3352 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices 

1The Request for Hearing was filed on October 

13, 2021. Order for Evidence of Lack of State 

Authority and Directing the Government to File 

Evidence Regarding the Service of the Order to 

Show Cause (hereinafter, Briefing Schedule), at 1. 

I find that the Government’s service of the OSC was 

adequate and that the Request for Hearing was 

timely filed on October 13, 2021. See RD, at n.1. 

2 I find that the Office of Administrative Law 

Judges properly served Respondent on all 

occasions. The Certificate of Service for the 

Government’s Motion certifies that the Government 

served Respondent’s counsel at the email address 

provided in Respondent’s Request for Hearing. 

Request for Hearing, at 1–2. 

prescriptions for powerful controlled 

substances at night, in a parking lot, in 

a manner designed to avoid detection. 

Both then and now, Respondent has 

responded with calculated, inconsistent 

statements designed to escape 

culpability. In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 

U.S. 243, 270 (2006), the Supreme Court 

made clear that DEA has authority 

under the Controlled Substances Act to 

bar illicit drug dealing and trafficking as 

traditionally understood. Respondent, 

in this case, engaged in conduct that 

constitutes drug trafficking as 

traditionally understood, and, 

accordingly, the appropriate sanction is 

denial of his application for a DEA 

registration. 

Accordingly, it is herein respectfully 

recommended that Respondent’s 

application for a DEA registration be 

denied. 

Dated: April 9, 2021. 

Teresa A. Wallbaum, 

Administrative Law Judge. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

823(f), I hereby deny the pending 

application for a Certificate of 

Registration, Control Number 

W19061136C, submitted by Stephen E. 

Owusu, D.P.M., as well as any other 

pending application of Stephen E. 

Owusu, D.P.M., for additional 

registration in New York. This Order is 

effective February 22, 2022. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01108 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 22–1] 

Alex E. Torres, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On August 11, 2021, the Acting 

Assistant Administrator, Diversion 

Control Division, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (hereinafter, DEA or 

Government), issued an Order to Show 

Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Alex E. 

Torres, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent) 

of San Diego, California. OSC, at 1 and 

3. The OSC proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s Certificate of Registration 

No. BT1734943. Id. at 1. It alleged that 

Respondent is ‘‘without authority to 

handle controlled substances in 

California, the state in which 

[Respondent is] registered with DEA.’’ 

Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 

Specifically, the OSC alleged that on 

March 18, 2021, Respondent entered 

into a Stipulated Surrender of License 

and Order (hereinafter, Stipulated 

Surrender) with the Medical Board of 

California (hereinafter, the Board) 

‘‘whereby [Respondent] agreed to 

surrender [his] California state medical 

license.’’ Id. According to the OSC, 

Respondent agreed to the Stipulated 

Surrender after the Board alleged, inter 

alia, that ‘‘[Respondent] negligently 

treated three patients, failed to maintain 

adequate and accurate records, and 

[was] impaired due to mental illness.’’ 

Id. The OSC stated that the Board issued 

its Decision adopting the Stipulated 

Surrender on March 22, 2021, with the 

Decision becoming effective on March 

29, 2021. Id. 

The OSC notified Respondent of the 

right to request a hearing on the 

allegations or to submit a written 

statement, while waiving the right to a 

hearing, the procedures for electing each 

option, and the consequences for failing 

to elect either option. Id. at 2–3 (citing 

21 CFR 1301.43). The OSC also notified 

Respondent of the opportunity to 

submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 3 

(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). 

By letter dated October 12, 2021, 

Respondent timely requested a hearing.1

Administrative Law Judge Exhibit 

(hereinafter, ALJX) 4 (Request for 

Hearing), at 1. According to the Request 

for Hearing, ‘‘[Respondent] never agreed 

to surrender his California DEA license 

. . . [and] the [Board] didn’t make any 

claim against [Respondent’s] DEA 

license.’’ Id. at 2. Further, the Request 

for Hearing states that ‘‘[d]uring [the 

Board] process [Respondent] denied the 

allegations against him.’’ Id. According 

to the Request for Hearing, ‘‘[n]one of 

the allegations against [Respondent] 

were related to drug prescription [sic]’’ 

and ‘‘the patient’s [sic] allegations 

against [Respondent] were made 

because he refused to prescribe them 

controlled pain medications.’’ Id. 

Finally, the Request for Hearing states 

that, ‘‘[t]he mental illness claimed by 

[the Board] was refuted and proved 

wrong with a psychiatric evaluation 

performed to [Respondent] after the 

Board alleged [that] he was mentally 

ill.’’ Id. 

The Office of Administrative Law 

Judges put the matter on the docket and 

assigned it to Administrative Law Judge 

Paul E. Soeffing (hereinafter, the ALJ). 

The ALJ issued the Briefing Schedule on 

October 13, 2021. On October 21, 2021, 

the Government timely filed its Notice 

of Filing of Evidence and Motion for 

Summary Disposition (hereinafter, 

Government’s Motion). Order Granting 

the Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition, and Recommended 

Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of Law, and Decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter, 

Recommended Decision or RD), at 2. In 

its Motion, the Government ‘‘request[ed] 

summary disposition and a 

recommendation that Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration as a 

practitioner be revoked based on his 

lack of authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of California, the 

state in which he is registered with the 

DEA.’’ Government’s Motion, at 5. 

Respondent did not answer the 

Government’s Motion.2 He did, 

however, address the OSC and the 

Government’s allegations in his Request 

for Hearing. Request for Hearing, at 1– 

2. I have reviewed and considered the 

Request for Hearing as part of, and along 

with, the entire record before me. 

The ALJ issued his Recommended 

Decision on November 2, 2021, granting 

the Government’s Motion and finding 

that ‘‘[a]s the Respondent does not have 

authority as a practitioner in California, 

there is no other fact of consequence for 

[the] tribunal to decide in order to 

determine whether or not he is entitled 

to hold a [DEA registration].’’ RD, at 6. 

Further, the ALJ recommended that 

Respondent’s DEA registration be 

revoked and that any application to 

renew or modify his registration and 

any applications for any other DEA 

registrations in California be denied 

‘‘based on [Respondent’s] lack of state 

authority to practice medicine or handle 

controlled substances in California.’’ Id. 

at 6–7. By letter dated November 29, 

2021, the ALJ certified and transmitted 

the record to me for final Agency action. 

In the letter, the ALJ advised that no 

exceptions were filed by either party. 

Transmittal Letter, at 1. 

I issue this Decision and Order based 

on the entire record before me. 21 CFR 

1301.43(e). I make the following 

findings of fact. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices 3353 

3The fact that Respondent allowed his 

registration to expire during the pendency of an 

OSC does not impact my jurisdiction or prerogative 

under the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, 

CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. 

Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474 (2019). 

4On March 30, 2021, the Board issued a 

correction to a clerical error regarding Respondent’s 

license number in the order adopting the Stipulated 

Surrender. See Id. at 1. 

5Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an 

agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage 

in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ 

United States Department of Justice, Attorney 

General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure 

Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 

1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an 

agency decision rests on official notice of a material 

fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a 

party is entitled, on timely request, to an 

opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly, 

Registrant may dispute my finding by filing a 

properly supported motion for reconsideration of 

finding of fact within fifteen calendar days of the 

date of this Order. Any such motion and response 

shall be filed and served by email to the other party 

and to Office of the Administrator, Drug 

Enforcement Administration at 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov. 

Findings of Fact 

Respondent’s DEA Registration 

According to Agency records, 

Respondent is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

BT1734943 at the registered address of 

4982 1/2 Field St. San Diego, CA 92110. 

Pursuant to this registration, 

Respondent is authorized to dispense 

controlled substances in schedules II 

through V as a practitioner. 

Respondent’s registration expired on 

November 30, 2021.3

The Status of Respondent’s State 

License 

On January 31, 2020, the Medical 

Board of California (hereinafter, the 

Board) issued an Accusation against 

Respondent. Government Exhibit 

(hereinafter, GX) 2, Appendix 

(hereinafter, App.) A, at 10. The 

Accusation detailed four causes for 

discipline against Respondent regarding 

his treatment of three patients, 

including repeated negligent acts, 

failure to maintain adequate and 

accurate records, unprofessional 

conduct, and violation of the Medical 

Practice Act. Id. at 13–15. The 

Accusation also stated that Respondent 

was ‘‘subject to Board action in that his 

ability to practice medicine safely [was] 

impaired because he [was] mentally ill, 

or physically ill, affecting competency.’’ 

Id. at 16. According to the Accusation, 

in or around December 2018, 

Respondent received a mental 

examination in which the examining 

physician ‘‘concluded that Respondent’s 

ability to practice medicine safely [was] 

impaired due to mental illness.’’ Id. 

On March 18, 2021, the Board issued 

its Stipulated Surrender of License and 

Order (hereinafter, Stipulated 

Surrender). Id. at 3 and 8. According to 

the Stipulated Surrender, ‘‘Respondent 

[did] not contest that, at an 

administrative hearing, [the Board] 

could establish a prima facie case with 

respect to all of the charges and 

allegations in [the Accusation].’’ Id. at 5. 

Further, according to the Stipulated 

Surrender, ‘‘Respondent further [agreed] 

that his [California medical license] 

[was] subject to disciplinary action and 

[thereby surrendered] his [California 

medical license] for the Board’s formal 

acceptance.’’ Id. The Stipulated 

Surrender ordered Respondent’s 

medical license surrendered and was 

signed by Respondent and his attorney. 

Id. at 7–8. On March 22, 2021, the 

Stipulated Surrender was adopted by 

the Board, effective March 29, 2021.4 Id. 

at 2. 

According to California’s online 

records, of which I take official notice, 

Respondent’s license is still 

surrendered.5 Medical Board of 

California License Verification, https://

www.mbc.ca.gov/License-Verification 

(last visited date of signature of this 

Order). California’s online records show 

that Respondent’s medical license 

remains surrendered and that 

Respondent is not authorized in 

California to practice medicine. Id. 

Accordingly, I find that Respondent is 

not licensed to engage in the practice of 

medicine in California, the state in 

which Respondent is registered with the 

DEA. 

Discussion 

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the 

Attorney General is authorized to 

suspend or revoke a registration issued 

under section 823 of the CSA ‘‘upon a 

finding that the registrant . . . has had 

his State license or registration 

suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by 

competent State authority and is no 

longer authorized by State law to engage 

in the . . . dispensing of controlled 

substances.’’ With respect to a 

practitioner, the DEA has also long held 

that the possession of authority to 

dispense controlled substances under 

the laws of the state in which a 

practitioner engages in professional 

practice is a fundamental condition for 

obtaining and maintaining a 

practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71371 

(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 

826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 

Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 

(1978). 

This rule derives from the text of two 

provisions of the CSA. First, Congress 

defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean 

‘‘a physician . . . or other person 

licensed, registered, or otherwise 

permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in 

which he practices . . . , to distribute, 

dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a 

controlled substance in the course of 

professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

802(21). Second, in setting the 

requirements for obtaining a 

practitioner’s registration, Congress 

directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General 

shall register practitioners . . . if the 

applicant is authorized to dispense . . . 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the State in which he practices.’’ 21 

U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has 

clearly mandated that a practitioner 

possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 

the DEA has held repeatedly that 

revocation of a practitioner’s registration 

is the appropriate sanction whenever he 

is no longer authorized to dispense 

controlled substances under the laws of 

the state in which he practices. See, e.g., 

James L. Hooper, 76 FR at 71371–72; 

Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 

39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 

M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); 

Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR at 

27617. 

According to California statute, 

‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a 

controlled substance to an ultimate user 

or research subject by or pursuant to the 

lawful order of a practitioner, including 

the prescribing, furnishing, packaging, 

labeling, or compounding necessary to 

prepare the substance for that delivery.’’ 

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11010 

(West, current with urgency legislation 

through Ch. 770 of 2021 Reg. Sess). 

Further, a ‘‘practitioner’’ means a person 

‘‘licensed, registered, or otherwise 

permitted, to distribute, dispense, 

conduct research with respect to, or 

administer, a controlled substance in 

the course of professional practice or 

research in this state.’’ Id. at § 11026(c). 

Because Respondent is not currently 

licensed as a physician, or otherwise 

licensed in California, he is not 

authorized to dispense controlled 

substances in California. 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Respondent currently 

lacks authority to practice medicine in 

California. As already discussed, a 

physician must be a licensed 

practitioner to dispense a controlled 

substance in California. Thus, because 

Respondent lacks authority to practice 

medicine in California and, therefore, is 

not authorized to handle controlled 

substances in California, Respondent is 

not eligible to maintain a DEA 

registration. Accordingly, I will order 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
3354 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Notices 

that Respondent’s DEA registration be 

revoked. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate 

of Registration No. BT1734943 issued to 

Alex E. Torres. Further, pursuant to 28 

CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in 

me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny 

any pending application of Alex E. 

Torres to renew or modify this 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Alex E. Torres 

for additional registration in California. 

This Order is effective February 22, 

2022. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01109 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Report to Congress and the Office of 

Management and Budget Regarding 

the Review Financial Assistance and 

the Requirements of Buy America 

ACTION: Notice of report. 

SUMMARY: The report indicates that the 

Department has not identified any 

programs that are inconsistent with Buy 

America requirements of section 70914 

of the Act. The report identifies the 

YouthBuild program as the only Federal 

financial assistance program related to 

infrastructure and notes that the grant 

agreements for that program include the 

Buy America requirements. 

DATES: The Acting Chief Financial 

Officer approved this report on January 

14, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dylan Sacchetti, 202.693.8105 or at 200 

Constitution Ave. NW, Room S–4205, 

Washington, DC 20210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

‘‘Build America, Buy America Act,’’ 

which was included in the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(the Act) (Pub. L. 117–58), requires 

under section 70913 that each Federal 

agency submit a report to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and to 

Congress, and publish it in the Federal 

Register, within 60 days of its 

enactment. In the report, Federal 

agencies are required to: 

(1) Identify and evaluate all 

infrastructure programs to determine 

whether a program is inconsistent with 

section 70914 of the Act; 

(2) identify all domestic content 

procurement preferences applicable to 

the Federal financial assistance program 

related to infrastructure; 

(3) assess the applicability of the 

domestic content procurement 

preference requirements, including: (A) 

Section 313 of title 23, United States 

Code; (B) section 5323(j) of title 49, 

United States Code; (C) section 22905(a) 

of title 49, United States Code; (D) 

section 50101 of title 49, United States 

Code; (E) section 603 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

1388); (F) section 1452(a)(4) of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j– 

12(a)(4)); (G) section 5035 of the Water 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act of 2014 (33 U.S.C. 3 3914); (H) any 

domestic content procurement 

preference included in an 

appropriations Act; and (I) any other 

domestic content procurement 

preference in Federal law (including 

regulations); 

(4) provide details on any applicable 

domestic content procurement 

preference requirement, including the 

purpose, scope, applicability, and any 

exceptions and waivers issued under 

the requirement; and 

(5) include a description of the type 

of infrastructure projects that receive 

funding under the program, including 

information relating to: (A) The number 

of entities that are participating in the 

program; (B) the amount of Federal 

funds that are made available for the 

program for each fiscal year; and (C) any 

other information the head of the 

Federal agency determines to be 

relevant. 

Report 

The Department of Labor (the 

Department) did not receive 

appropriated funds under the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

(the Act). 

The Department reviewed its 

infrastructure programs and has not 

identified any programs that are 

inconsistent with section 70914 of the 

Act. 

The Department identified 

YouthBuild as a Federal financial 

assistance program related to 

infrastructure. YouthBuild is a youth 

training program that provides training 

and educational services to youth (16– 

24 years old) using construction and 

other techniques. This program receives 

approximately $90 million in annual 

funding. The Department’s Employment 

and Training Administration awards 

approximately 65–80 grants each year. 

A small percentage of the funds is used 

by recipients to purchase building 

supplies for building and/or 

refurbishing houses. Since at least 2014, 

grant agreements for this program have 

contained the domestic content 

procurement preference requirement 

(i.e., the Buy American requirement.) 

The Department applies the domestic 

content procurement preference 

requirement for YouthBuild, by 

including the following term in all grant 

agreements: 

Pursuant to E.O. 14005, Ensuring the 

Future Is Made in All of America by All 

of America’s Workers, the grant award 

recipient agrees to comply with all 

applicable Made in America Laws (as 

defined in the E.O.), including the Buy 

American Act at 41 U.S.C. 8301–8305. 

For the purposes of this award, the grant 

recipient is required to maximize the 

use of goods, products, and materials 

produced in, and services offered in, the 

United States, in accordance with the 

Made in America Laws. No funds may 

be made available to any person or 

entity (including as a contractor or 

subrecipient of the grant recipient) that 

has been found to be in violation of any 

Made in America Laws. ‘‘Made in 

America Laws’’ means all statutes, 

regulations, rules, and Executive Orders 

relating to Federal financial assistance 

awards or Federal procurement, 

including those that refer to ‘‘Buy 

America’’ or ‘‘Buy American,’’ that 

require, or provide a preference for, the 

purchase or acquisition of goods, 

products, or materials produced in the 

United States, including iron, steel, and 

manufactured goods offered in the 

United States. Made in America Laws 

include laws requiring domestic 

preference for maritime transport, 

including the Merchant Marine Act of 

1920 (Pub. L. 66–261), also known as 

the Jones Act. 

The Department does not have any 

additional information to provide 

relating to domestic content 

procurement preference requirements, 

including the purpose, scope, 

applicability and any exceptions and 

waivers issued under the requirement. 

Signed on this day at Washington, DC, on 

this 14th day of January, 2022. 

Kevin L. Brown, 

Deputy Chief Financial Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01121 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–7C–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1