Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 222 / Friday, November 17, 2006 / Notices 66983 

13As I have previously found, the evidence in the 

record establishes that Respondent did not apply 

for a registration for this location until December 

2001, shortly before opening the clinic. 

Furthermore, Respondent indicated on his 

application that his state license had previously 

been suspended thus triggering a more detailed 

investigation. DEA personnel subsequently 

determined that Respondent had previously been 

investigated for distributing controlled substances 

to the Nagras’ clinic, that he was storing controlled 

substances at the 82nd Ave. clinic, and became 

aware of the events surrounding Respondent’s 

abuse of Telazol and the State of California’s 

suspension of his license. As this proceeding has 

established, it was not unreasonable to withhold 

Respondent’s registration. What was unreasonable 

was Respondent’s commencement of operations 

without obtaining a registration in violation of 

Federal law. 

14 In light of Respondent’s numerous violations of 

the CSA discussed above, it is unnecessary to 

decide whether Respondent’s practice of employing 

relief veterinarians to run his clinic in Oregon while 

living in San Diego (more than 1,000 miles away) 

complied with the CSA. I note, however, that at the 

hearing, the Government asserted that if a relief 

veterinarian is an independent contractor, the relief 

vet. cannot act as an agent of the clinic owner/ 

registrant under 21 CFR 1301.22. According to the 

Government, the relief vet. must be an employee of 

the clinic owner in order to comply with the 

regulation. 

This position is incorrect. Neither the CSA nor 

the regulation precludes a relief veterinarian who 

is an independent contractor from acting as the 

agent of the registrant. In the CSA, Congress defined 

the term ‘‘agent’’ to mean ‘‘an authorized person 

who acts on behalf of or at the direction of a 

manufacturer, distributor, or dispenser.’’ 21 U.S.C. 

802(3). Moreover, the CSA further exempts from 

registration ‘‘[a]n agent or employee of any 

registered manufacturer, distributor, or dispenser of 

any controlled substance * * * if such agent or 

employee is acting in the usual course of his 

business or employment.’’ Id. § 822(c). The plain 

language of the statute thus demonstrates that 

Congress did not limit the exemption to the 

employees of a practitioner. Furthermore, in 

appropriate circumstances, an independent 

contractor may act as an agent. See, e.g., I 

Restatement of the Law (Second) Agency § 14 N, at 

80 (1958) (‘‘One who contracts to act on behalf of 

another and subject to the other’s control except 

with respect to his physical conduct is an agent and 

also an independent contractor.’’). The status of the 

person acting under the registration as an employee 

or independent contractor is thus not determinative 

of compliance with the CSA. 

What is relevant for purposes of compliance is 

that the registrant must exercise effective control of 

the agent. Doing so requires that a registrant 

properly supervise and monitor its agents to protect 

against the diversion of controlled substances; 

reliance solely on the CSA’s existing recordkeeping 

requirements does not necessarily establish that a 

registrant is exercising effective control of its 

agents. 

Respondent’s testimony regarding his 

various violations is especially 

disturbing. With respect to his conduct 

in distributing controlled substances to 

the Nagras’ clinic, Respondent testified 

that he didn’t ‘‘have any regrets’’ and 

that he ‘‘would do that again because I 

wasn’t hurting anyone.’’ Tr. at 390. As 

for his conduct at the 82nd Avenue 

clinic, Respondent explained that ‘‘you 

don’t close down operations. You don’t 

stop businesses and put 12 people on 

the unemployment line because of a 

registration that is being withheld at 

that time unreasonably.’’ 13 Id. at 379. 

Respondent’s statements reflect a 

stunning disregard for the requirements 

of Federal law. The CSA’s implementing 

regulations expressly provide that ‘‘[n]o 

person required to be registered shall 

engage in any activity for which 

registration is required until the 

application for registration is granted 

and a Certificate of Registration is 

issued * * * to such person.’’ 21 CFR 

1301.13(a). Contrary to Respondent’s 

understanding, he was required to 

comply with the Act and its regulations 

even if it interfered with his business 

plan or violated his sense of fairness. 

In sum, Respondent’s repeated 

violations of the CSA provide ample 

grounds to deny his application. 

Moreover, Respondent’s attitude leaves 

me with the firm impression that, if 

given the opportunity, he will violate 

the Act again. Moreover, Respondent’s 

rehabilitation from drug abuse does not 

mitigate the violations of the Act he 

committed by distributing controlled 

substances to the Nagras’ clinic, an 

unregistered location, and commencing 

operations at the 82nd Avenue clinic 

without obtaining a registration. I thus 

conclude that this factor is dispositive 

and compels a finding that granting 

Respondent a new registration would be 

inconsistent with the public interest.14

Order 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

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

823(f), and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, 

I hereby order that the pending 

application of Respondent, Daniel 

Koller, D.V.M., for a DEA Certificate of 

Registration as a practitioner, be, and it 

hereby is, denied. This order is effective 

December 18, 2006. 

Dated: November 3, 2006. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E6–19400 Filed 11–16–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

TIME AND DATE: The Board of Directors 

of the Legal Services Corporation will 

meet on November 22, 2006 via 

conference call. The meeting will begin 

at 2 p.m. (EST), and continue until 

conclusion of the Board’s agenda. 

LOCATION: 3333 K Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20007, 3rd Floor 

Conference Center. 

STATUS OF MEETING: Open. Directors will 

participate by telephone conference in 

such a manner as to enable interested 

members of the public to hear and 

identify all persons participating in the 

meeting. Members of the public wishing 

to observe the meeting may do so by 

joining participating staff at the location 

indicated above. Members of the public 

wishing to listen to the meeting by 

telephone may obtain call-in 

information by calling LSC’s FOIA 

Information line at (202) 295–1629. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Approval of the agenda. 

2. Consider and act on Board of 

Directors’ response to the Inspector 

General’s Semiannual Report to 

Congress for the period of April 1, 2006 

through September 30, 2006. 

3. Consider and act on other business. 

4. Public comment. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: 

Patricia Batie, Manager of Board 

Operations, at (202) 295–1500. 

SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting 

notices will be made available in 

alternate formats to accommodate visual 

and hearing impairments. Individuals 

who have a disability and need an 

accommodation to attend the meeting 

may notify Patricia Batie at (202) 295–

1500. 

Dated: November 15, 2006. 

Victor M. Fortuno, 

Vice President for Legal Affairs, General 

Counsel & Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06–9283 Filed 11–15–06; 3:31 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE 

CORPORATION 

[MCC FR 06–19] 

Report on the Selection of Eligible 

Countries for Fiscal Year 2007 

AGENCY: Millennium Challenge 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This report is provided in 

accordance with Section 608(d)(2) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Pub. 

L. 108–199, Division D, (the ‘‘Act’’), 

Report on the Selection of Eligible 

Countries for Fiscal Year 2007. 

Summary 

This report is provided in accordance 

with Section 608(d)(2) of the 

Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, Pub. 

L. 108–199, Division D, (the ‘‘Act’’). 

The Act authorizes the provision of 

Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) 

assistance under Section 605 of the Act 

to countries that enter into Compacts 

with the United States to support 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES