Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2004 / Notices 69399

Commission disclosing (1) the identities 

of the parties to the venture 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 to the 

venture are: Siemens Westinghouse 

Power Corporation, Orlando, FL and 

Mesoscribe Technologies, Inc., Stony 

Brook, NY. The nature and objectives of 

the venture are to demonstrate the 

viability of smart, self-aware engine 

components that will incorporate 

embedded, harsh-environment capable 

sensors for thermal, mechanical, and 

wear sensing, integrated with wireless 

technology for signal transmission 

under the Advanced Technology 

Program of NIST. The activities of the 

joint venture will be partially funded by 

an award from the Advanced 

Technology Program, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology.

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division.

[FR Doc. 04–26223 Filed 11–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Smart Active Label 

Consortium, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

September 20, 2004, pursuant to section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

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

Active Label Consortium, Inc., (‘‘SAL’’) 

has filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing (1) the name and 

principal place of business of the 

standards development organization 

and (2) the nature and scope of its 

standards development activities. 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 

name and principal place of business of 

the standards development organization 

is: Smart Active Label Consortium, Inc., 

Wakefield, MA. The nature and scope of 

SAL’s standards development activities 

are: (a) To bring smart active label 

technology into use in a wide range of 

industries; and (b) to bring together a 

critical mass of technology suppliers, 

manufacturers, solutions providers, endusers, standards organizations, 

governmental bodies, and academic 

institutions.

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division.

[FR Doc. 04–26203 Filed 11–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—U.S. Product Data 

Association 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

September 20, 2004, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

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

Product Data Association (‘‘US PRO’’) 

has filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing (1) the name and 

principal place of business of the 

standards development organization 

and (2) the nature and scope of its 

standards development activities. 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 name and principal place of 

business of the standards development 

organization is: U.S. Product Data 

Association, North Charleston, SC. The 

nature and scope of US PRO’s standards 

development activities are: To provide 

the management functions for the IGES/

PDES Organization (IPO) and its related 

activities, including the U.S. Technical 

Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO TC184/

SC4.

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division.

[FR Doc. 04–26216 Filed 11–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 01–31] 

Deborah Bordeaux, M.D.; Revocation 

of Registration 

On June 8, 2001, the Administrator of 

the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause/

Immediate Suspension of Registration to 

Deborah Bordeaux, M.D. (Dr. Bordeaux), 

notifying her of an opportunity to show 

cause as to why DEA should not revoke 

her DEA Certificate of Registration, 

BB3869370, as a practitioner, pursuant 

to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) for reason that Dr. 

Bordeaux’s continued registration 

would be inconsistent with the public 

interest and to deny any pending 

applications for renewal of registration 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). The Order 

to Show Cause/Immediate Suspension 

of Registration further advised Dr. 

Bordeaux that her DEA Certificate of 

Registration had been suspended, 

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), as an 

imminent danger to public health and 

safety. 

The Order to Show Cause/Immediate 

Suspension of Registration alleged, inter 

alia, that for February 2000 through 

Febrary 2001, Dr. Bordeaux was 

employed by the Comprehensive Care & 

Pain Management Center (CCPMC) and 

the Myrtle Beach Medical Clinic 

(MBMC), both located in Myrtle Beach, 

South Carolina. During this period she 

routinely and continually prescribed 

controlled substances, including 

Oxycontin, Lortab and Lorcet, to 

patients without adequate medical 

testing, validation of patients’

complaints or consideration of more 

appropriate alternative treatments. 

Many of these patients were traveling 

hundreds of miles to CCPMC, bypassing 

legitimate physicians qualified to treat 

chronic pain. DEA investigators also 

determined that a number of Dr. 

Bordeaux’s patients were at drug 

treatment centers throughout South 

Carolina, where they were being treated 

for addiction to Oxycontin that had 

repeatedly been prescribed them by Dr. 

Bordeaux and other CCPMC physicians. 

It was further alleged that she 

routinely issued controlled substance 

prescriptions to patients never seen by 

staff physicians and issued refills of 

Oxycontin prescriptions for no reason 

other than the patients ‘‘wanted’’ refills. 

Further, in March 2001, Dr. Bordeaux 

opened her own clinic where, until she 

was told by DEA investigators that she 

was operating at an unregistered 

location, she continued to prescribe 

controlled substances without obtaining