1996, Judge Bittner

issued an Order for Prehearing

Statements. On April 23, 1996, in lieu

of filing such a statement, the

Government filed a motion for summary

disposition, which noted that while

Respondent’s DPS registration had

expired on March 31, 1995, it was

subsequently renewed on February 20,

1996. It further alleged however, that

Respondent was not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Texas in light

of Respondent’s Agreed Order with the

Board effective June 28, 1995.

Respondent did not submit a response

to the Government’s motion.

On June 14, 1996, Judge Bittner issued

a ruling denying the Government’s

motion, finding that it was unclear

whether the Agreed Order prohibited

Respondent from handling controlled

substances at all or whether it merely

restricted Respondent’s handling of

controlled substances if both DEA and

DPS issue her controlled substance

registrations. The Judge’s ruling did not

preclude the Government from

renewing its motion for summary