Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical Current Good Manufacturing Practice, 3729-3731 [E8-1004]
Download as PDF
3729
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
Proposed Information Collection
Activity; Comment Request; Proposed
Projects
Title: Data Collection Plan for the
Customer Satisfaction Evaluation of
Child Welfare Information Gateway.
OMB No.: 0970–0303.
Description: The National
Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and
Neglect Information (NCCAN) and the
National Adoption Information
Clearinghouse (NAIC) received OMB
approval to collect data for a customer
satisfaction evaluation under OMB
control number 0870–0303. On June 20,
2006, NCCAN and NAIC were
consolidated into Child Welfare
Information Gateway (CWIG). In
response to this consolidation, the
proposed information collection
activities include revisions to the
Customer Satisfaction Evaluation
approved under OMB control number
0970–0303.
CWIG is a service of the Children’s
Bureau, a component within the
Administration for Children and
Families, and CWIG is dedicated to the
mission of connecting professionals and
concerned citizens to information on
programs, research, legislation, and
statistics regarding the safety,
permanency, and well-being of children
and families. CWIG’s main functions are
identifying information needs, locating
and acquiring information, creating
information, organizing and storing
information, disseminating information,
and facilitating information exchange
among professionals and concerned
citizens. A number of vehicles are
employed to accomplish these activities,
including, but not limited to, website
hosting, discussions with customers,
and dissemination of publications (both
print and electronic).
The Customer Satisfaction Evaluation
was initiated in response to Executive
Order 12862 issued on September 11,
1993. The Order calls for putting
customers first and striving for a
customer-driven government that
matches or exceeds the best service
available in the private sector. To that
end, CWIG’s evaluation is designed to
better understand the kind and quality
of services customers want, as well as
customers’ level of satisfaction with
existing services. The proposed data
collection activities for the evaluation
include customer satisfaction surveys,
customer comment cards, selected
publication surveys, and focus groups.
Respondents: Child Welfare
Information Gateway customers.
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of respondents
Instrument
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Customer Satisfaction Survey—Web Site Delivery .......................................
Customer Satisfaction Survey—E-mail Delivery ...........................................
Customer Satisfaction Survey—Print Delivery ..............................................
Customer Satisfaction Survey—Phone Delivery ...........................................
Comment Card ..............................................................................................
Selected Publications Survey ........................................................................
Focus Group Guide .......................................................................................
Estimated total annual burden hours:
174.1.
In compliance with the requirements
of Section 3506(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the
Administration for Children and
Families is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the
information collection described above.
Copies of the proposed collection of
information can be obtained and
comments may be forwarded by writing
to the Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Administration,
Office of Information Services, 370
L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington,
DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance
Officer. E-mail address:
infocollection@acf.hhs.gov. All requests
should be identified by the title of the
information collection.
The Department specifically requests
comments on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
1,545
29
31
171
264
85
28
proposed collection of information; (c)
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted
within 30 days of this publication.
Dated: January 15, 2008.
Janean Chambers,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 08–186 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–M
PO 00000
Number of
responses
per survey
respondent
Average
burden hours
per survey
response
16
14
14
14
3
11
16
Total burden
hours
.0048
.0048
.0048
.0063
.0048
.0048
.0625
118.7
1.9
2.1
15.1
3.8
4.5
28
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2008N–0005]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance for
Industry on Formal Dispute
Resolution: Scientific and Technical
Issues Related to Pharmaceutical
Current Good Manufacturing Practice
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
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
3730
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Notices
information, and to allow 60 days for
public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on
the proposed collection of information
resulting from the guidance to
manufacturers of veterinary and human
drugs, including human biological drug
products, on how to resolve disputes of
scientific and technical issues relating
to current good manufacturing practice
(CGMP).
DATES: Submit written or electronic
comments on the collection of
information by March 24, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic
comments on the collection of
information to: https://
www.regulations.gov. 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:
Karen L. Nelson, Office of the Chief
Information Officer (HFA–250), Food
and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–
4816.
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
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
Guidance for Industry on Formal
Dispute Resolution: Scientific and
Technical Issues Related to
Pharmaceutical Current Good
Manufacturing Practice—(OMB Control
Number 0910–0563)—Extension
The guidance is intended to provide
information to manufacturers of
veterinary and human drugs, including
human biological drug products, on
how to resolve disputes of scientific and
technical issues relating to CGMP.
Disputes related to scientific and
technical issues may arise during FDA
inspections of pharmaceutical
manufacturers to determine compliance
with CGMP requirements, or during
FDA’s assessment of corrective actions
undertaken as a result of such
inspections. The guidance provides
procedures that encourage open and
prompt discussion of disputes and lead
to their resolution. The guidance
describes procedures for raising such
disputes to the Office of Regulatory
Affairs (ORA) and center levels and for
requesting review by the dispute
resolution (DR) Panel (the DR Panel).
When a scientific or technical issue
arises during an FDA inspection, the
manufacturer should initially attempt to
reach agreement on the issue informally
with the investigator. Certain scientific
or technical issues may be too complex
or time-consuming to resolve during the
inspection. If resolution of a scientific or
technical issue is not accomplished
through informal mechanisms prior to
the issuance of Form FDA 483, the
manufacturer can formally request DR
and can use the formal two-tiered DR
process described in the guidance.
Tier-one of the formal DR process
involves scientific or technical issues
raised by a manufacturer to the ORA
and center levels. If a manufacturer
disagrees with the tier-one decision, tier
two of the formal DR process would
then be available for appealing that
decision to the DR Panel.
The written request for formal DR to
the appropriate ORA unit should be
made within 30 days of the completion
of an inspection, and should include all
supporting documentation and
arguments for review, as described
below. The written request for formal
DR to the DR Panel should be made
within 60 days of receipt of the tier-one
decision, and should include all
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
supporting documentation and
arguments, as described in the following
paragraphs.
All requests for formal DR should be
in writing and include adequate
information to explain the nature of the
dispute and to allow FDA to act quickly
and efficiently. Each request should be
sent to the appropriate address listed in
the guidance and include the following:
• Cover sheet that clearly identifies
the submission as either a request for
tier-one DR or a request for tier-two DR;
• Name and address of manufacturer
inspected (from Form FDA 483);
• Date of inspection (from Form FDA
483);
• Date the Form FDA 483 issued
(from Form FDA 483);
• FEI Number, if available (from Form
FDA 483);
• FDA employee names and titles that
conducted inspection (from Form FDA
483);
• Office responsible for the
inspection, e.g., district office (from
Form FDA 483);
• Application number if the
inspection was a preapproval
inspection;
• Comprehensive statement of each
issue to be resolved:
• Identify the observation in dispute.
» Clearly present the manufacturer’s
scientific position or rationale
concerning the issue under dispute
with any supporting data.
» State the steps that have been taken
to resolve the dispute, including
any informal DR that may have
occurred before the issuance of
Form FDA 483.
» Identify possible solutions.
» State expected outcome.
• Name, title, telephone and fax
number, and e-mail address (as
available) of manufacturer contact.
The guidance was part of the FDA
initiative ‘‘Pharmaceutical cGMPs for
the 21st Century: A Risk-Based
Approach,’’ which was announced in
August 2002. The initiative focuses on
FDA’s current CGMP program and
covers the manufacture of veterinary
and human drugs, including human
biological drug products. The agency
formed the Dispute Resolution Working
Group comprising representatives from
ORA, the Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research (CDER), the Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research
(CBER), and the Center for Veterinary
Medicine (CVM). The working group
met weekly on issues related to the DR
process and met with stakeholders in
December 2002 to seek their input.
The guidance was initiated in
response to industry’s request for a
formal DR process to resolve differences
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
3731
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 22, 2008 / Notices
related to scientific and technical issues
that arise between investigators and
pharmaceutical manufacturers during
FDA inspections of foreign and
domestic manufacturers. In addition to
encouraging manufacturers to use
currently available DR processes, the
guidance describes the formal twotiered DR process explained above. The
guidance also covers the following
topics.
• The suitability of certain issues for
the formal DR process, including
examples of some issues with a
discussion of their appropriateness for
the DR process.
• Instructions on how to submit
requests for formal DR and a list of the
supporting information that should
accompany these requests.
• Public availability of decisions
reached during the dispute resolution
process to promote consistent
application and interpretation of drug
quality-related regulations.
Description of Respondents:
Pharmaceutical manufacturers of
veterinary and human drug products
and human biological drug products.
Burden Estimate: Based on the
number of requests for tier-one and tiertwo DR received by FDA since the
guidance published in January 2006,
FDA estimates that approximately two
manufacturers will submit
approximately two requests annually for
a tier-one DR, and that there will be one
appeal of these requests to the DR Panel
(request for tier-two DR). FDA estimates
that it will take manufacturers
approximately 30 hours to prepare and
submit each request for a tier-one DR,
and approximately 8 hours to prepare
and submit each request for a tier-two
DR. Table 1 of this document provides
an estimate of the annual reporting
burden for requests for tier-one and tiertwo DRs.
TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN1
No. of
Respondents
Annual Frequency
per Response
Total Annual
Responses
Hours per
Response
Total Hours
Requests for Tier-One DR
2
1
2
30
60
Requests for Tier-Two DR
1
1
1
8
8
TOTAL
68
1 There
are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
Please note that on January 15, 2008,
the FDA Web site transitioned to the
Federal Dockets Management System
(FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide,
electronic docket management system.
Electronic submissions will be accepted
by FDA through the FDMS only.
Dated: January 14, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8–1004 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2007N–0241]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Announcement of Office of
Management and Budget Approval;
Institutional Review Boards
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
ACTION:
and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–827–
4816.
In the
Federal Register of October 11, 2007 (72
FR 57948), the agency announced that
the proposed information collection had
been submitted to OMB for review and
clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned
OMB control number 0910–0130. The
approval expires on December 31, 2010.
A copy of the supporting statement for
this information collection is available
on the Internet at https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: January 14, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8–1005 Filed 1–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
Notice.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing
that a collection of information entitled
‘‘Institutional Review Boards’’ has been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen L. Nelson, Office of the Chief
Information Officer (HFA–250), Food
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:38 Jan 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2004N–0408]
Regulatory Site Visit Training Program
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research
(CBER) is reannouncing the invitation
for participation in its Regulatory Site
Visit Training Program (RSVP). This
training program is intended to give
CBER regulatory review, compliance,
and other relevant staff an opportunity
to visit biologics facilities. These visits
are intended to allow CBER staff to
directly observe routine manufacturing
practices and to give CBER staff a better
understanding of the biologics industry,
including its challenges and operations.
The purpose of this notice is to invite
biologics facilities to contact CBER for
more information if they are interested
in participating in this program.
DATES: Submit a written or electronic
request for participation in this program
by February 21, 2008. The request
should include a description of your
facility relative to products regulated by
CBER. Please specify the physical
address of the site(s) you are offering.
Facilities should also be advised that if
a site visit involves a separate physical
location of another firm under contract
to the applicant that this site must be in
agreement to participate in the program,
as well as have a satisfactory
compliance history.
ADDRESSES: If your biologics facility is
interested in offering a site visit or
learning more about this training
opportunity for CBER staff, or if your
E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM
22JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3729-3731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1004]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 2008N-0005]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Formal Dispute Resolution:
Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical Current Good
Manufacturing Practice
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
[[Page 3730]]
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the proposed collection of
information resulting from the guidance to manufacturers of veterinary
and human drugs, including human biological drug products, on how to
resolve disputes of scientific and technical issues relating to current
good manufacturing practice (CGMP).
DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by March 24, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to: https://www.regulations.gov. 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: Karen L. Nelson, Office of the Chief
Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4816.
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 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.
Guidance for Industry on Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and
Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical Current Good Manufacturing
Practice--(OMB Control Number 0910-0563)--Extension
The guidance is intended to provide information to manufacturers of
veterinary and human drugs, including human biological drug products,
on how to resolve disputes of scientific and technical issues relating
to CGMP. Disputes related to scientific and technical issues may arise
during FDA inspections of pharmaceutical manufacturers to determine
compliance with CGMP requirements, or during FDA's assessment of
corrective actions undertaken as a result of such inspections. The
guidance provides procedures that encourage open and prompt discussion
of disputes and lead to their resolution. The guidance describes
procedures for raising such disputes to the Office of Regulatory
Affairs (ORA) and center levels and for requesting review by the
dispute resolution (DR) Panel (the DR Panel).
When a scientific or technical issue arises during an FDA
inspection, the manufacturer should initially attempt to reach
agreement on the issue informally with the investigator. Certain
scientific or technical issues may be too complex or time-consuming to
resolve during the inspection. If resolution of a scientific or
technical issue is not accomplished through informal mechanisms prior
to the issuance of Form FDA 483, the manufacturer can formally request
DR and can use the formal two-tiered DR process described in the
guidance.
Tier-one of the formal DR process involves scientific or technical
issues raised by a manufacturer to the ORA and center levels. If a
manufacturer disagrees with the tier-one decision, tier two of the
formal DR process would then be available for appealing that decision
to the DR Panel.
The written request for formal DR to the appropriate ORA unit
should be made within 30 days of the completion of an inspection, and
should include all supporting documentation and arguments for review,
as described below. The written request for formal DR to the DR Panel
should be made within 60 days of receipt of the tier-one decision, and
should include all supporting documentation and arguments, as described
in the following paragraphs.
All requests for formal DR should be in writing and include
adequate information to explain the nature of the dispute and to allow
FDA to act quickly and efficiently. Each request should be sent to the
appropriate address listed in the guidance and include the following:
Cover sheet that clearly identifies the submission as
either a request for tier-one DR or a request for tier-two DR;
Name and address of manufacturer inspected (from Form FDA
483);
Date of inspection (from Form FDA 483);
Date the Form FDA 483 issued (from Form FDA 483);
FEI Number, if available (from Form FDA 483);
FDA employee names and titles that conducted inspection
(from Form FDA 483);
Office responsible for the inspection, e.g., district
office (from Form FDA 483);
Application number if the inspection was a preapproval
inspection;
Comprehensive statement of each issue to be resolved:
Identify the observation in dispute.
[ctrcir] Clearly present the manufacturer's scientific position or
rationale concerning the issue under dispute with any supporting data.
[ctrcir] State the steps that have been taken to resolve the
dispute, including any informal DR that may have occurred before the
issuance of Form FDA 483.
[ctrcir] Identify possible solutions.
[ctrcir] State expected outcome.
Name, title, telephone and fax number, and e-mail address
(as available) of manufacturer contact.
The guidance was part of the FDA initiative ``Pharmaceutical cGMPs
for the 21st Century: A Risk-Based Approach,'' which was announced in
August 2002. The initiative focuses on FDA's current CGMP program and
covers the manufacture of veterinary and human drugs, including human
biological drug products. The agency formed the Dispute Resolution
Working Group comprising representatives from ORA, the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research (CBER), and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). The
working group met weekly on issues related to the DR process and met
with stakeholders in December 2002 to seek their input.
The guidance was initiated in response to industry's request for a
formal DR process to resolve differences
[[Page 3731]]
related to scientific and technical issues that arise between
investigators and pharmaceutical manufacturers during FDA inspections
of foreign and domestic manufacturers. In addition to encouraging
manufacturers to use currently available DR processes, the guidance
describes the formal two-tiered DR process explained above. The
guidance also covers the following topics.
The suitability of certain issues for the formal DR
process, including examples of some issues with a discussion of their
appropriateness for the DR process.
Instructions on how to submit requests for formal DR and a
list of the supporting information that should accompany these
requests.
Public availability of decisions reached during the
dispute resolution process to promote consistent application and
interpretation of drug quality-related regulations.
Description of Respondents: Pharmaceutical manufacturers of
veterinary and human drug products and human biological drug products.
Burden Estimate: Based on the number of requests for tier-one and
tier-two DR received by FDA since the guidance published in January
2006, FDA estimates that approximately two manufacturers will submit
approximately two requests annually for a tier-one DR, and that there
will be one appeal of these requests to the DR Panel (request for tier-
two DR). FDA estimates that it will take manufacturers approximately 30
hours to prepare and submit each request for a tier-one DR, and
approximately 8 hours to prepare and submit each request for a tier-two
DR. Table 1 of this document provides an estimate of the annual
reporting burden for requests for tier-one and tier-two DRs.
Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Annual Frequency Total Annual Hours per
Respondents per Response Responses Response Total Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for Tier- 2 1 2 30 60
One DR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requests for Tier- 1 1 1 8 8
Two DR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ................. ................. ................. ................. 68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
information.
Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Web site transitioned
to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-
wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic submissions will
be accepted by FDA through the FDMS only.
Dated: January 14, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-1004 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S