Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Donor Screening and Testing, and Related Labeling, 33667-33669 [E7-11795]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Calcium hydroxyapatite (CaO and
P2O5), not less than 75 percent and not
more than 84 percent;
(2) Elemental carbon, not less than 7
percent;
(3) Moisture, not more than 7 percent;
(4) Silica (SiO2), not more than 5
percent;
(5) Arsenic, not more than 3
milligrams (mg)/kilogram (kg) (3 parts
per million (ppm));
(6) Lead, not more than 10 mg/kg (10
ppm); and
(7) Total polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), not more than 5
mg/kg (5 ppm).
(c) Uses and restrictions. Cosmetics
containing D&C Black No. 3 must
comply with § 700.27 of this chapter
with respect to prohibited cattle
materials in cosmetic products. D&C
Black No. 3 may be safely used for
coloring the following cosmetics in
amounts consistent with current good
manufacturing practice: Eyeliner, eye
shadow, mascara, and face powder.
(d) Labeling. The label of the color
additive shall conform to the
requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
(e) Certification. All batches of D&C
Black No. 3 shall be certified in
accordance with regulations in part 80
of this chapter.
Dated: June 11, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7–11801 Filed 6–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 1271
[Docket No. 1997N–0484T]
Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and
Tissue-Based Products; Donor
Screening and Testing, and Related
Labeling
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the
provisions of the interim final rule that
amended certain regulations regarding
the screening and testing of donors of
human cells, tissues, and cellular and
tissue-based products (HCT/Ps), and
related labeling. FDA is taking this
action to complete the rulemaking
initiated with the interim final rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Jun 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
This rule is effective June 19,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brenda R. Friend, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (HFM–17),
Food and Drug Administration, 1401
Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville,
MD 20852–1448, 301–827–6210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of May 25,
2005 (70 FR 29949), FDA issued an
interim final rule on Human Cells,
Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based
Products; Donor Screening and Testing,
and Related Labeling (hereinafter
referred to as the interim final rule).
These regulations became effective upon
the date of publication in the Federal
Register. We issued the interim rule to
assure that the changes became effective
concurrently with the Eligibility
Determination for Donors of Human
Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and TissueBased Products final rule (69 FR 29786,
May 25, 2004) and the Current Good
Tissue Practice for Human Cell, Tissue,
and Cellular and Tissue-Based Product
Establishments; Inspection and
Enforcement final rule (69 FR 68612,
November 24, 2004) on May 25, 2005.
In this way, establishments were not
required to take steps to comply with
the provisions in part 1271 (21 CFR part
1271) that were replaced by the changes
set out in the interim final rule, and
certain HCT/Ps would continue to be
available.
II. Comments on the Interim Final Rule
and FDA Responses
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY:
DATES:
We received several comments on the
interim final rule. To make it easier to
identify comments and our responses,
the word ‘‘Comment,’’ in parentheses,
will appear before the comment’s
description, and the word ‘‘Response,’’
in parentheses, will appear before our
response. We have also numbered each
comment to help distinguish between
different comments. The number
assigned to each comment is purely for
organizational purposes and does not
signify the comment’s value or
importance or the order in which it was
received.
(Comment 1) A comment appreciated
and applauded the change to
§ 1271.370(b)(4) to allow labeling with
warning(s) to accompany the HCT/P
when the HCT/P container is too small
to accommodate the warning(s) on the
label. Another comment expressed
concern that the accompanying labeling
could be ignored or lost.
(Response) We acknowledge and
appreciate the supportive comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33667
This requirement addresses the
situation where it is not physically
possible to include warnings directly on
the HCT/P label, either because the
container is too small or the HCT/P is
cryopreserved, which may interfere
with adherence of label materials. In
these situations, the warnings must
accompany the HCT/P.
We acknowledge the comment’s
concern that it is better to provide
information on the HCT/P’s label.
However, we permit other important
information, such as the summary of
records, to accompany the HCT/P; such
important information is not present on
the HCT/P label. We believe that
consignees are generally careful to make
sure information accompanying HCT/Ps
is not ignored or lost, and we believe
that the accompanying information will
be available. Necessity compels this
authorization for certain information to
accompany an HCT/P when it is not
possible to include it on the label, and
we conclude that it is adequate to
provide such information in
accompanying documents when it is
necessary to do so.
(Comment 2) A comment noted that
§ 1271.55(a)(1) requirements (i.e.,
affixing a distinct identification code to
the HCT/P container) were clearly
designed to maintain donor anonymity.
However, the comment asked if fertility
clinics could write in information about
the recipient (e.g., name, account
number) because by the time a donor’s
HCT/P is collected, a specific recipient
has already been identified. The
comment stated that fertility clinics, for
example, never collect anonymously
donated oocytes without already having
a recipient identified and ready to
receive the donation.
(Response) The requirements in
§ 1271.55(a)(1) are focused on protecting
the identity of the donor in the interest
of confidentiality. We note that this
provision prescribes how an
establishment must label the HCT/P
before releasing it for distribution, but
does not prohibit the addition of the
recipient’s name once the donor
eligibility determination is completed
and the reproductive HCT/P is released
for distribution. For an oocyte donation,
the release determination is likely to be
completed very soon after collection.
(Comment 3) A few comments
suggested changes to the timing of the
specimen collection in § 1271.80(b). In
particular, a comment noted that
§ 1271.80(b)(1) permits testing on oocyte
donors up to 30 days before recovery,
while § 1271.80 seems to maintain a 7day testing window for semen donors,
whose spermatozoa will combine with
the oocytes to create an embryo for a
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
33668
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
gestational carrier cycle, and stated that
both these donors should have a 30-day
testing window.
Another comment stated that testing
donors of sperm, oocytes, and embryos
at the time of donation is ‘‘superior’’ but
noted that the American Association of
Tissue Banks guidelines for accredited
tissue banks recommend that all donors
be tested within 7 days of collection.
The comment recommended that FDA
go back to 7-day testing. One comment
recommended that any individual
intending to cryopreserve his/her
HCT/P be tested 7 to 10 days prior to
cryopreservation or within a short
period after cryopreservation.
(Response) The interim final rule
modified the timing of blood specimen
collection for oocyte donors to permit
the determination of donor eligibility
before the donor’s conditioning regimen
begins. We did not change the timing of
blood specimen collection for semen
donors, because they do not undergo
any conditioning regimen.
Collecting blood specimens from
donors of semen, oocytes, and embryos
at the time of donation is sometimes
impractical because of the time it takes
to obtain the test results. We have made
exceptions to the requirement for testing
within 7 days in situations where the
donor has to undergo conditioning in
advance. This is also the case where the
recipient undergoes myeloablative
treatment and there is a need to
determine the eligibility of the donor
before the recipient’s treatment.
Establishments are welcome to establish
more restrictive testing criteria as noted
in the American Association of Tissue
Banks standards.
(Comment 4) A comment responded
to FDA’s solicitation for comments on
the effectiveness of § 1271.90(a)(4), (a
new exception from the donor-eligibility
determination requirement for certain
cryopreserved embryos) to enhance the
availability of embryos, and the
potential benefits, risks, and any other
direct or indirect effects of this change.
The comment pointed out that
cryopreserved embryos (and HCT/Ps)
are often exposed to liquid nitrogen, and
research articles have reported that
hepatitis B and bovine hepatitis virus
can be transmitted through liquid
nitrogen contamination. Therefore,
cryopreserved embryos from untested
semen and oocyte donors, commingling
with cryopreserved embryos from tested
donors, may place recipients,
cryostorage centers, and assisted
reproductive technology facilities at
risk. Simply having warning(s) appear
on the label of the cryopreserved HCT/P
specimen from an untested donor,
under revised §§ 1271.90(b)(2) and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Jun 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
(b)(3), or having the warning(s)
accompany such HCT/Ps, under revised
§ 1271.370(b)(4), would not eliminate
the risks and may even result in an
increased number of tort cases.
(Response) We decline to require
separate storage for tested and untested
HCT/Ps, though establishments may
choose to utilize physically separated
areas for tested and untested HCT/Ps.
To reduce risk of contamination/crosscontamination from HCT/Ps that are
untested or determined ineligible
because of a reactive screening test,
reproductive establishments could
verify or validate that the cryocontainers
(vials or straws) meet specifications and
are not subject to breakage at the
temperatures and conditions at which
they are stored. Verification could be
accomplished by the establishment that
uses the cryocontainers or by the vendor
that supplies the cryocontainers.
(Comment 5) A comment
recommended a quarantine period of 6
months for any reproductive HCT/P
from directed donors and anonymous
donors, including anonymous donors
whose identity might be disclosed. The
comment also recommended mandatory
retesting of oocyte donors (for donated
embryos created using a donor oocyte)
and embryo donors (semen and oocyte
donors) prior to transfer of the donated
HCT/P.
(Response) In the Eligibility
Determination for Donors of Human
Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and TissueBased Products final rule (69 FR 29786
at 29800), we explained why quarantine
and retesting are required for
anonymous semen donors but not for
other reproductive donors. We
considered comments concerning
decreased pregnancy success rates for
cryopreserved semen from directed
donors and for cryopreserved embryos.
In addition, techniques for the
successful cryopreservation of oocytes
are still being developed. Accordingly,
we have declined to increase quarantine
requirements for oocyte and embryo
donations.
(Comment 6) A comment requested
clarification on the use of the warning
‘‘FOR AUTOLOGOUS USE ONLY’’
under § 1271.90(b)(1), and particularly,
FDA’s definition of ‘‘autologous’’ for
certain circumstances related to in vitro
fertilization.
(Response) We define ‘‘autologous’’ in
§ 1271.3(a) as meaning the implantation,
transplantation, infusion, or transfer of
human cells or tissue back into the
individual from whom the cells or
tissue were recovered. Transfer of an
embryo into the woman who
contributed the oocytes would not be
considered autologous because the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
embryo is formed by gametes from two
individuals. This means that in the
circumstances related to in vitro
fertilization, use of a label ‘‘FOR
AUTOLOGOUS USE ONLY’’ would not
be appropriate for labeling a
cryopreserved embryo. Other labeling
requirements listed in § 1271.90(b)
would apply based on the test status of
the gamete donors.
(Comment 7) We received several
comments that, although they relate to
significant issues, are not relevant to the
interim final rule. These comments
concerned: (1) A request that donors
with a curable communicable disease be
eligible to donate reproductive HCT/Ps
after receiving treatment and retesting
negative for the communicable disease;
(2) the definition of ‘‘responsible
person’’ under § 1271.3(t); (3)
certification or registration
requirements, other than those
applicable under the Clinical Laboratory
Improvement Amendments of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 263a), for a clinical laboratory to
perform donor screening; and (4) issues
associated with the storage of embryos
and other HCT/Ps, but unrelated to the
potential for transmission of
communicable disease (e.g.,
abandonment, legal responsibility, and
nonpayment).
(Response) These comments are on
matters outside the scope of the interim
final rule and this final rule. Relevant
communicable disease agent or disease
was addressed in previously finalized
portions of part 1271, subpart C. The
definitions in § 1271.3 were not
discussed or addressed in the interim
final rule. Registration requirements
applicable to testing laboratories are
addressed in part 1271, subparts A and
B, and certification requirements are
discussed in part 1271, subpart C. FDA
expects that the contractual agreement
between the cryostorage facility and the
individual(s) storing the HCT/P will
address financial and legal issues
unrelated to the potential for
communicable disease transmission.
III. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the
final rule under Executive Order 12866
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601–612), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104–4). Executive Order 12866
directs agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity). The analysis of
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives contained in the interim
final rule (70 FR 29949 at 29951) is
adopted without change in this final
rule. By now reaffirming that interim
final rule, FDA has not imposed any
new requirements. Therefore, there are
no additional costs and benefits
associated with this final rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires agencies to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any
significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because this final rule does not
make any changes to the interim final
rule or our analysis included therein,
the agency certifies that the final rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written
statement, which includes an
assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits, before issuing ‘‘any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100,000,000
or more (adjusted annually for inflation)
in any one year.’’ The current threshold
after adjustment for inflation is $122
million, using the most current (2005)
Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross
Domestic Product. FDA does not expect
this final rule to result in any 1-year
expenditure that would meet or exceed
this amount.
IV. The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995
This final rule contains no collections
of information. Therefore, clearance by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 is not required.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
V. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.30(i) and (j) that this action is of
a type that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
VI. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this final rule in
accordance with the principles set forth
in Executive Order 13132. FDA has
determined that the rule does not
contain policies that have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Accordingly, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 Jun 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
agency has concluded that the rule does
not contain policies that have
federalism implications as defined in
the Executive order and, consequently,
a federalism summary impact statement
is not required.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1271
Biological Drugs, Communicable
diseases, HIV/AIDS, Human cells,
tissues, and cellular and tissue-based
products, Medical devices, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
I Therefore, under the Public Health
Service Act, and under authority
delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, 21 CFR part 1271 is
amended as follows:
PART 1271—HUMAN CELLS, TISSUES,
AND CELLULAR AND TISSUE-BASEDPRODUCTS
Accordingly, the interim final rule
amending 21 CFR part 1271 which was
published at 70 FR 29949 on May 25,
2005, is adopted as a final rule without
change.
I
Dated: May 26, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7–11795 Filed 6–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 62
RIN 1400–AC15
[Public Notice 5824]
Exchange Visitor Program—Trainees
and Interns
AGENCY:
United States Department of
State.
Interim final rule with request
for comment.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department is hereby
revising its regulations regarding,
Trainees and Interns to, among other
things, eliminate the distinction
between ‘‘non-specialty occupations’’
and ‘‘specialty occupations,’’ establish a
new internship program, and modify the
selection criteria for participation in a
training program. The new regulations
also require sponsors to screen, vet, and
enter into written agreements with third
parties who assist them in recruiting,
selecting, screening, orienting, placing,
training, or evaluating foreign nationals
who participate in training and
internship programs. Sponsors must
fully complete and secure signatures on
a Form DS–7002, Training/Internship
Placement Plan (T/IPP) for each trainee
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33669
and intern prior to issuing a Form DS–
2019. The Department adopts no
changes to existing flight training
regulations.
DATES: This rule becomes effective July
19, 2007.
The Department will accept
comments from the public up to 30 days
from June 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Persons with access to the Internet
may also view this notice and provide
comments by going to the
regulations.gov Web site at: https://
www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.
• Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions): U.S. Department of State,
Office of Exchange Coordination and
Designation, SA–44, 301 4th Street,
SW., Room 734, Washington, DC 20547.
• E-mail: jexchanges@state.gov. You
must include the RIN (1400–AC15) in
the subject line of your message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stanley S. Colvin, Director, Office of
Exchange Coordination and
Designation, U.S. Department of State,
SA–44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 734,
Washington, DC 20547; 202–203–5096
or e-mail at jexchanges@state.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Department of State designates U.S.
government, academic, and private
sector entities to conduct educational
and cultural exchange programs
pursuant to a broad grant of authority
provided by the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as
amended (Fulbright-Hays Act), 22
U.S.C. 2451 et seq.; the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J);
the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998, Public Law
105–277; the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act
(IIRIRA) of 1996, Public Law 104–208,
as amended; Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA
PATRIOT ACT) (Pub. L. 107–56), Sec.
416; the Enhanced Border Security and
Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–173; and other statutory
enactments, Reorganization Plans, and
Executive Orders. Under those
authorities, designated program
sponsors facilitate the entry into the
United States of more than 300,000
exchange participants each year, of
which approximately 27,000 are
trainees.
The former United States Information
Agency (USIA) and, as of October 1,
1999, its successor, the U.S. Department
of State, have promulgated regulations
governing the Exchange Visitor
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33667-33669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-11795]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 1271
[Docket No. 1997N-0484T]
Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products;
Donor Screening and Testing, and Related Labeling
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is adopting as a final
rule, without change, the provisions of the interim final rule that
amended certain regulations regarding the screening and testing of
donors of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products
(HCT[sol]Ps), and related labeling. FDA is taking this action to
complete the rulemaking initiated with the interim final rule.
DATES: This rule is effective June 19, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda R. Friend, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401
Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of May 25, 2005 (70 FR 29949), FDA issued
an interim final rule on Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-
Based Products; Donor Screening and Testing, and Related Labeling
(hereinafter referred to as the interim final rule). These regulations
became effective upon the date of publication in the Federal Register.
We issued the interim rule to assure that the changes became effective
concurrently with the Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human
Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products final rule (69
FR 29786, May 25, 2004) and the Current Good Tissue Practice for Human
Cell, Tissue, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Product Establishments;
Inspection and Enforcement final rule (69 FR 68612, November 24, 2004)
on May 25, 2005. In this way, establishments were not required to take
steps to comply with the provisions in part 1271 (21 CFR part 1271)
that were replaced by the changes set out in the interim final rule,
and certain HCT[sol]Ps would continue to be available.
II. Comments on the Interim Final Rule and FDA Responses
We received several comments on the interim final rule. To make it
easier to identify comments and our responses, the word ``Comment,'' in
parentheses, will appear before the comment's description, and the word
``Response,'' in parentheses, will appear before our response. We have
also numbered each comment to help distinguish between different
comments. The number assigned to each comment is purely for
organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value or
importance or the order in which it was received.
(Comment 1) A comment appreciated and applauded the change to Sec.
1271.370(b)(4) to allow labeling with warning(s) to accompany the
HCT[sol]P when the HCT[sol]P container is too small to accommodate the
warning(s) on the label. Another comment expressed concern that the
accompanying labeling could be ignored or lost.
(Response) We acknowledge and appreciate the supportive comment.
This requirement addresses the situation where it is not physically
possible to include warnings directly on the HCT[sol]P label, either
because the container is too small or the HCT[sol]P is cryopreserved,
which may interfere with adherence of label materials. In these
situations, the warnings must accompany the HCT[sol]P.
We acknowledge the comment's concern that it is better to provide
information on the HCT[sol]P's label. However, we permit other
important information, such as the summary of records, to accompany the
HCT[sol]P; such important information is not present on the HCT[sol]P
label. We believe that consignees are generally careful to make sure
information accompanying HCT[sol]Ps is not ignored or lost, and we
believe that the accompanying information will be available. Necessity
compels this authorization for certain information to accompany an
HCT[sol]P when it is not possible to include it on the label, and we
conclude that it is adequate to provide such information in
accompanying documents when it is necessary to do so.
(Comment 2) A comment noted that Sec. 1271.55(a)(1) requirements
(i.e., affixing a distinct identification code to the HCT[sol]P
container) were clearly designed to maintain donor anonymity. However,
the comment asked if fertility clinics could write in information about
the recipient (e.g., name, account number) because by the time a
donor's HCT[sol]P is collected, a specific recipient has already been
identified. The comment stated that fertility clinics, for example,
never collect anonymously donated oocytes without already having a
recipient identified and ready to receive the donation.
(Response) The requirements in Sec. 1271.55(a)(1) are focused on
protecting the identity of the donor in the interest of
confidentiality. We note that this provision prescribes how an
establishment must label the HCT[sol]P before releasing it for
distribution, but does not prohibit the addition of the recipient's
name once the donor eligibility determination is completed and the
reproductive HCT[sol]P is released for distribution. For an oocyte
donation, the release determination is likely to be completed very soon
after collection.
(Comment 3) A few comments suggested changes to the timing of the
specimen collection in Sec. 1271.80(b). In particular, a comment noted
that Sec. 1271.80(b)(1) permits testing on oocyte donors up to 30 days
before recovery, while Sec. 1271.80 seems to maintain a 7-day testing
window for semen donors, whose spermatozoa will combine with the
oocytes to create an embryo for a
[[Page 33668]]
gestational carrier cycle, and stated that both these donors should
have a 30-day testing window.
Another comment stated that testing donors of sperm, oocytes, and
embryos at the time of donation is ``superior'' but noted that the
American Association of Tissue Banks guidelines for accredited tissue
banks recommend that all donors be tested within 7 days of collection.
The comment recommended that FDA go back to 7-day testing. One comment
recommended that any individual intending to cryopreserve his/her
HCT[sol]P be tested 7 to 10 days prior to cryopreservation or within a
short period after cryopreservation.
(Response) The interim final rule modified the timing of blood
specimen collection for oocyte donors to permit the determination of
donor eligibility before the donor's conditioning regimen begins. We
did not change the timing of blood specimen collection for semen
donors, because they do not undergo any conditioning regimen.
Collecting blood specimens from donors of semen, oocytes, and
embryos at the time of donation is sometimes impractical because of the
time it takes to obtain the test results. We have made exceptions to
the requirement for testing within 7 days in situations where the donor
has to undergo conditioning in advance. This is also the case where the
recipient undergoes myeloablative treatment and there is a need to
determine the eligibility of the donor before the recipient's
treatment. Establishments are welcome to establish more restrictive
testing criteria as noted in the American Association of Tissue Banks
standards.
(Comment 4) A comment responded to FDA's solicitation for comments
on the effectiveness of Sec. 1271.90(a)(4), (a new exception from the
donor-eligibility determination requirement for certain cryopreserved
embryos) to enhance the availability of embryos, and the potential
benefits, risks, and any other direct or indirect effects of this
change. The comment pointed out that cryopreserved embryos (and
HCT[sol]Ps) are often exposed to liquid nitrogen, and research articles
have reported that hepatitis B and bovine hepatitis virus can be
transmitted through liquid nitrogen contamination. Therefore,
cryopreserved embryos from untested semen and oocyte donors,
commingling with cryopreserved embryos from tested donors, may place
recipients, cryostorage centers, and assisted reproductive technology
facilities at risk. Simply having warning(s) appear on the label of the
cryopreserved HCT[sol]P specimen from an untested donor, under revised
Sec. Sec. 1271.90(b)(2) and (b)(3), or having the warning(s) accompany
such HCT[sol]Ps, under revised Sec. 1271.370(b)(4), would not
eliminate the risks and may even result in an increased number of tort
cases.
(Response) We decline to require separate storage for tested and
untested HCT[sol]Ps, though establishments may choose to utilize
physically separated areas for tested and untested HCT[sol]Ps. To
reduce risk of contamination/cross-contamination from HCT[sol]Ps that
are untested or determined ineligible because of a reactive screening
test, reproductive establishments could verify or validate that the
cryocontainers (vials or straws) meet specifications and are not
subject to breakage at the temperatures and conditions at which they
are stored. Verification could be accomplished by the establishment
that uses the cryocontainers or by the vendor that supplies the
cryocontainers.
(Comment 5) A comment recommended a quarantine period of 6 months
for any reproductive HCT[sol]P from directed donors and anonymous
donors, including anonymous donors whose identity might be disclosed.
The comment also recommended mandatory retesting of oocyte donors (for
donated embryos created using a donor oocyte) and embryo donors (semen
and oocyte donors) prior to transfer of the donated HCT[sol]P.
(Response) In the Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human
Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products final rule (69
FR 29786 at 29800), we explained why quarantine and retesting are
required for anonymous semen donors but not for other reproductive
donors. We considered comments concerning decreased pregnancy success
rates for cryopreserved semen from directed donors and for
cryopreserved embryos. In addition, techniques for the successful
cryopreservation of oocytes are still being developed. Accordingly, we
have declined to increase quarantine requirements for oocyte and embryo
donations.
(Comment 6) A comment requested clarification on the use of the
warning ``FOR AUTOLOGOUS USE ONLY'' under Sec. 1271.90(b)(1), and
particularly, FDA's definition of ``autologous'' for certain
circumstances related to in vitro fertilization.
(Response) We define ``autologous'' in Sec. 1271.3(a) as meaning
the implantation, transplantation, infusion, or transfer of human cells
or tissue back into the individual from whom the cells or tissue were
recovered. Transfer of an embryo into the woman who contributed the
oocytes would not be considered autologous because the embryo is formed
by gametes from two individuals. This means that in the circumstances
related to in vitro fertilization, use of a label ``FOR AUTOLOGOUS USE
ONLY'' would not be appropriate for labeling a cryopreserved embryo.
Other labeling requirements listed in Sec. 1271.90(b) would apply
based on the test status of the gamete donors.
(Comment 7) We received several comments that, although they relate
to significant issues, are not relevant to the interim final rule.
These comments concerned: (1) A request that donors with a curable
communicable disease be eligible to donate reproductive HCT[sol]Ps
after receiving treatment and retesting negative for the communicable
disease; (2) the definition of ``responsible person'' under Sec.
1271.3(t); (3) certification or registration requirements, other than
those applicable under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 263a), for a clinical laboratory to perform donor
screening; and (4) issues associated with the storage of embryos and
other HCT[sol]Ps, but unrelated to the potential for transmission of
communicable disease (e.g., abandonment, legal responsibility, and
nonpayment).
(Response) These comments are on matters outside the scope of the
interim final rule and this final rule. Relevant communicable disease
agent or disease was addressed in previously finalized portions of part
1271, subpart C. The definitions in Sec. 1271.3 were not discussed or
addressed in the interim final rule. Registration requirements
applicable to testing laboratories are addressed in part 1271, subparts
A and B, and certification requirements are discussed in part 1271,
subpart C. FDA expects that the contractual agreement between the
cryostorage facility and the individual(s) storing the HCT[sol]P will
address financial and legal issues unrelated to the potential for
communicable disease transmission.
III. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive
Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The analysis of
[[Page 33669]]
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives contained in
the interim final rule (70 FR 29949 at 29951) is adopted without change
in this final rule. By now reaffirming that interim final rule, FDA has
not imposed any new requirements. Therefore, there are no additional
costs and benefits associated with this final rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because this final rule does not make any changes to
the interim final rule or our analysis included therein, the agency
certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $122 million, using the most current (2005) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.
IV. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not
required.
V. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(i) and (j) that this
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
VI. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule
does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded
that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism
implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a
federalism summary impact statement is not required.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1271
Biological Drugs, Communicable diseases, HIV/AIDS, Human cells,
tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, Medical devices,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
Therefore, under the Public Health Service Act, and under authority
delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 1271 is
amended as follows:
PART 1271--HUMAN CELLS, TISSUES, AND CELLULAR AND TISSUE-BASED-
PRODUCTS
0
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 21 CFR part 1271 which was
published at 70 FR 29949 on May 25, 2005, is adopted as a final rule
without change.
Dated: May 26, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-11795 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S