Prescription Drug Marketing Act Pedigree Requirements; Effective Date and Compliance Policy Guide; Request for Comment, 34249-34251 [06-5362]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
deception or provided the Commission
with any market research or other data
bearing on how consumers view the
various methods of measuring television
screens.
When the Commission initially
promulgated the Rule in 1966, most
television manufacturers measured the
dimensions of their television sets
diagonally, just as they do today. Thus,
the horizontal dimension was not
chosen based on a belief that it was the
industry norm. Rather, the Commission
found that almost all rectangular objects
were measured horizontally and
vertically. Television screens were the
only rectangular-shaped commodities
that were measured diagonally. Thus,
the Commission reasoned, if a
rectangular screen was measured in the
usual manner for similarly-shaped
objects, then no disclosure was
necessary.10 Moreover, the television
industry has adopted the Rule’s
disclosure requirements as part of its
routine business practice, although the
industry generally does not use the
Rule’s default horizontal measurement
method. In 1994, the Commission
rejected a similar proposal to amend the
Rule to adopt the diagonal measurement
method as the standard in the Rule (59
FR 54809, 54811 (November 2, 1994)).
The Commission is not aware of any
evidence that revising the Rule to
require a disclosure when a
measurement other than the diagonal
dimension is used, or to require
marketers to describe screen size in
square inches or metric units, would
provide a tangible benefit to consumers.
Moreover, revising the Rule to make the
diagonal measurement the default
measurement as CEA proposed could
potentially cause confusion to the extent
consumers accustomed to seeing screen
measurements described as diagonal
might mistakenly believe the
measurements not described as diagonal
are in fact based on horizontal or area
measurements. The commenters failed
to submit convincing evidence that their
proposed changes would confer net
benefits on consumers or the industry,
or that the Rule as amended would
better protect consumers from
deception.
The Commission believes that the
Rule is sufficiently flexible to allow
industry to use the method it prefers for
measuring television screen sizes to
meet consumer expectations and
compete effectively, is easy to comply
with at minimal cost, and ensures that
advertising contains sufficient
information on screen size to allow
consumers to make informed
10 31
FR 3342 (March 3, 1966).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Jun 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
purchasing decisions. If marketers
determine they can compete more
effectively by disclosing screen size
measured in square inches or metric
units, the Rule allows them to do so.
Thus, expending additional resources at
this time to seek further comment and
testimony at hearings on the methods of
measuring television screens is not
justified. The absence of evidence
indicating a need to amend the Rule and
the risk, however small, that amending
the Rule as CEA proposed would cause
confusion argues against conducting a
rulemaking proceeding to re-write the
Rule. The Commission has therefore
determined not to amend the Rule’s
disclosure requirements at this time.
C. Suggested Changes to the Rule
Regarding Metric Disclosures
Five individual commenters urged the
Commission to amend the Rule to
require the industry to use metric
measurements, in conformance with the
Metric Conversion Act.11 As discussed
above, in 1994, the Commission
amended the Rule to provide metric
equivalents for the measurements stated
in inches in the Rule’s examples. The
Commission noted further that
inclusion of metric figures in the Rule
was for information purposes only and
did not impose a requirement on the
industry. In the Commission’s view, the
Rule is sufficiently flexible to permit
industry members to use metric
measurements, if they choose to do so
to compete effectively in the global
marketplace. Accordingly, the
Commission has determined not to
amend the Rule in this manner.
D. Suggested Changes to the Rule
Regarding Rounding
CEA requested that the Commission
amend the Rule to address the issue of
rounding fractional television screen
size dimensions to whole numbers to
provide consistency within the
industry.12 In support of its request,
CEA referenced an Electronics
Industries Alliance (‘‘EIA’’) statement
that specifies a system for rounding
television screen sizes to whole
numbers. According to CEA, the
statement provides, in part, that, ‘‘A
11 Woelflein at 1; Young at 1; Payne at 1; Hudnall
at 1; and Hooper at 1. Under Executive Order 12770
of July 25, 1991 (56 FR 35801), and the Metric
Conversion Act, as amended by the Omnibus Trade
and Competitiveness Act (15 U.S.C. 205), all
Federal agencies are required to use the SI metric
system of measurement in all procurements, grants
and other business-related activities (which include
rulemakings), except to the extent that such use is
impractical or is likely to cause significant
inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States
firms.
12 CEA at 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34249
tube having its screen size within plus
or minus one-half centimeter shall be
assigned that integer. A tube falling
exactly on a one-half centimeter shall be
assigned the next larger integer.’’ 13 CEA
recommended that the Commission
amend the Rule to adopt an approach to
rounding consistent with this statement.
In the absence of consumer research
or other evidence on the record in this
proceeding that revising the Rule as
proposed by CEA would not result in
deception in connection with disclosing
the viewable picture area of a television
screen, the Commission has determined
not to amend the Rule at this time to
address the issue of rounding.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons described above, the
Commission has determined to retain
the current Rule and is terminating this
review.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 410
Advertising, Picture tubes, Television
sets, Trade practices.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6–9233 Filed 6–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 203
[Docket Nos. 1992N–0297 (Formerly 92N–
0297), 1988N–0258 (Formerly 88N–0258),
2006D–0226]
Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Pedigree Requirements; Effective Date
and Compliance Policy Guide; Request
for Comment
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Final rule; announcement of
effective date; notice of availability;
request for comment.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) does not intend
to further delay the effective date of
certain provisions of the final regulation
published in the Federal Register of
13 See Worldwide Type Designation System for
TV Picture Tubes and Monitor Tubes, ECA–TEP–
106B. EIA is a partnership of electronic and hightech associations and companies whose mission is
promoting the market development and
competitiveness of the U.S. high-tech industry.
EIA’s nearly 1,300 member companies represent the
full range of consumer electronic products.
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
34250
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
December 3, 1999 (64 FR 67720). The
provisions will therefore go into effect
on December 1, 2006. In addition, FDA
is announcing the availability of a new
compliance policy guide (CPG) 160.900
entitled ‘‘Prescription Drug Marketing
Act Pedigree Requirements Under 21
CFR Part 203’’ for public comment. This
CPG describes how the agency intends
to prioritize its enforcement efforts
during the next year with respect to
pedigree requirements set forth in the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the act) and certain FDA regulations.
DATES: The effective date for §§ 203.3(u)
and 203.50 is December 1, 2006. You
may submit written or electronic
comments on the CPG by July 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for
single copies of the guidance to the
Division of Compliance Policy (HFC–
230), Office of Enforcement, Food and
Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request or
include a fax number to which the
guidance may be sent. Submit written
comments on the CPG to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20857.
Submit electronic comments to https://
www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for electronic access to the CPG
document.
Ilisa
Bernstein, Office of Policy (HF–11),
Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,
301–827–3360.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Background
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
A. Implementation of §§ 203.3(u) and
203.50 of 21 CFR Part 203
The Prescription Drug Marketing Act
of 1987 (the PDMA), as modified by the
Prescription Drug Amendments of 1992,
amended sections 301, 303, 503, and
801 of the act (21 U.S.C. 331, 333, 353,
381) to establish, among other things,
requirements related to the wholesale
distribution of prescription drugs. A
primary purpose of the PDMA was to
increase safeguards to prevent the
introduction and retail sale of
substandard, ineffective, and counterfeit
drugs in the U.S. drug supply chain.
Section 503(e)(1)(A) of the act
establishes the so-called ‘‘pedigree’’
requirement for prescription drugs. A
drug pedigree is a statement of origin
that identifies each prior sale, purchase,
or trade of a drug, including the dates
of those transactions and the names and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Jun 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
addresses of all parties to them. Under
the pedigree requirement, each person
who is engaged in the wholesale
distribution of a prescription drug in
interstate commerce, who is not the
manufacturer or an authorized
distributor of record for that drug, must
provide to the person who receives the
drug a pedigree for that drug. The
PDMA states that an authorized
distributor of record is a wholesaler that
has an ‘‘ongoing relationship’’ with a
manufacturer to distribute that
manufacturer’s drug. However, the
PDMA does not define ‘‘ongoing
relationship.’’
In 1999, FDA published final
regulations implementing the PDMA
(part 203 (21 CFR part 203)). The
regulations were to take effect in
December 2000. After publication of the
1999 final rule, the agency received
comments objecting to the provisions in
§§ 203.3(u) and 203.50. Section 203.3(u)
defines ‘‘ongoing relationship’’ to
include a written agreement between
manufacturer and wholesaler. Section
203.50 specifies the fields of
information that must be included in
the drug pedigree and states that the
information must be traceable back to
the first sale by the manufacturer. Based
on concerns raised by various
stakeholders, the agency delayed the
effective date of §§ 203.3(u) and 203.50
several times.
Most recently, in February 2004, FDA
delayed the effective date of §§ 203.3(u)
and 203.50 until December 1, 2006, in
part because we were informed by
stakeholders in the U.S. drug supply
chain that the industry would
voluntarily implement electronic track
and trace technology by 2007. If widely
adopted, this technology could create a
de facto electronic pedigree
documenting the sale of a drug product
from its place of manufacture through
the U.S. drug supply chain to the final
dispenser. If properly implemented, an
electronic record could thus meet the
pedigree requirements in section
503(e)(1)(A) of the act. Based on a recent
fact-finding effort by FDA to assess the
use of e-pedigree across the supply
chain, however, it appears that industry
will not fully implement track and trace
technology by 2007.
Today, the agency is announcing that
it does not intend to delay the effective
date of §§ 203.3(u) and 203.50 beyond
December 1, 2006. As such, these
provisions defining ‘‘ongoing
relationship’’ and setting forth
requirements regarding the information
that must appear in pedigrees will go
into effect as of December 1, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. CPG
We are issuing a draft CPG that
describes how we plan to prioritize our
enforcement actions during the next
year with respect to these new
requirements. To this end, FDA is
announcing the availability of a new
CPG Section 160.900, entitled
‘‘Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Pedigree Requirements Under 21 CFR
Part 203.’’ This CPG, which the agency
is publishing in draft for comment, lists
factors that FDA field personnel are
expected to consider in prioritizing
FDA’s pedigree-related enforcement
efforts during the next year. Consistent
with our risk-based approach to the
regulation of pharmaceuticals, these
factors focus our resources on drug
products that are most vulnerable to
counterfeiting and diversion or that are
otherwise involved in illegal activity.
FDA has not provided in the CPG a
list of drug products that have been
counterfeited in the past. We solicit
comment on the merit of providing such
a list.
The priorities described in the CPG
reflect a phased-in type approach to the
enforcement of the stayed pedigree
provisions. The CPG will expire 1 year
after the final CPG is issued. By
providing guidance on the types of
drugs that are currently of greatest
concern to FDA, we believe that
wholesale distributors will have a better
idea of where and how to focus their
initial energies as they implement
systems to come into complete
compliance with part 203 for all the
prescription drugs they distribute.
FDA is issuing this CPG as a level 1
guidance consistent with FDA’s good
guidance practices regulations (21 CFR
10.115).
We note that guidance documents are
not binding on FDA or industry, and,
under appropriate circumstances, the
agency may initiate regulatory action,
including a criminal prosecution, for
pedigree violations that do not meet the
factors set forth in the CPG.
II. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) written or electronic
comments on the CPG document.
Submit a single copy of electronic
comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that
individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. The guidance
and received comments may be seen in
the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
III. Electronic Access
An electronic version of this guidance
is available on the Internet at https://
www.fda.gov/ora under ‘‘Compliance
Reference’’.
Dated: June 7, 2006.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 06–5362 Filed 6–9–06; 9:35 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 943
[Docket No. TX–054–FOR]
Texas Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of
amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM), are approving an amendment to
the Texas regulatory program (Texas
program) under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA or the Act). Texas proposed to
revise its fish and wildlife habitat
revegetation guidelines by adding
technical guidelines and management
practices concerning habitat suitable for
bobwhite quail and other grassland bird
species. Texas intends to revise its
program to encourage reclamation
practices that are suitable for bobwhite
quail and other grassland bird species.
DATES: Effective Date: June 14, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa
Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581–
6430. E-mail: mwolfrom@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Texas Program
II. Submission of the Amendment
III. OSM’s Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. OSM’s Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with RULES
I. Background on the Texas Program
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a
State to assume primacy for the
regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on non-Federal
and non-Indian lands within its borders
by demonstrating that its State program
includes, among other things, ‘‘a State
law which provides for the regulation of
surface coal mining and reclamation
operations in accordance with the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:14 Jun 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
requirements of this Act * * *; and
rules and regulations consistent with
regulations issued by the Secretary
pursuant to this Act.’’ See 30 U.S.C.
1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these
criteria, the Secretary of the Interior
conditionally approved the Texas
program effective February 16, 1980.
You can find background information
on the Texas program, including the
Secretary’s findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of
approval, in the February 27, 1980,
Federal Register (45 FR 12998). You can
find later actions on the Texas program
at 30 CFR 943.10, 943.15, and 943.16.
II. Submission of the Amendment
By letter dated July 26, 2005
(Administrative Record No. TX–659),
Texas sent us an amendment to its
program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
et seq.). Texas sent the amendment at its
own initiative.
We announced receipt of the
proposed amendment in the August 31,
2005, Federal Register (70 FR 51689). In
the same document, we opened the
public comment period and provided an
opportunity for a public hearing or
meeting on the adequacy of the
amendment. We did not hold a public
hearing or meeting because no one
requested one.
During our review of the amendment,
we identified concerns relating to Texas’
revegetation guidelines document at
Section V.D.1., Fish and Wildlife
Habitat; Section V.D.2., Woody-Plant
Stocking; Appendix B, Summary of
Revegetation Success Standards (Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Only); and
Attachment 2, Minimum Woody
Vegetation Stocking Rates. We notified
Texas of the concerns by letters dated
October 17, 2005, and February 8, 2006
(Administrative Record Nos. TX–659.07
and TX–659.13). On January 12 and
March 10, 2006, Texas sent us revisions
to its amendment (Administrative
Record Nos. TX–659.11 and TX–
659.12).
Based on Texas’ revisions to its
amendment, we reopened the public
comment period in the April 21, 2006,
Federal Register (71 FR 20602). The
public comment period ended on May
8, 2006. We received comments from
one industrial group, one mining
association, one State agency, and one
Federal agency.
III. OSM’s Findings
Following are the findings we made
concerning the amendment under
SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are
approving the amendment as described
below. Any revisions that we do not
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34251
specifically discuss below concern
nonsubstantive wording or editorial
changes.
A. Section V. Revegetation Success
Standards
At the request of the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD), Texas
proposed to revise the following
provisions in Section V of its August
1999 revegetation success guidelines
document.
1. Table of Contents
Texas revised the Table of Contents
for Section V.D. Fish and Wildlife by
adding two sub-categories entitled
‘‘General Category’’ and ‘‘Bobwhite
Quail and Other Grassland Bird
Species.’’
Because these changes are minor, we
find that they will not make Texas’
revegetation success guidelines
document less effective than the
corresponding Federal regulation at 30
CFR 816.116(a)(1). This Federal
regulation requires that standards for
success and statistically valid sampling
techniques for measuring success be
selected by the regulatory authority and
included in an approved regulatory
program.
2. Section V.D.1. Fish and Wildlife
Habitat—Ground Cover
At Section V.D.1., Texas added a
ground cover technical standard for
bobwhite quail and other grassland bird
species and added other associated
changes. Texas also made some minor
clarifying changes to existing
provisions.
a. Texas changed the heading of the
third paragraph from ‘‘Use of Technical
Standard’’ to ‘‘Use of General Technical
Standard.’’
Because this change is minor, we find
that it will not make Texas’ revegetation
success guidelines document less
effective than the corresponding Federal
regulation at 30 CFR 816.116(a)(1).
b. Use of Bobwhite Quail and Other
Grassland Bird Species Technical
Standard.
(1) Texas proposed to add two new
paragraphs concerning the technical
standard for bobwhite quail and other
grassland bird species. They read as
follows:
Use of Bobwhite Quail and Other
Grassland Bird Species Technical Standard.
The technical standard is 63% to 70%
ground cover.
Erosion of landscapes is a natural process
dependent on relief, type of geologic
material, precipitation, and vegetative cover.
Appropriate reclamation land use planning
takes these factors into account and will
ensure that in all cases ground cover will be
adequate to control erosion.
E:\FR\FM\14JNR1.SGM
14JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34249-34251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5362]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 203
[Docket Nos. 1992N-0297 (Formerly 92N-0297), 1988N-0258 (Formerly 88N-
0258), 2006D-0226]
Prescription Drug Marketing Act Pedigree Requirements; Effective
Date and Compliance Policy Guide; Request for Comment
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date; notice of
availability; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not intend to
further delay the effective date of certain provisions of the final
regulation published in the Federal Register of
[[Page 34250]]
December 3, 1999 (64 FR 67720). The provisions will therefore go into
effect on December 1, 2006. In addition, FDA is announcing the
availability of a new compliance policy guide (CPG) 160.900 entitled
``Prescription Drug Marketing Act Pedigree Requirements Under 21 CFR
Part 203'' for public comment. This CPG describes how the agency
intends to prioritize its enforcement efforts during the next year with
respect to pedigree requirements set forth in the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (the act) and certain FDA regulations.
DATES: The effective date for Sec. Sec. 203.3(u) and 203.50 is
December 1, 2006. You may submit written or electronic comments on the
CPG by July 14, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Division of Compliance Policy (HFC-230), Office of Enforcement,
Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request or include a fax number to which the guidance
may be sent. Submit written comments on the CPG to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20857. Submit electronic comments
to https://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the CPG document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ilisa Bernstein, Office of Policy
(HF-11), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD
20857, 301-827-3360.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Implementation of Sec. Sec. 203.3(u) and 203.50 of 21 CFR Part 203
The Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987 (the PDMA), as modified
by the Prescription Drug Amendments of 1992, amended sections 301, 303,
503, and 801 of the act (21 U.S.C. 331, 333, 353, 381) to establish,
among other things, requirements related to the wholesale distribution
of prescription drugs. A primary purpose of the PDMA was to increase
safeguards to prevent the introduction and retail sale of substandard,
ineffective, and counterfeit drugs in the U.S. drug supply chain.
Section 503(e)(1)(A) of the act establishes the so-called
``pedigree'' requirement for prescription drugs. A drug pedigree is a
statement of origin that identifies each prior sale, purchase, or trade
of a drug, including the dates of those transactions and the names and
addresses of all parties to them. Under the pedigree requirement, each
person who is engaged in the wholesale distribution of a prescription
drug in interstate commerce, who is not the manufacturer or an
authorized distributor of record for that drug, must provide to the
person who receives the drug a pedigree for that drug. The PDMA states
that an authorized distributor of record is a wholesaler that has an
``ongoing relationship'' with a manufacturer to distribute that
manufacturer's drug. However, the PDMA does not define ``ongoing
relationship.''
In 1999, FDA published final regulations implementing the PDMA
(part 203 (21 CFR part 203)). The regulations were to take effect in
December 2000. After publication of the 1999 final rule, the agency
received comments objecting to the provisions in Sec. Sec. 203.3(u)
and 203.50. Section 203.3(u) defines ``ongoing relationship'' to
include a written agreement between manufacturer and wholesaler.
Section 203.50 specifies the fields of information that must be
included in the drug pedigree and states that the information must be
traceable back to the first sale by the manufacturer. Based on concerns
raised by various stakeholders, the agency delayed the effective date
of Sec. Sec. 203.3(u) and 203.50 several times.
Most recently, in February 2004, FDA delayed the effective date of
Sec. Sec. 203.3(u) and 203.50 until December 1, 2006, in part because
we were informed by stakeholders in the U.S. drug supply chain that the
industry would voluntarily implement electronic track and trace
technology by 2007. If widely adopted, this technology could create a
de facto electronic pedigree documenting the sale of a drug product
from its place of manufacture through the U.S. drug supply chain to the
final dispenser. If properly implemented, an electronic record could
thus meet the pedigree requirements in section 503(e)(1)(A) of the act.
Based on a recent fact-finding effort by FDA to assess the use of e-
pedigree across the supply chain, however, it appears that industry
will not fully implement track and trace technology by 2007.
Today, the agency is announcing that it does not intend to delay
the effective date of Sec. Sec. 203.3(u) and 203.50 beyond December 1,
2006. As such, these provisions defining ``ongoing relationship'' and
setting forth requirements regarding the information that must appear
in pedigrees will go into effect as of December 1, 2006.
B. CPG
We are issuing a draft CPG that describes how we plan to prioritize
our enforcement actions during the next year with respect to these new
requirements. To this end, FDA is announcing the availability of a new
CPG Section 160.900, entitled ``Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Pedigree Requirements Under 21 CFR Part 203.'' This CPG, which the
agency is publishing in draft for comment, lists factors that FDA field
personnel are expected to consider in prioritizing FDA's pedigree-
related enforcement efforts during the next year. Consistent with our
risk-based approach to the regulation of pharmaceuticals, these factors
focus our resources on drug products that are most vulnerable to
counterfeiting and diversion or that are otherwise involved in illegal
activity.
FDA has not provided in the CPG a list of drug products that have
been counterfeited in the past. We solicit comment on the merit of
providing such a list.
The priorities described in the CPG reflect a phased-in type
approach to the enforcement of the stayed pedigree provisions. The CPG
will expire 1 year after the final CPG is issued. By providing guidance
on the types of drugs that are currently of greatest concern to FDA, we
believe that wholesale distributors will have a better idea of where
and how to focus their initial energies as they implement systems to
come into complete compliance with part 203 for all the prescription
drugs they distribute.
FDA is issuing this CPG as a level 1 guidance consistent with FDA's
good guidance practices regulations (21 CFR 10.115).
We note that guidance documents are not binding on FDA or industry,
and, under appropriate circumstances, the agency may initiate
regulatory action, including a criminal prosecution, for pedigree
violations that do not meet the factors set forth in the CPG.
II. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments on the CPG document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. The guidance and received comments may
be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.
[[Page 34251]]
III. Electronic Access
An electronic version of this guidance is available on the Internet
at https://www.fda.gov/ora under ``Compliance Reference''.
Dated: June 7, 2006.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-5362 Filed 6-9-06; 9:35 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S