80 FR 12011 - William F. DeLuca, Jr.; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 43 (March 5, 2015)
Food and Drug Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 43 (March 5, 2015)
| Page Range | 12011-12013 | |
| FR Document | 2015-05043 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 12011-12013] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-05043] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0303] William F. DeLuca, Jr.; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is denying a request for a hearing submitted by Dr. William F. DeLuca, Jr. and is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring Dr. DeLuca for 5 years from providing [[Page 12012]] services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Dr. DeLuca was convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act and that the type of conduct underlying the conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs. In determining the appropriateness and period of Dr. DeLuca's debarment, FDA has considered the relevant factors listed in the FD&C Act. Dr. DeLuca has failed to file with the Agency information and analyses sufficient to create a basis for a hearing concerning this action. DATES: The order is effective March 5, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Doty, Office of Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8556. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On August 11, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Dr. DeLuca, a physician, pled guilty to a misdemeanor under the FD&C Act, namely misbranding a drug in violation of sections 301(k), 502(i)(3), and 303(a)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(k), 352(i)(3), 333(a)(1)) and 18 U.S.C. 2. The basis for this conviction was conduct surrounding his injection of patients seeking treatment with BOTOX/BOTOX Cosmetic (BOTOX) with a product, TRI-toxin, distributed by Toxin Research International, Inc. BOTOX is a biological product derived from Botulinum Toxin Type A that is manufactured by Allergan, Inc., and was approved by FDA for use on humans for the treatment of facial wrinkles in 1991. According to the records of the criminal proceedings, Dr. DeLuca directed a nurse to obtain 31 vials of TRI-toxin, an unapproved drug product, which was represented by its distributor as ``Botulinum Toxin Type A.'' Dr. DeLuca then proceeded to inject approximately 62 patients, who believed they were being injected with BOTOX, with TRI-toxin as a substitute. Dr. DeLuca is subject to debarment based on a finding, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(2)(B)(i)): (1) That he was convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act and (2) that the type of conduct underlying the conviction undermines the process for the regulation of drugs. By letter dated November 30, 2010, FDA notified Dr. DeLuca of its proposal to debar him for 5 years from providing services in any capacity to a person having an approved or pending drug product application. In a letter dated December 28, 2010, through counsel, Dr. DeLuca requested a hearing on the proposal. In his request for a hearing, Dr. DeLuca acknowledges his convictions under Federal law, as alleged by FDA. However, he argues that section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act, which was added by the Generic Drug Enforcement Act (GDEA), does not apply to him because he was never involved in the development, approval, or regulation of drug products, nor was the conduct underlying his conviction related to the development, approval, or regulation of drug products. We reviewed Dr. DeLuca's request for a hearing and find that Dr. DeLuca has not created a sufficient basis for a hearing. Hearings are granted only if there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact. Hearings will not be granted on issues of policy or law, on mere allegations, denials, or general descriptions of positions and contentions, or on data and information insufficient to justify the factual determination urged (see 21 CFR 12.24(b)). The Chief Scientist has considered Dr. DeLuca's arguments and concludes that they are unpersuasive and fail to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact requiring a hearing. II. Arguments In support of his hearing request, Dr. DeLuca asserts that section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act does not apply to him because he was never involved in the development, approval, or regulation of drug products, nor was the underlying conduct of his conviction related to those activities. He argues that application of the permissive debarment provisions to him expands the intended scope of section 306(b)(2)(b)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act beyond congressional intent. Dr. DeLuca further asserts that the statutory provision is limited to conduct that directly or indirectly affects FDA's regulatory efforts associated with drug approval, that the intended targets of GDEA are those who manufacture and distribute drugs, and that the court's decision in Bhutani v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 161 Fed. Appx. 589, 591 (7th Cir. 2006) and FDA's debarment order for Premchand Girdhari (65 FR 3454, January 21, 2000) also expressed this limitation. He asserts that, because his conduct did not fall within any such activities and he was not a company manufacturing or distributing drugs, but merely a physician using a drug, albeit an unapproved drug, section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) if the FD&C Act is inapplicable to him. During his criminal proceedings, Dr. DeLuca pled guilty to misbranding and causing the misbranding of a drug in violation of sections 301(k), 502(i)(3) and 303(a)(1) of the FD&C Act by offering TRI-toxin, a drug not approved for use, in place of an approved drug product, BOTOX. This conduct clearly relates to the regulation of drugs under the FD&C Act because it was in direct violation of the FD&C Act. The conduct also undermined the process for the regulation of drugs in that it permitted an unapproved drug to be substituted for an approved drug without the knowledge of the patient. As a result, Dr. DeLuca is subject to debarment under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act. Dr. DeLuca's narrow interpretation of section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act, as well as the other provisions added to the statute by GDEA, is unpersuasive. Under well-recognized rules of statutory construction, the starting point in interpreting a statute is the text of the statute itself. (BedRoc Limited LLC. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004), on remand, 368 F.3 1149 (9th Cir. 2004)). It is clear from section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act that the ``regulation of drugs'' is not limited to activities related to the approval of drugs. If that were the case, there would be no need for the language ``or otherwise relating to the regulation of drug products'' as the provision already clearly covers approval activities with the language ``relating to the development, or approval, including the process for development or approval.'' Under rules of statutory construction, all the words in a statute are to be given meaning and no words or provisions are to be rendered superfluous. (Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883), Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 112 (1991).) Dr. DeLuca's arguments regarding the legislative history and intent of GDEA also are unpersuasive. Dr. DeLuca cites to the House Report for the bill passed by the House. However, that bill did not ultimately become section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act. If the language of the statute is clear, there is no need to look outside the statute to its [[Page 12013]] legislative history in order to ascertain the statute's meaning. (Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011).) Dr. DeLuca's conduct in misbranding Tri-toxin by holding it for sale and administering it to patients as the approved drug BOTOX clearly relates to FDA's regulation of approved drugs. Likewise, his argument that section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act could not have been intended to cover him because he did not work for a person with a pending or approved drug product application when he was convicted or that section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) applies to only individuals who manufacture and distribute drugs ignores both the plain language of the statute and the remedial purpose of the Agency's debarment authority. Furthermore, Dr. DeLuca's argument that Bhutani v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 161 Fed. Appx. 589, 591 (7th Cir. 2006), and FDA's debarment order for Premchand Girdhari (65 FR 3454) evidence the court's and FDA's view that the statute is to be interpreted to exclude him is without merit. Both the court decision and FDA's debarment order address the specific fact situations at issue. Both situations involved persons who manufactured and distributed drugs. The decision and order did not purport to define the full scope of section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act or hold that conduct such as Dr. DeLuca's was not within the scope of the statutory provision. Finally, Dr. DeLuca argues that FDA does not typically debar physicians for criminal violations of the FD&C Act. FDA has, however, debarred several other physicians under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act for convictions under the FD&C Act on the basis of similar conduct. (See, e.g., 77 FR 27235, May 9, 2012; 76 FR 69272, November 8, 2011; 76 FR 30947, May 27, 2011; 76 FR 21910, April 19, 2011; 76 FR 13192, March 10, 2011; 76 FR 11789, March 3, 2011 (debarring physicians for felony violations of the FD&C Act for substituting TRI-toxin for BOTOX); 77 FR 27236, May 9, 2012; 76 FR 66072, October 25, 2011; 76 FR 48168, August 8, 2011; 76 FR 37126, June 24, 2011; 76 FR 30946, May 27, 2011; 76 FR 18556, April 4, 2011; 76 FR 18557, April 4, 2011; 76 FR 12971, March 9, 2011 (debarring physicians for a misdemeanor violations of the FD&C Act for substituting TRI-toxin for BOTOX). Dr. DeLuca's arguments do not raise any genuine and substantial issue of fact for a hearing. Furthermore, Dr. DeLuca's legal arguments do not create a basis for a hearing and, in any event, are unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Chief Scientist denies Dr. DeLuca's request for a hearing. As set forth in the proposal to debar and summarized in this document, Dr. DeLuca pled guilty to a misdemeanor under the FD&C Act for his role in offering a drug under the name of another. Based on the undisputed record before the Agency, the consideration in section 306(c)(3)(A) and (B) of the FD&C Act with respect to the nature and seriousness of the offense and extent in management participation involved are unfavorable in light of Dr. DeLuca's conduct in bringing the unapproved drug into the medical practice and his management position in The Plastic Surgery Group. At Dr. DeLuca's sentencing hearing, at which six other codefendants were also sentenced, the presiding judge in addressing Dr. DeLuca stated: And we're here because of your actions and inactions. As I said, your mistakes were different in kind and degree from those of your colleagues. It was you who brought this drug into the practice, and it was your conduct and your failure to check out either the company or the drug that you were ordering, as you should have done, your negligence in doing that that has brought us here today in the end. Consistent with the proposal to debar, the record established that the medical practice of which Dr. DeLuca was a part ultimately took voluntary steps to mitigate the effect on the public health from its unlawful conduct and that Dr. DeLuca had no previous criminal convictions related to matters within FDA's jurisdictions. As such, the considerations in sections 306(c)(3)(C) and (F) of the FD&C Act will be treated as favorable factors. In light of the totality of the circumstances underlying the foregoing four considerations, the seriousness of the offense and Dr. DeLuca's management participation make debarment for 5 years, consistent with the proposal to debar, appropriate in spite of the favorable factors under 306(c)(3)(C) and (F) of the FD&C Act. III. Findings and Order Therefore, the Chief Scientist, under section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act and under authority delegated to him by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, finds: (1) That Dr. DeLuca has been convicted of a misdemeanor under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval of a drug product or otherwise relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act and (2) that the conduct underlying the conviction undermines the regulation of drugs. FDA has considered the relevant factors listed in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act and determined that a debarment of 5 years is appropriate. As a result of the foregoing findings, Dr. DeLuca is debarred for 5 years from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under section 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see DATES) (see 21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(iii) and 21 U.S.C. 321(dd)). Any person with an approved or pending drug product application who knowingly uses the services of Dr. DeLuca, in any capacity during his period of debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties. If Dr. DeLuca, during his period of debarment, provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application he will be subject to civil money penalties. In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Dr. DeLuca during his period of debarment. Any application by Dr. DeLuca for termination of debarment under section 306(d) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0303 and sent to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The public availability of information in these submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j). Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain documents in the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov/. Dated: February 24, 2015. Stephen Ostroff, Director, Office of the Chief Scientist. [FR Doc. 2015-05043 Filed 3-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Notices 12011
Transcripts: Please be advised that as Administration, Document Control III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
soon as a transcript is available, it will Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New This guidance refers to previously
be accessible at http:// Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD approved information collections found
www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed in FDA regulations. These collections of
at the Division of Dockets Management adhesive label to assist that office in information are subject to review by the
(HFA–305), Food and Drug processing your request or include a fax Office of Management and Budget
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. number to which the guidance (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
1061, Rockville, MD 20857. A transcript document may be sent. See the Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The
will also be available in either hardcopy SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
collections of information in sections
or on CD–ROM, after submission of a information on electronic access to the 905(j) and 910 of the FD&C Act (21
Freedom of Information request. Written guidance document. U.S.C. 387e(j) and 387j), as amended by
requests are to be sent to Division of Submit electronic comments on the the Tobacco Control Act, have been
Freedom of Information (ELEM–1029), guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. approved under OMB control number
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Submit written comments to the 0910–0673; the collections of
Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, Division of Dockets Management (HFA– information in 21 CFR part 25 have been
MD 20857. Transcripts will also be 305), Food and Drug Administration, approved under OMB control number
available on the Internet at http:// 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, 0910–0322.
www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ MD 20852. Identify comments with the
ucm431040.htm approximately 45 days docket number found in brackets in the IV. Comments
after the workshop. heading of this document. Interested persons may submit either
Dated: February 27, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: electronic comments regarding this
Leslie Kux, Annette Marthaler, Center for Tobacco document to http://www.regulations.gov
Associate Commissioner for Policy. Products, Food and Drug or written comments to the Division of
[FR Doc. 2015–05017 Filed 3–4–15; 8:45 am]
Administration, Document Control Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It
Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New is only necessary to send one set of
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD comments. Identify comments with the
20993–0002; 1–877–287–1373, docket number found in brackets in the
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND CTPRegulations@fda.hhs.gov, email: heading of this document. Received
HUMAN SERVICES annette.marthaler@fda.hhs.gov. comments may be seen in the Division
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
Food and Drug Administration and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
I. Background will be posted to the docket at http://
[Docket No. FDA–2011–D–0147]
FDA is announcing the availability of www.regulations.gov.
Demonstrating the Substantial a guidance for industry entitled
V. Electronic Access
Equivalence of a New Tobacco ‘‘Demonstrating the Substantial
Product: Responses to Frequently Equivalence of a New Tobacco Product: Persons with access to the Internet
Asked Questions; Guidance for Responses to Frequently Asked may obtain the document at either
Industry; Availability Questions.’’ In this guidance, FDA http://www.regulations.gov or
addresses questions from manufacturers http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, on demonstrating the substantial GuidanceComplianceRegulatory
HHS. equivalence of a new tobacco product. Information/default.htm.
ACTION: Notice. In the Federal Register of September 9, Dated: February 27, 2015.
2011 (76 FR 55927), FDA announced the Leslie Kux,
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug availability of the draft guidance of the
Administration (FDA) is announcing the Associate Commissioner for Policy.
same title. After carefully reviewing and [FR Doc. 2015–05023 Filed 3–4–15; 8:45 am]
availability of the guidance for industry considering comments and information
entitled ‘‘Demonstrating the Substantial submitted in response to the draft
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
Equivalence of a New Tobacco Product: guidance, which covered a range of
Responses to Frequently Asked topics on demonstrating the substantial
Questions.’’ This guidance provides DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
equivalence of a new tobacco product, HUMAN SERVICES
information in response to questions FDA is finalizing this guidance on many
that FDA has received from of the topics, including modifications to
manufacturers on demonstrating the Food and Drug Administration
labels and changes to product quantity
substantial equivalence of a new and intends to address the other topics [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0303]
tobacco product, including questions on in future regulatory documents.
when a modification to the label William F. DeLuca, Jr.; Denial of
requires a premarket submission and II. Significance of Guidance Hearing; Final Debarment Order
review by FDA. This guidance is being issued AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,
DATES: Submit either electronic or consistent with FDA’s good guidance HHS.
written comments on Agency guidances practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). ACTION: Notice.
at any time.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The guidance represents the Agency’s
ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for current thinking on this topic. It does SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
single copies of the guidance document not create or confer any rights for or on Administration (FDA) is denying a
entitled ‘‘Demonstrating the Substantial any person and does not operate to bind request for a hearing submitted by Dr.
Equivalence of a New Tobacco Product: FDA or the public. An alternative William F. DeLuca, Jr. and is issuing an
Responses to Frequently Asked approach may be used if such approach order under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Questions’’ to the Center for Tobacco satisfies the requirements of the Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) debarring
Products, Food and Drug applicable statute and regulations. Dr. DeLuca for 5 years from providing
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:45 Mar 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05MRN1.SGM 05MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_12054/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 2015 / Notices 12013
legislative history in order to ascertain unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Chief considered the relevant factors listed in
the statute’s meaning. (Chamber of Scientist denies Dr. DeLuca’s request for section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act and
Commerce of United States v. Whiting, a hearing. determined that a debarment of 5 years
131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011).) Dr. DeLuca’s As set forth in the proposal to debar is appropriate.
conduct in misbranding Tri-toxin by and summarized in this document, Dr. As a result of the foregoing findings,
holding it for sale and administering it DeLuca pled guilty to a misdemeanor Dr. DeLuca is debarred for 5 years from
to patients as the approved drug BOTOX under the FD&C Act for his role in providing services in any capacity to a
clearly relates to FDA’s regulation of offering a drug under the name of person with an approved or pending
approved drugs. Likewise, his argument another. Based on the undisputed drug product application under section
that section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C record before the Agency, the 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21
Act could not have been intended to consideration in section 306(c)(3)(A) U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under
cover him because he did not work for and (B) of the FD&C Act with respect to section 351 of the Public Health Service
a person with a pending or approved the nature and seriousness of the offense Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see
drug product application when he was and extent in management participation DATES) (see 21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and
convicted or that section 306(b)(2)(B)(i) involved are unfavorable in light of Dr. (c)(2)(A)(iii) and 21 U.S.C. 321(dd)).
applies to only individuals who DeLuca’s conduct in bringing the Any person with an approved or
manufacture and distribute drugs unapproved drug into the medical pending drug product application who
ignores both the plain language of the practice and his management position knowingly uses the services of Dr.
statute and the remedial purpose of the in The Plastic Surgery Group. At Dr. DeLuca, in any capacity during his
Agency’s debarment authority. DeLuca’s sentencing hearing, at which period of debarment, will be subject to
Furthermore, Dr. DeLuca’s argument six other codefendants were also civil money penalties. If Dr. DeLuca,
that Bhutani v. U.S. Food and Drug sentenced, the presiding judge in during his period of debarment,
Administration, 161 Fed. Appx. 589, addressing Dr. DeLuca stated: provides services in any capacity to a
591 (7th Cir. 2006), and FDA’s And we’re here because of your actions and person with an approved or pending
debarment order for Premchand inactions. As I said, your mistakes were drug product application he will be
Girdhari (65 FR 3454) evidence the different in kind and degree from those of subject to civil money penalties. In
court’s and FDA’s view that the statute your colleagues. It was you who brought this addition, FDA will not accept or review
is to be interpreted to exclude him is drug into the practice, and it was your any abbreviated new drug applications
without merit. Both the court decision conduct and your failure to check out either submitted by or with the assistance of
and FDA’s debarment order address the the company or the drug that you were
ordering, as you should have done, your Dr. DeLuca during his period of
specific fact situations at issue. Both debarment.
negligence in doing that that has brought us
situations involved persons who Any application by Dr. DeLuca for
here today in the end.
manufactured and distributed drugs. termination of debarment under section
The decision and order did not purport Consistent with the proposal to debar,
306(d) of the FD&C Act should be
to define the full scope of section the record established that the medical
identified with Docket No. FDA–2010–
306(b)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act or hold practice of which Dr. DeLuca was a part
N–0303 and sent to the Division of
that conduct such as Dr. DeLuca’s was ultimately took voluntary steps to
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES).
not within the scope of the statutory mitigate the effect on the public health
All such submissions are to be filed in
provision. from its unlawful conduct and that Dr.
four copies. The public availability of
Finally, Dr. DeLuca argues that FDA DeLuca had no previous criminal
information in these submissions is
does not typically debar physicians for convictions related to matters within
governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j).
criminal violations of the FD&C Act. FDA’s jurisdictions. As such, the
Publicly available submissions may
FDA has, however, debarred several considerations in sections 306(c)(3)(C)
be seen in the Division of Dockets
other physicians under section and (F) of the FD&C Act will be treated
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act for as favorable factors.
In light of the totality of the Monday through Friday. Persons with
convictions under the FD&C Act on the
circumstances underlying the foregoing access to the Internet may obtain
basis of similar conduct. (See, e.g., 77
four considerations, the seriousness of documents in the Docket at http://
FR 27235, May 9, 2012; 76 FR 69272,
the offense and Dr. DeLuca’s www.regulations.gov/.
November 8, 2011; 76 FR 30947, May
27, 2011; 76 FR 21910, April 19, 2011; management participation make Dated: February 24, 2015.
76 FR 13192, March 10, 2011; 76 FR debarment for 5 years, consistent with Stephen Ostroff,
11789, March 3, 2011 (debarring the proposal to debar, appropriate in Director, Office of the Chief Scientist.
physicians for felony violations of the spite of the favorable factors under [FR Doc. 2015–05043 Filed 3–4–15; 8:45 am]
FD&C Act for substituting TRI-toxin for 306(c)(3)(C) and (F) of the FD&C Act. BILLING CODE 4164–01P
BOTOX); 77 FR 27236, May 9, 2012; 76
III. Findings and Order
FR 66072, October 25, 2011; 76 FR
48168, August 8, 2011; 76 FR 37126, Therefore, the Chief Scientist, under DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
June 24, 2011; 76 FR 30946, May 27, section 306(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C HUMAN SERVICES
2011; 76 FR 18556, April 4, 2011; 76 FR Act and under authority delegated to
18557, April 4, 2011; 76 FR 12971, him by the Commissioner of Food and Food and Drug Administration
March 9, 2011 (debarring physicians for Drugs, finds: (1) That Dr. DeLuca has
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
a misdemeanor violations of the FD&C been convicted of a misdemeanor under [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0301]
Act for substituting TRI-toxin for Federal law for conduct relating to the
BOTOX). development or approval of a drug Steven M. Lynch; Denial of Hearing;
Dr. DeLuca’s arguments do not raise product or otherwise relating to the Final Debarment Order
any genuine and substantial issue of fact regulation of a drug product under the AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,
for a hearing. Furthermore, Dr. DeLuca’s FD&C Act and (2) that the conduct HHS.
legal arguments do not create a basis for underlying the conviction undermines
ACTION: Notice.
a hearing and, in any event, are the regulation of drugs. FDA has
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 Mar 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05MRN1.SGM 05MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_12054/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-18 12:09:08
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 12:09:08
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Dates | The order is effective March 5, 2015. | |
| Contact | Nathan Doty, Office of Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-8556. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 12011 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR