Ray V. Surapaneni, D.O.; Revocation of Registration, 3563-3564 [05-1326]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 25, 2005 / Notices
considerations weighed heavily against
registering a distributor of list I
chemicals because, ‘‘[v]irtually all of the
Respondent’s customers, consisting of
gas station and convenience stores, are
considered part of the grey market, in
which large amounts of listed chemicals
are diverted to the illicit manufacture of
amphetamine and methamphetamine.’’
Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., supra, 67 FR at
76,197. As in Xtreme Enterprises, Inc.,
Mr. and Mrs. Al-Alousi’s lack of a
criminal record and stated intent to
comply with the law and regulations are
far outweighed by their lack of
experience and the company’s intent to
sell pseudoephedrine products almost
exclusively to the gray market.
The Deputy Administrator is also
troubled by AAI’s failure to provide
accurate customer information to DEA
investigators, indicating the company
cannot be trusted to handle the
responsibilities of a registrant. Further,
its continued or implied use of its
predecessor’s name, an entity which
prior investigations had linked with the
diversion of listed chemicals to illicit
laboratories, raises questions about
AAI’s customer base and the risk that its
products might be sold to previous
customers of AAI’s predecessor and
then diverted to illegal purposes.
Based on the foregoing, the Deputy
Administrator concludes that granting
the pending application would be
inconsistent with the public interest.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,
hereby orders the pending application
for DEA Certificate of Registration,
submitted by Al-Alousi, Inc., be, and it
hereby is, denied. This order is effective
February 24, 2005.
Dated: December 30, 2004.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–1324 Filed 1–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Ray V. Surapaneni, D.O.; Revocation of
Registration
On April 29, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Ray V. Surapaneni,
D.O. (Dr. Surapaneni) who was notified
of an opportunity to show cause as to
why DEA should not revoke his DEA
VerDate jul<14>2003
13:14 Jan 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
Certificate of Registration, BS3724932,
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3).
Specifically, the Order to Show Cause
alleged that Dr. Surapaneni’s authority
to handle controlled substances in the
State of Missouri had been revoked.
The Order to Show Cause notified Dr.
Surapaneni that should no request for a
hearing be filed within 30 days, his
hearing right would be deemed waived.
Alternatively, he could waive a hearing
and submit a written statement
regarding his position on the matters of
fact and law for the Deputy
Administrator’s consideration, along
with the material within the
investigative case file.
The Order to Show Cause was
initially sent by certified mail to Dr.
Surapaneni at an address which was not
current. On September 2, 2004, the
Order to Show Cause was resent and Dr.
Surapaneni received it on September 6,
2004. In his September 10, 2004, letter
to the Hearing Clerk, DEA Office of
Administrative Law Judges, Dr.
Surapaneni affirmatively waived a
hearing and asked the Deputy
Administrator to not revoke his
registration and to consider the contents
of the letter in deciding the matter.
The Deputy Administrator of DEA,
after considering material from the
investigative file and the written
statement of Dr. Surapaneni, now enters
her final order without a hearing
pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(b) and (e)
1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds Dr.
Surapaneni is currently registered with
DEA as a practitioner authorized to
handle controlled substances in
Schedules II through V under DEA
Certificate of Registration BS3724932,
with a registered location of 1515 Union
Avenue, Moberly, Missouri.
According to information in the
investigative file, in June 2003, Dr.
Surapaneni entered into a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) with the DEA
Saint Louis Field Division as a
condition of renewing his DEA
registration. Among the MOA’s terms
was a provision that his DEA
registration would terminate
automatically if he were to lose
authority to handle controlled
substances in Missouri, his State of
registration.
On December 9, 2003, the Missouri
Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs (BNDD) notified Dr. Surapaneni
that his Missouri Controlled Substances
Registration No. 307766793, had been
terminated and he did not ‘‘currently
have the authority to conduct any
activities with controlled substances in
the state of Missouri.’’ The investigative
file indicates his state controlled
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3563
substances registration was terminated
because it had been issued for a specific
location in Paris, Missouri and,
pursuant to a March 11, 2003,
Settlement Agreement Between Dr.
Surapaneni and BNDD, his registration
would terminate immediately if he
relocated his professional practice.
BNDD subsequently discovered Dr.
Surapaneni had never been employed
by or practiced at the Paris, Missouri
location. Efforts by DEA diversion
investigators to obtain his certificate by
surrender proved unsuccessful and
show cause proceedings were then
initiated.
In his written statement to the Deputy
Administrator, Dr. Surapaneni indicates
he was unable to join the Paris,
Missouri, practice because he lacked
start-up funds, attributing this financial
plight to a previous office manager
having embezzled $150,000 from him.
Dr. Surapaneni also says he is seeking
medical employment and intends to
reapply for his Missouri registration
once he has found a position.
However, Dr. Surapaneni does not
dispute that his State controlled
substances registration was terminated
by BNDD or claim any current authority
to handle controlled substances in that
State. Therefore, the Deputy
Administrator finds Dr. Surapaneni is
currently not authorized to handle
controlled substances in Missouri.
DEA does not have statutory authority
under the Controlled Substances Act to
issue or maintain a registration if the
applicant or registrant is without State
authority to handle controlled
substances in the State in which he
conducts business. See 21 U.S.C.
802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This
prerequisite has been consistently
upheld. See Richard J. Clement, M.D.,
68 FR 12, 103 (2003); Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts,
M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988).
Here, it is clear Dr. Surapaneni’s State
controlled substance registration was
terminated and there is no information
that action was ever stayed or that his
registration has been reinstated. As a
result, Dr. Surapaneni is not licensed to
handle controlled substances in
Missouri, where he is registered with
DEA. Therefore, he is not entitled to
maintain that registration.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and
0.104, hereby orders that DEA
Certificate of Registration, BS3724932,
issued to Ray V. Surapaneni, D.O., be,
and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy
Administrator further orders that any
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
3564
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 25, 2005 / Notices
pending applications for renewal or
modification of the aforementioned
registration be, and hereby are, denied.
This order is effective February 24,
2005.
Dated: December 30, 2004.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–1326 Filed 1–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
James E. Thomas, M.D., Revocation of
Registration
On April 29, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to James E. Thomas,
M.D. (Dr. Thomas) of Troy, Alabama,
notifying him of an opportunity to show
cause as to why DEA should not revoke
his DEA Certificate of Registration
AT7586829, as a practitioner, under 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and deny any pending
applications for renewal or modification
of that registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
823(f). As a basis for revocation, the
Order to Show Cause alleged that Dr.
Thomas is not currently authorized to
practice medicine or handle controlled
substances in Alabama, his State of
registration and practice. The Order to
Show Cause also notified Dr. Thomas
that should no request for a hearing be
filed within 30 days, his hearing right
would be deemed waived.
The Order to Show Cause was sent by
certified mail to Dr. Thomas at his
address of record at P.O. Drawer 947,
Suite 2, Highway 231, Troy, Alabama.
That correspondence was returned
marked ‘‘Not Deliverable as
Addressed—Unable to Forward.’’ It was
then determined the local DEA office
had sent three registered letters to Dr.
Thomas’ home and office addresses and
all had been returned marked
‘‘unforwardable.’’ Further, the State of
Alabama, Medical Licensure
Commission (Alabama Commission)
had tried to contact Dr. Thomas without
success. The Deputy Administrator
finds reasonable efforts to contact and
serve Dr. Thomas with the Order to
Show Cause have been made and DEA
has not received a request for hearing or
any other reply from Dr. Thomas or
anyone purporting to represent him in
this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator,
finding (1) 30 days have passed since
DEA’s attempt to serve the Order to
Show Cause at the registered location
VerDate jul<14>2003
13:14 Jan 24, 2005
Jkt 205001
and that good faith efforts to locate Dr.
Thomas have failed and (2) no request
for a hearing having been received,
concludes that Dr. Thomas is deemed to
have waived his hearing right, See
Steven A. Barnes, M.D., 69 FR 51,474
(2004); David W. Linder, 67 FR 12,579
(2002). After considering material from
the investigative file, the Deputy
Administrator now enters her final
order without a hearing pursuant to 21
CFR 1301.43(d) and (e) and 1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds Dr.
Thomas currently possesses DEA
Certificate of Registration AT7586829,
which expires on November 30, 2005.
The Deputy Administrator further finds
that on June 16, 2003, the Alabama
Commission issued an Order revoking
Dr. Thomas’ license to practice
medicine in Alabama. The suspension
was based upon findings of fact, inter
alia, that Dr. Thomas committed
professional misconduct and ‘‘is unable
to practice medicine with reasonable
skill and safety to patients by reason of
illness, inebriation, excessive use of
drugs, narcotics, alcohol, chemicals or
other substances * * * ’’
The investigative file contains no
evidence the Alabama Commission’s
Order has been stayed, modified or
terminated or that Dr. Thomas’ medical
license has been reinstated. Therefore,
the Deputy Administrator finds Dr.
Thomas is not currently authorized to
practice medicine in the State of
Alabama. As a result, it is reasonable to
infer he is also without authorization to
handle controlled substances in that
State.
DEA does not have statutory authority
under the Controlled Substances Act to
issue or maintain a registration if the
applicant or registrant is without State
authority to handle controlled
substances in the State in which he
conducts business. See 21 U.S.C.
802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This
prerequisite has been consistently
upheld. See Stephen J. Graham, M.D.,
69 FR 11,661 (2004); Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts,
M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988).
Here, it is clear Dr. Thomas’ medical
license has been revoked and he is not
currently licensed to handle controlled
substances in Alabama, where he is
registered with DEA. Therefore, he is
not entitled to a DEA registration in that
State.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,
hereby orders that DEA Certificate of
Registration AT7586829, issued to
James E. Thomas, M.D., be, and it
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
hereby is, revoked. The Deputy
Administrator further orders that any
pending applications for renewal of
such registration be, and they hereby
are, denied. This order is effective
February 24, 2005.
Dated: December 30, 2004.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–1325 Filed 1–24–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Notice of Decision To Revise Method
for Estimation of Monthly Labor Force
Statistics for Certain Subnational
Areas
AGENCY:
Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Labor.
ACTION:
Statement of policy.
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor,
through the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), is responsible for the
development and publication of local
area labor force statistics. In the Local
Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)
program, monthly estimates of the labor
force, employment, unemployment, and
the unemployment rate for more than
7,000 areas in the Nation are developed
and issued monthly. With data for
January 2005, to be published in March
2005, the monthly labor force estimates
prepared in the LAUS program will be
based on methodological improvements
that resulted from the completion of a
number of projects to improve the
statistical basis of the estimates. In
addition, the LAUS estimates will
reflect updated geography and other
techniques that are based on 2000
Census data.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These changes will be
effective with January 2005 LAUS
estimates issued in March 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon P. Brown, Chief, Division of
Local Area Unemployment Statistics,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Telephone
202–691–6390.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of Comments
The BLS received one comment in
response to the request for comments on
the Proposal to Revise the Method for
Estimation of Monthly Labor Force
Statistics for Certain Subnational Areas.
That commenter was opposed to the use
of model based estimation for the Miami
metropolitan division. In BLS’s
judgment the statistical modeling
E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM
25JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3563-3564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1326]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Ray V. Surapaneni, D.O.; Revocation of Registration
On April 29, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Ray V. Surapaneni, D.O. (Dr. Surapaneni) who was
notified of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA should not
revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration, BS3724932, pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Specifically, the Order to Show Cause alleged that
Dr. Surapaneni's authority to handle controlled substances in the State
of Missouri had been revoked.
The Order to Show Cause notified Dr. Surapaneni that should no
request for a hearing be filed within 30 days, his hearing right would
be deemed waived. Alternatively, he could waive a hearing and submit a
written statement regarding his position on the matters of fact and law
for the Deputy Administrator's consideration, along with the material
within the investigative case file.
The Order to Show Cause was initially sent by certified mail to Dr.
Surapaneni at an address which was not current. On September 2, 2004,
the Order to Show Cause was resent and Dr. Surapaneni received it on
September 6, 2004. In his September 10, 2004, letter to the Hearing
Clerk, DEA Office of Administrative Law Judges, Dr. Surapaneni
affirmatively waived a hearing and asked the Deputy Administrator to
not revoke his registration and to consider the contents of the letter
in deciding the matter.
The Deputy Administrator of DEA, after considering material from
the investigative file and the written statement of Dr. Surapaneni, now
enters her final order without a hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(b)
and (e) 1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds Dr. Surapaneni is currently
registered with DEA as a practitioner authorized to handle controlled
substances in Schedules II through V under DEA Certificate of
Registration BS3724932, with a registered location of 1515 Union
Avenue, Moberly, Missouri.
According to information in the investigative file, in June 2003,
Dr. Surapaneni entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
DEA Saint Louis Field Division as a condition of renewing his DEA
registration. Among the MOA's terms was a provision that his DEA
registration would terminate automatically if he were to lose authority
to handle controlled substances in Missouri, his State of registration.
On December 9, 2003, the Missouri Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs (BNDD) notified Dr. Surapaneni that his Missouri Controlled
Substances Registration No. 307766793, had been terminated and he did
not ``currently have the authority to conduct any activities with
controlled substances in the state of Missouri.'' The investigative
file indicates his state controlled substances registration was
terminated because it had been issued for a specific location in Paris,
Missouri and, pursuant to a March 11, 2003, Settlement Agreement
Between Dr. Surapaneni and BNDD, his registration would terminate
immediately if he relocated his professional practice. BNDD
subsequently discovered Dr. Surapaneni had never been employed by or
practiced at the Paris, Missouri location. Efforts by DEA diversion
investigators to obtain his certificate by surrender proved
unsuccessful and show cause proceedings were then initiated.
In his written statement to the Deputy Administrator, Dr.
Surapaneni indicates he was unable to join the Paris, Missouri,
practice because he lacked start-up funds, attributing this financial
plight to a previous office manager having embezzled $150,000 from him.
Dr. Surapaneni also says he is seeking medical employment and intends
to reapply for his Missouri registration once he has found a position.
However, Dr. Surapaneni does not dispute that his State controlled
substances registration was terminated by BNDD or claim any current
authority to handle controlled substances in that State. Therefore, the
Deputy Administrator finds Dr. Surapaneni is currently not authorized
to handle controlled substances in Missouri.
DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled
Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or
registrant is without State authority to handle controlled substances
in the State in which he conducts business. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21),
823(f) and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently upheld.
See Richard J. Clement, M.D., 68 FR 12, 103 (2003); Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988).
Here, it is clear Dr. Surapaneni's State controlled substance
registration was terminated and there is no information that action was
ever stayed or that his registration has been reinstated. As a result,
Dr. Surapaneni is not licensed to handle controlled substances in
Missouri, where he is registered with DEA. Therefore, he is not
entitled to maintain that registration.
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C.
823 and 824 and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA
Certificate of Registration, BS3724932, issued to Ray V. Surapaneni,
D.O., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator further
orders that any
[[Page 3564]]
pending applications for renewal or modification of the aforementioned
registration be, and hereby are, denied. This order is effective
February 24, 2005.
Dated: December 30, 2004.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-1326 Filed 1-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
