Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request, Patent Term Restoration, Due Diligence Petitions, Filing, Format, and Content of Petitions, 37242-37243 [E7-13269]
Download as PDF
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
37242
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / Notices
support approval of manufacturing
changes. This results in total of 14,875
burden hours.
Supplements seeking approval of
changes in intended uses or conditions
of use (§ 514.8(c)(1)). Over the past 3
fiscal years, October 1, 2003, through
September 2006, FDA has received an
average of 14 supplements annually
seeking approval for changes in
intended uses or conditions of use. FDA
used a 3-year average for this
calculation because data for the
previous 2 years for this category of
supplements was not tracked as an
independent number. FDA estimates
that it takes an average of 71 hours
(approximately 1/3 of the time it takes
to prepare the paperwork to support a
full NADA) to prepare the paperwork to
support approval for such changes. This
results in a total of 994 burden hours.
Labeling Supplements (§ 514.8(c)(2)
and (c)(3)). Over the past 5 fiscal years,
FDA has received an average of 53
labeling supplements annually. FDA
estimates that it takes an average of 20
hours (approximately 1 percent of the
time it takes to prepare the paperwork
to support a full NADA) to prepare the
paperwork to support approval of a
labeling change. This results in a total
of 1,060 burden hours.
Freedom of Information Summary
(§ 514.11 (21 CFR 514.11)). Regulations
under § 514.11 require the preparation
of a summary of the safety and
effectiveness data and information
submitted with or incorporated by
reference in an approved NADA and
that the summary be publicly released
when the approval is published in the
Federal Register. This summary,
generally referred to as the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Summary, may be
prepared by FDA or FDA may require
the applicant to prepare the summary
(§ 514.11(e)(ii)). In the past, FDA has
required the applicant to prepare the
FOI Summary. Currently, FDA generally
takes responsibility for preparing the
FOI Summary. Thus, the paperwork
burden on applicants to prepare an FOI
Summary has significantly decreased.
Based on the estimate of 19 NADAs
received annually and an estimate that
applicants now spend little or no time
preparing the FOI summary, the
estimated burden hours are 19 hours.
Requirements for liquid medicated
feeds (§ 558.5(i) (21 CFR 558.5(i)).
Generally, specific labeling is required
to make sure that certain drugs,
approved for use in animal feed or
drinking water but not in liquid
medicated feed, are not diverted to use
in liquid feeds. Section 558.5(i) permits
an applicant to seek a waiver from this
requirement (§ 558.5(h)) if there is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jul 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
evidence that it is unlikely a new
animal drug would be used in the
manufacture of a liquid medicated feed.
If FDA receives one NADA per year
seeking approval of the use of a liquid
medicated feed and on average it takes
5 hours to prepare the request for
waiver, the estimated paperwork burden
is 5 hours.
Risk assessment of antimicrobial new
animal drugs with regard to their
microbiological effects on bacteria of
human health concern. (§§ 514.1(b)(8)
and 514.8(c)(1)). FDA estimates that it
receives 10 risk assessments evaluating
the microbial food safety of
antimicrobial new animal drugs per
year. FDA estimates that it takes on
average 90 hours to put together the
references and other materials in the
format recommended by Guidance 152
and to summarize the hazards and
associated risk(s). Thus, the total burden
hours for preparing such risk
assessments for submission to FDA are
estimated to be 900 hours.
Form FDA 356V. FDA requests that an
applicant fill out and send in with
NADAs and supplemental NADAs, and
requests for phased review of data to
support NADAs, a Form FDA 356V to
ensure efficient and accurate processing
of information to support new animal
drug approval. Over the past 5 fiscal
years, FDA has received an average of
511 NADAs and supplements and 267
submissions of data to support NADAs.
FDA estimates that it takes an average
of 5 hours to read the instructions and
fill out Form FDA 356V and organize
the information that it will accompany.
This results in a total of 3,890 burden
hours.
Dated: June 28, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7–13195 Filed 7–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2007N–0240]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, Patent Term
Restoration, Due Diligence Petitions,
Filing, Format, and Content of
Petitions
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing an
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
opportunity for public comment on the
proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the
PRA), Federal agencies are required to
publish notice in the Federal Register
concerning each proposed collection of
information, including each proposed
extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for
public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on
FDA’s patent term restoration
regulations on due diligence petitions
for regulatory review period revision.
Where a patented product must receive
FDA approval before marketing is
permitted, the Office of Patents and
Trademarks may add a portion of the
FDA review time to the term of a patent.
Petitioners may request reductions in
the regulatory review time if FDA
marketing approval was not pursued
with ‘‘due diligence.’’
DATES: Submit written comments on the
collection of information by September
7, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic
comments on the collection of
information to: https://www.fda.gov/
dockets/ecomments. Submit written
comments on the collection of
information to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All
comments should be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of the Chief
Information Officer (HFA–250), Food
and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–
1482.
Under the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct or sponsor.
‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined
in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests
or requirements that members of the
public submit reports, keep records, or
provide information to a third party.
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal
agencies to provide a 60-day notice in
the Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an
existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB
for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\09JYN1.SGM
09JYN1
37243
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / Notices
of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
With respect to the following
collection of information, FDA invites
comments on these topics: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of FDA’s functions, including whether
the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques,
when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.
Patent Term Restoration, Due Diligence
Petitions, Filing, Format, and Content of
Petitions—21 CFR Part 60 (OMB
Control Number 0910–0233—Extension)
FDA’s patent extension activities are
conducted under the authority of the
Drug Price Competition and Patent
Term Restoration Act of 1984 (21 U.S.C.
355(j)) and the Animal Drug and Patent
Term Restoration Act of 1988 (35 U.S.C.
156). New human drug, animal drug,
human biological, medical device, food
additive, or color additive products
regulated by FDA must undergo FDA
safety, or safety and effectiveness,
review before marketing is permitted.
Where the product is covered by a
patent, part of the patent’s term may be
consumed during this review, which
diminishes the value of the patent. In
enacting the Drug Price Competition
and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
and the Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1988, Congress
sought to encourage development of
new, safer, and more effective medical
and food additive products. It did so by
authorizing the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) to extend the
patent term by a portion of the time
during which FDA’s safety and
effectiveness review prevented
marketing of the product. The length of
the patent term extension is generally
limited to a maximum of 5 years, and
is calculated by PTO based on a
statutory formula. When a patent holder
submits an application for patent term
extension to PTO, PTO requests
information from FDA, including the
length of the regulatory review period
for the patented product. If PTO
concludes that the product is eligible for
patent term extension, FDA publishes a
notice that describes the length of the
regulatory review period and the dates
used to calculate that period. Interested
parties may request, under § 60.24 (21
CFR 60.24), revision of the length of the
regulatory review period, or may
petition under § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30) to
reduce the regulatory review period by
any time where marketing approval was
not pursued with ‘‘due diligence.’’ The
statute defines due diligence as ‘‘that
degree of attention, continuous directed
effort, and timeliness as may reasonably
be expected from, and are ordinarily
exercised by, a person during a
regulatory review period.’’ As provided
in § 60.30(c), a due diligence petition
‘‘shall set forth sufficient facts,
including dates if possible, to merit an
investigation by FDA of whether the
applicant acted with due diligence.’’
Upon receipt of a due diligence petition,
FDA reviews the petition and evaluates
whether any change in the regulatory
review period is necessary. If so, the
corrected regulatory review period is
published in the Federal Register. A
due diligence petitioner not satisfied
with FDA’s decision regarding the
petition may, under § 60.40 (21 CFR
60.40), request an informal hearing for
reconsideration of the due diligence
determination. Petitioners are likely to
include persons or organizations having
knowledge that FDA’s marketing
permission for that product was not
actively pursued throughout the
regulatory review period. The
information collection for which an
extension of approval is being sought is
the use of the statutorily created due
diligence petition.
Since 1992, nine requests for revision
of the regulatory review period have
been submitted under § 60.24. Four
regulatory review periods have been
altered. Two due diligence petitions
have been submitted to FDA under
§ 60.30. There have been no requests for
hearings under § 60.40 regarding the
decisions on such petitions.
FDA estimates the burden of this
collection of information as follows:
TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN1
No. of
Respondents
21 CFR Section
Annual Frequency
per Response
Total Annual
Responses
Hours per
Response
Total Hours
60.24(a)
9
1
9
100
900
60.30
2
0
2
50
100
60.40
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1 There
1,000
are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
Dated: June 28, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7–13269 Filed 7–6–07; 8:45 am]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2007C–0245]
Nippon Oil Corp.; Filing of Color
Additive Petition
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:59 Jul 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Notice.
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing
that Nippon Oil Corp. has filed a
petition proposing that the color
additive regulations be amended to
provide for the safe use of Paracoccus
carotinifaciens granules as a color
additive in the feed of salmonid fish to
enhance the color of their flesh.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mical E. Honigfort, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–
265), Food and Drug Administration,
E:\FR\FM\09JYN1.SGM
09JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 130 (Monday, July 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37242-37243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13269]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2007N-0240]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, Patent Term Restoration, Due Diligence Petitions,
Filing, Format, and Content of Petitions
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on FDA's patent term restoration
regulations on due diligence petitions for regulatory review period
revision. Where a patented product must receive FDA approval before
marketing is permitted, the Office of Patents and Trademarks may add a
portion of the FDA review time to the term of a patent. Petitioners may
request reductions in the regulatory review time if FDA marketing
approval was not pursued with ``due diligence.''
DATES: Submit written comments on the collection of information by
September 7, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to: https://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. Submit written comments on
the collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of the
Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice
[[Page 37243]]
of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Patent Term Restoration, Due Diligence Petitions, Filing, Format, and
Content of Petitions--21 CFR Part 60 (OMB Control Number 0910-0233--
Extension)
FDA's patent extension activities are conducted under the authority
of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(21 U.S.C. 355(j)) and the Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act
of 1988 (35 U.S.C. 156). New human drug, animal drug, human biological,
medical device, food additive, or color additive products regulated by
FDA must undergo FDA safety, or safety and effectiveness, review before
marketing is permitted. Where the product is covered by a patent, part
of the patent's term may be consumed during this review, which
diminishes the value of the patent. In enacting the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 and the Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1988, Congress sought to encourage
development of new, safer, and more effective medical and food additive
products. It did so by authorizing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) to extend the patent term by a portion of the time during which
FDA's safety and effectiveness review prevented marketing of the
product. The length of the patent term extension is generally limited
to a maximum of 5 years, and is calculated by PTO based on a statutory
formula. When a patent holder submits an application for patent term
extension to PTO, PTO requests information from FDA, including the
length of the regulatory review period for the patented product. If PTO
concludes that the product is eligible for patent term extension, FDA
publishes a notice that describes the length of the regulatory review
period and the dates used to calculate that period. Interested parties
may request, under Sec. 60.24 (21 CFR 60.24), revision of the length
of the regulatory review period, or may petition under Sec. 60.30 (21
CFR 60.30) to reduce the regulatory review period by any time where
marketing approval was not pursued with ``due diligence.'' The statute
defines due diligence as ``that degree of attention, continuous
directed effort, and timeliness as may reasonably be expected from, and
are ordinarily exercised by, a person during a regulatory review
period.'' As provided in Sec. 60.30(c), a due diligence petition
``shall set forth sufficient facts, including dates if possible, to
merit an investigation by FDA of whether the applicant acted with due
diligence.'' Upon receipt of a due diligence petition, FDA reviews the
petition and evaluates whether any change in the regulatory review
period is necessary. If so, the corrected regulatory review period is
published in the Federal Register. A due diligence petitioner not
satisfied with FDA's decision regarding the petition may, under Sec.
60.40 (21 CFR 60.40), request an informal hearing for reconsideration
of the due diligence determination. Petitioners are likely to include
persons or organizations having knowledge that FDA's marketing
permission for that product was not actively pursued throughout the
regulatory review period. The information collection for which an
extension of approval is being sought is the use of the statutorily
created due diligence petition.
Since 1992, nine requests for revision of the regulatory review
period have been submitted under Sec. 60.24. Four regulatory review
periods have been altered. Two due diligence petitions have been
submitted to FDA under Sec. 60.30. There have been no requests for
hearings under Sec. 60.40 regarding the decisions on such petitions.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:
Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Annual Frequency Total Annual Hours per
21 CFR Section Respondents per Response Responses Response Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.24(a) 9 1 9 100 900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.30 2 0 2 50 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.40 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
information.
Dated: June 28, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-13269 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S