Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Formal Dispute Resolution: Scientific and Technical Issues Related to Pharmaceutical Current Good Manufacturing Practice, 44749-44751 [E8-17577]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices
Dated: July 25, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and
Planning.
[FR Doc. E8–17566 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]
Dated: July 25, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and
Planning.
[FR Doc. E8–17576 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2008–N–0094]
[Docket No. FDA–2008–N–0047] (formerly
Docket No. 2008N–0005)
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Announcement of Office of
Management and Budget Approval;
Channels of Trade Policy for
Commodities With Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals, for Which
Tolerances Have Been Revoked,
Suspended, or Modified by the
Environmental Protection Agency
Pursuant to Dietary Risk
Considerations
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for Office of
Management and Budget Review;
Comment Request; 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
that a collection of information entitled
‘‘Channels of Trade Policy for
Commodities With Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals, for Which Tolerances Have
Been Revoked, Suspended, or Modified
by the Environmental Protection Agency
Pursuant to Dietary Risk
Considerations’’ has been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management (HFA–710), Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, 301–796–3794.
In the
Federal Register of May 16, 2008 (73 FR
28484), 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 0910–0562. The
approval expires on July 31, 2011. A
copy of the supporting statement for this
information collection is available on
the Internet at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing
that a proposed collection of
information has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Fax written comments on the
collection of information by September
2, 2008.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on
the information collection are received,
OMB recommends that written
comments be faxed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX:
202–395–6974, or e-mailed to
baguilar@omb.eop.gov. All comments
should be identified with the OMB
control number 0910–0563. Also
include the FDA docket number found
in brackets in the heading of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management (HFA–710),
Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,
301–796–3792.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA
has submitted the following proposed
collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44749
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).
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);
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
44750
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices
• 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
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 previously
in this document. 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
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
1 There
68
are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
In the Federal Register of January 22,
2008 (73 FR 3729), FDA published a 60day notice requesting public comment
on the information collection
provisions. We received one comment
in response to the January 22, 2008,
Federal Register notice. The comment
asked 3 questions about the DR process
set forth in the guidance.
First, the comment asked how many
working days are taken by the ORA and
center levels to reach a decision after
receipt of a request for tier-one DR.
FDA Response—As explained in
Section III.A of the guidance, if the ORA
unit agrees with the manufacturer, the
ORA unit will issue a written response
to the manufacturer within 30 days of
receipt of the request, noting its
agreement with the manufacturer and
resolution of the dispute. If the ORA
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
unit disagrees with the manufacturer,
the ORA unit will issue a written
response to the manufacturer generally
within 30 days of receipt of the request,
and if the ORA unit is unable to
complete its review of the request and
respond within 30 days, the ORA unit
will notify the manufacturer, explain
the reason for the delay (which may
include the need for an additional 30
days for center review), and discuss the
time frame for completing the review.
Second, the comment asked how
many working days are taken by the DR
Panel to reach a decision after receipt of
a request for tier-two DR.
FDA Response—As explained in
Section III.B of the guidance, if the DR
Panel determines that the request is
appropriate for review, it will schedule
a meeting to discuss the issue within 90
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
days. If the DR Panel agrees with the
manufacturer on the issue, the executive
secretary of the DR Panel will issue a
written response to the manufacturer
within 30 days of the meeting, noting its
agreement with the manufacturer and
resolution of the dispute. If the DR
Panel disagrees with the manufacturer
on the issue, the executive secretary of
the DR Panel will issue a written
response to the manufacturer within 30
days of the meeting, noting its decision
on the issue. If the DR Panel determines
that the request does not qualify for
review, the executive secretary of the
DR Panel will notify the manufacturer
in writing within 30 days of receipt of
the appeal. If FDA is unable to complete
its review of the request and respond
within 30 days, the executive secretary
of the DR Panel will notify the
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
44751
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 148 / Thursday, July 31, 2008 / Notices
manufacturer, explain the reasons for
the delay, and discuss the time frame for
completing the review.
Third, the comment asked whether
‘‘the manufacturing facility is
approvable or to be re-inspected’’ if the
dispute is not resolved at the end of the
tier-two DR stage.
FDA Response—As described in the
guidance, it is FDA’s intention to
resolve through the DR process all
issues raised by the manufacturer. If
FDA agrees with the manufacturer, the
Form FDA 483 that prompted the
request for formal dispute resolution
would be revised or rescinded. If FDA
disagrees with the manufacturer’s
request, the issues raised in the Form
FDA 483 stand and FDA would expect
compliance with the applicable CGMP
requirements, which FDA may verify by
re-inspection.
Dated: July 25, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and
Planning.
[FR Doc. E8–17577 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Proposed Data Collection; Comment
Request; Public Health Service; The
National Survey of Physician Attitudes
Regarding the Care of Cancer
Survivors (SPARCCS) (NCI)
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
provisions of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
for opportunity for public comments on
proposed data collection projects, the
National Institutes of Health (NIH),
National Cancer Institute (NCI) will
publish periodic summaries of proposed
projects to be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval.
Proposed Collection: Title: The
National Survey of Physician Attitudes
Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors
(SPARCCS); Type of Information
Collection Request: NEW; Need and Use
of Information Collection: The purpose
of SPARCCS is to identify the beliefs,
knowledge, attitudes, and practices of
primary care physicians and cancer
specialists regarding the components
described by the Institute of Medicine’s
(IOM) 2005 report that described the
essential components of cancer
survivorship care within a health care
delivery system. These data will inform
the process of standardization of
survivorship care practices; augment the
data collected in other cancer
survivorship studies such as the Cancer
Care Outcomes Research and
Surveillance Consortium (CanCORS),
and the Cancer Research Network; and
monitor the progress made toward
achieving NCI strategic goals of
improving the quality of cancer care
across the cancer control continuum.
Two questionnaires, one sent to primary
care physicians and one sent to medical
oncologists, will be administered by
mail to a randomly selected national
sample of 2,200 physicians. Study
participants will be 1,100 practicing
physicians who are family practitioners,
general internists, and obstetrician/
gynecologists and 1,100 medical
oncologists. Frequency of Response:
Once. Affected Public: Individuals and
Businesses. Type of Respondents:
Primary care and medical oncology
physicians practicing in a non-federal
facility. The annual reporting burden is
estimated at 903 hours as shown in
Table 1. The total burden hours is
estimated at 1,808 hours over the two
year field period of the study. There are
no capital, operating or maintenance
costs to report.
TABLE 1—ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS
Number of
respondents
Survey
Receptionists .....................................
Family Practice .................................
General Internists ..............................
OB/GYNs ..........................................
Oncologists .......................................
Receptionists & Administrators .........
Screener ...........................................
PCP Instrument ................................
PCP Instrument ................................
PCP Instrument ................................
Oncology Instrument ........................
Follow-Up Phone Calls ....................
...........................................................
4,236
Average time
per response
(minutes/hour)
Annual burden
hours
1
1
1
1
1
4
5/60
20/60
20/60
20/60
20/60
5/60
169
83
83
17
183
368
........................
........................
903
Frequency of
response
2,033
250
250
50
550
1,103
Total ...........................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Type of respondents
Request for Comments: Written
comments and/or suggestions from the
public and affected agencies are invited
on one or more of the following points:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the
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 proposed collection
of information; (c) ways to enhance 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:53 Jul 30, 2008
Jkt 214001
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Send comments to Arnold Potosky,
PhD, Health Services and Economics,
Branch Applied Research Program,
Division of Cancer Control and
Population Sciences, National Cancer
Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd., EPN
Room 4005, Bethesda, MD 20892–7344
Telephone: (301) 496–5662; e-mail:
potoskya@mail.nih.gov.
Comments Due Date: Comments
regarding this information collection are
best assured of having their full effect if
received within 60 days of the date of
this publication.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: July 21, 2008.
Vivian Horovitch-Kelley,
NCI Project Clearance Liaison Office,
National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. E8–17505 Filed 7–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Evaluation of Risk Factors Associated
With Viral Infections in Chinese Donors:
a. Risk factors associated with HIV
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44749-44751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17577]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0047] (formerly Docket No. 2008N-0005)
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; 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 that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
September 2, 2008.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX: 202-395-6974, or e-mailed to baguilar@omb.eop.gov. All comments
should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0563. Also
include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-3792.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.
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 Current Good Manufacturing Practice (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);
[[Page 44750]]
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 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 previously in this document. 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-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.
In the Federal Register of January 22, 2008 (73 FR 3729), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information
collection provisions. We received one comment in response to the
January 22, 2008, Federal Register notice. The comment asked 3
questions about the DR process set forth in the guidance.
First, the comment asked how many working days are taken by the ORA
and center levels to reach a decision after receipt of a request for
tier-one DR.
FDA Response--As explained in Section III.A of the guidance, if the
ORA unit agrees with the manufacturer, the ORA unit will issue a
written response to the manufacturer within 30 days of receipt of the
request, noting its agreement with the manufacturer and resolution of
the dispute. If the ORA unit disagrees with the manufacturer, the ORA
unit will issue a written response to the manufacturer generally within
30 days of receipt of the request, and if the ORA unit is unable to
complete its review of the request and respond within 30 days, the ORA
unit will notify the manufacturer, explain the reason for the delay
(which may include the need for an additional 30 days for center
review), and discuss the time frame for completing the review.
Second, the comment asked how many working days are taken by the DR
Panel to reach a decision after receipt of a request for tier-two DR.
FDA Response--As explained in Section III.B of the guidance, if the
DR Panel determines that the request is appropriate for review, it will
schedule a meeting to discuss the issue within 90 days. If the DR Panel
agrees with the manufacturer on the issue, the executive secretary of
the DR Panel will issue a written response to the manufacturer within
30 days of the meeting, noting its agreement with the manufacturer and
resolution of the dispute. If the DR Panel disagrees with the
manufacturer on the issue, the executive secretary of the DR Panel will
issue a written response to the manufacturer within 30 days of the
meeting, noting its decision on the issue. If the DR Panel determines
that the request does not qualify for review, the executive secretary
of the DR Panel will notify the manufacturer in writing within 30 days
of receipt of the appeal. If FDA is unable to complete its review of
the request and respond within 30 days, the executive secretary of the
DR Panel will notify the
[[Page 44751]]
manufacturer, explain the reasons for the delay, and discuss the time
frame for completing the review.
Third, the comment asked whether ``the manufacturing facility is
approvable or to be re-inspected'' if the dispute is not resolved at
the end of the tier-two DR stage.
FDA Response--As described in the guidance, it is FDA's intention
to resolve through the DR process all issues raised by the
manufacturer. If FDA agrees with the manufacturer, the Form FDA 483
that prompted the request for formal dispute resolution would be
revised or rescinded. If FDA disagrees with the manufacturer's request,
the issues raised in the Form FDA 483 stand and FDA would expect
compliance with the applicable CGMP requirements, which FDA may verify
by re-inspection.
Dated: July 25, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-17577 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S