Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Regulation of Carcinogenic Compounds in Food-Producing Animals, 79320-79323 [2010-31887]
Download as PDF
79320
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
or Principal Avionics Inspector, as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector,
your local Flight Standards District Office.
5. On the same page, in the same
column, after footnote 164, add footnote
165 to read as follows:
Related Information
(j) For more information about this AD,
contact Georgios Roussos, Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch,
ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone
(425) 917–6482; fax (425) 917–6590.
(k) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone
206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–
5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
425–227–1221.
165 See Public Law 111–203 (adding
Exchange Act Section 12(n)(5)(D)(i)).
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
December 10, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
6. On page 77347, in the second
column, in the tenth line from the
bottom of the page, ‘‘conflict’’ should
read ‘‘conflicts’’.
7. On page 77356, in the third
column, in thirty-first line,
‘‘systematically’’ should read
‘‘systemically’’.
8. On the same page, in the same line
of the same column, ‘‘Therefor’’ should
read ‘‘Therefore’’.
§ 249.1500
[Corrected]
9. On page 77375, in § 249.1500,
before the first line in the first column,
insert the following text:
EXHIBITS—BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
13. List as Exhibit A any person as defined
in Section 3(a)(9) of the
10. On the same page, in the second
column, in the fifth, eleventh, and
fifteenth lines from the bottom of the
page, ‘‘l5’’ should read ‘‘15’’.
[FR Doc. 2010–31828 Filed 12–17–10; 8:45 am]
[FR Doc. C1–2010–29719 Filed 12–17–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
17 CFR Parts 240 and 249
Food and Drug Administration
[Release No. 34–63347; File No. S7–35–10]
21 CFR Part 500
RIN 3235–AK79
[Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0612]
Security-Based Swap Data Repository
Registration, Duties, and Core
Principles
Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related
Products; Regulation of Carcinogenic
Compounds in Food-Producing
Animals
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Correction
In proposed rule document 2010–
29719 beginning on page 77306 in the
issue of December 10, 2010, make the
following corrections:
1. On page 77320, in the third
column, footnote 74, in the fourth line,
‘‘recordkeeping’’ should read ‘‘record
keeping’’.
2. On page 77321, in the second
column, below the heading Request for
Comment, in the fifth bulleted
paragraph, in the tenth line, ‘‘requiring’’
should read ‘‘require’’.
3. On page 77324, in the third
column, footnote 90, in the fifth line,
‘‘recordkeeping’’ should read ‘‘record
keeping’’.
4. On page 77338, the last line of text
in the third column, prior to footnote
164 on the page, should read
‘‘information maintained by the
SDR,165’’.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Dec 17, 2010
Jkt 223001
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is proposing to
amend its regulations regarding
compounds of carcinogenic concern
used in food-producing animals.
Specifically, the Agency is clarifying the
definition of ‘‘So’’ and revising the
definition of ‘‘Sm’’ so that it conforms to
the clarified definition of So. Other
clarifying and conforming changes are
also being made.
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments on the proposed rule
by March 7, 2011. Submit comments on
information collection issues under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by
January 19, 2011 (see the ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995’’ section of this
document).
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No. FDA–2010–N–
0612, by any of the following methods,
except that comments on information
collection issues under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 must be
submitted to the Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) (see the ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995’’ section of this
document).
ADDRESSES:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the
following ways:
• Fax: 301–827–6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions):
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Agency name and
Docket No. and Regulatory Information
Number (RIN) (if a RIN number has been
assigned) for this rulemaking. All
comments received may be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
additional information on submitting
comments, see the ‘‘Comments’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the
heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Greenlees, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV–100), Food and Drug
Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–6975.
e-mail: kevin.greenlees@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C Act) contains three
anticancer, or Delaney, clauses: Sections
409(c)(3)(A), 512(d)(1)(I), and
721(b)(5)(B)(i) (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A),
360b(d)(1)(I), and 379e(b)(5)(B)(i)),
pertaining to food additives, new animal
drugs, and color additives, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
These clauses prohibit approval of
substances that have been shown to
induce cancer in man or animals.
However, each clause contains an
exception, termed the ‘‘Diethylstilbestrol
(DES) Proviso,’’ that permits
administration of such substances to
food-producing animals where: (1) The
food additive, color additive, or new
animal drug will not adversely affect the
animal; and (2) no residue of the food
additive, color additive, or new animal
drug will be found in any edible portion
of that animal by a method of
examination prescribed or approved by
the Secretary of Health and Human
Services by regulation. The regulations
under part 500 (21 CFR part 500),
subpart E entitled ‘‘Regulation of
Carcinogenic Compounds Used in FoodProducing Animals,’’ implement the
DES Proviso. To elaborate on how to
determine that there is no residue, and
thus demonstrate that the second prong
of the DES Proviso has been satisfied,
the regulations define several terms,
including So and Sm.
So is currently defined as the
concentration of the compound of
carcinogenic concern in the total diet of
test animals that corresponds to a
maximum lifetime risk of cancer to the
test animals of 1 in 1 million, and is
calculated from tumor data of the cancer
bioassays using a statistical
extrapolation procedure. The definition
of So also provides that FDA will
assume that the So corresponds to the
concentration of residue of carcinogenic
concern in the total human diet that
represents no significant increase in the
risk of cancer to people. The
concentration, derived from the So, of
residues of carcinogenic concern in a
specific edible tissue is termed the Sm.
Sponsors are required to submit to FDA
a regulatory analytical method that is an
aggregate of all experimental procedures
for measuring and confirming the
presence of the marker residue of the
sponsored compound in the target tissue
of the target animal. FDA can be assured
that there is no residue of carcinogenic
concern when no residue of the
compound is detectable (that is, the
marker residue is below the limit of
detection) using the approved regulatory
analytical method.1 A marker residue is
selected whose concentration is in a
known relationship to the concentration
of the residue of carcinogenic concern
in the last tissue to deplete to its Sm.
This tissue is known as the target tissue
and the concentration of the marker
1 The submission of such a method is approved
as a collection of information under Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 0910–
0032.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Dec 17, 2010
Jkt 223001
residues is known as the Rm. The limit
of detection of the approved regulatory
analytical method must be capable of
measuring the selected marker residue
at the Rm in the selected target tissue.
When residues of carcinogenic concern
are below the Rm in the target tissue as
measured by the approved regulatory
analytical method, the residues of
carcinogenic concern in target tissue
and all other edible tissues are below
their respective Sm and therefore
consumption of tissues containing these
residues would not exceed the So. The
detection of the marker residue in the
target tissue below the Rm by the
approved regulatory analytical method
can be taken as confirmation that the
residue of carcinogenic concern does
not exceed Sm in each of the edible
tissues and, therefore, that the residue of
carcinogenic concern in the diet of
people does not exceed So. However,
any detectable concentration of the
marker residue by the approved
regulatory analytical method, even if
below the Rm, fails to satisfy the
statutory requirements of the DES
Proviso. The detection of any
concentration would mean that the
second prong of the DES Proviso has not
been satisfied because it has not been
shown that no residue of the substance
is present in any edible portion of the
animal at issue.
As described previously, the approach
for evaluating compounds of
carcinogenic concern currently set forth
in § 500.84 utilizes a statistical
extrapolation procedure that calculates
a concentration of residue of
carcinogenic concern that corresponds
to a maximum lifetime risk to the test
animal of 1 in 1 million. In addition, to
provide flexibility, § 500.90 permits the
use of alternative procedures to satisfy
the DES Proviso, when the person
requesting the use of alternative
procedures clearly sets forth the reasons
why the alternative procedures will
provide a basis for concluding that
approval of the compound satisfies the
requirements of the Delaney Clause
provisions of the FD&C Act, including
the DES Proviso.
In recent years, FDA has, at times,
been asked to consider allowing the use
of alternative procedures to satisfy the
DES Proviso. Some of these proposed
alternative procedures did not rely on a
statistical extrapolation of the data to a
1 in 1 million risk of cancer to test
animals, but nevertheless the So, Sm, Rm,
and regulatory analytical method
resulting from these alternative
approaches would be expected to ensure
that consumption of food derived from
animals treated with the carcinogenic
new animal drug would result in no
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
79321
significant increase in the risk of cancer
to people. In the course of considering
these proposed alternative procedures,
FDA has also considered whether the
term So, as currently defined,
adequately addresses concentrations of
residues of carcinogenic concern in the
total human diet that are found to
represent no significant increase in the
risk of cancer to people, but which are
not derived from a statistical
extrapolation of data to a 1 in 1 million
risk of cancer to test animals.
The current definition in § 500.82
primarily defines So as the
concentration of the compound of
carcinogenic concern that corresponds
to the 1 in 1 million lifetime risk of
cancer to the test animals and
secondarily as corresponding to the
concentration of residue of carcinogenic
concern in the total human diet that
represents no significant increase in a
risk of cancer to people. Therefore, as
presently constructed, the definition of
So is not primarily defined as the
concentration of residues of
carcinogenic concern in the total human
diet derived from procedures not
involving the extrapolation of data to a
1 in 1 million risk of cancer to the test
animals. Thus, were FDA to allow the
use of alternative procedures that do not
rely on a statistical extrapolation of the
data to a 1 in 1 million risk of cancer
to test animals to satisfy the DES
Proviso, it would have to develop a new
set of terminology to describe the Center
for Veterinary Medicine’s (CVM’s)
approach for evaluating these
compounds of carcinogenic concern.
The proposed changes to the definitions
of So and Sm are intended to enable
CVM to consider allowing the use of
alternative procedures to satisfy the DES
Proviso without requiring the
development of a second, alternative,
set of terminology.
FDA believes that a careful reading of
the December 31, 1987, final rule (52 FR
49572 at 49586), suggests that an
emphasis on no significant increase in
the risk of cancer to the human
consumer, rather than on the specific 1
in 1 million risk of cancer to the test
animals approach, reflects the original
intent of the regulation. (See, e.g., 52 FR
49572 at 49575 and 49582.) FDA has
concluded that the proposed
redefinition of So is consistent with this
original intent of the regulation.
For clarification purposes, FDA is also
proposing a redefinition of Sm in
§ 500.82 to conform this definition with
the redefinition of So as described
previously. Specifically, Sm would mean
the concentration of a residue of
carcinogenic concern in a specific
edible tissue corresponding to no
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
79322
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
significant increase in the risk of cancer
to the human consumer. However, the
definition of Sm would also retain the
existing reference to a maximum
lifetime risk of cancer in the test
animals of 1 in 1 million.
Finally, FDA is proposing to amend
§ 500.84(c) to clarify that for each
compound that is regulated as a
carcinogen, FDA will analyze the data
submitted using either a statistical
extrapolation procedure as provided in
§ 500.84(c)(1) or an alternate approach
as provided in § 500.90.
FDA’s goal in these changes is to
clarify that the terms So and Sm apply
even when the alternative procedures
provided for in § 500.90 are used to
satisfy the DES Proviso, not to alter the
usual process for approving compounds
of carcinogenic concern. As such, in the
absence of a waiver of the requirements
of § 500.84(c)(1), FDA maintains that
sponsors must meet the conditions for
approval set for in § 500.84, including
the default approach of a 1 in 1 million
lifetime risk to the test animal.
II. Legal Authority
This rule, if finalized, would amend
part 500, subpart E in a manner
consistent with the Agency’s current
understanding and application of these
provisions. FDA was given authority in
21 U.S.C. 348, 360b, and 379e to
establish methods of examination to
determine that no residue of a food
additive, new animal drug, or color
additive of carcinogenic concern would
be found in any edible portion of
animals after slaughter or in any food
yielded by or derived from living
animals. Furthermore, FDA has the
authority to take the actions proposed in
this rule under various statutory
provisions. These provisions include 21
U.S.C. 321, 331, 348, 360b, 371, and
379e.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.30(h) 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.
IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the
proposed rule under Executive Order
12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4). Executive Order 12866 directs
Agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Dec 17, 2010
Jkt 223001
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). The
Agency believes that this proposed rule
is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by the Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires Agencies to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any
significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because the proposed rule
would not impose any direct or indirect
costs on industry or government
through the changes to the definitions of
So and Sm and to § 500.84(c), but rather
would clarify these definitions to enable
FDA to consider using alternative
procedures to satisfy the DES Proviso
without requiring the development of a
second, alternative, set of terminology,
the Agency proposes to certify 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 proposing ‘‘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 $135 million, using the
most current (2009) Implicit Price
Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.
FDA does not expect this proposed rule
to result in any 1-year expenditure that
would meet or exceed this amount.
V. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this proposed rule
in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA
has determined that the proposed rule,
if finalized, would not contain policies
that would 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 tentatively
concludes that the proposed 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.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule refers to
previously approved collections of
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information found in FDA regulations.
These collections of information are
subject to review by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of
information in § 500.84 have been
approved under OMB Control No. 0910–
0032.
VII. Request for Comments
FDA requests comments to the
proposed revisions to the definitions of
Sm and So currently found in § 500.82(b)
and to the proposed conforming changes
to § 500.84(c). Specifically, the Agency
requests that comments focus on the
proposal to emphasize ‘‘no significant
increase in the risk of cancer to the
human consumer,’’ rather than the more
specific ‘‘1 in 1 million risk of cancer to
the test animals’’ approach currently
found in the definitions of Sm and So.
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written
comments regarding this document. It is
only necessary to send one set of
comments. It is no longer necessary to
send two copies of mailed comments.
Identify comments with the docket
number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
VIII. Proposed Effective Date
The Agency is proposing that any
final rule that may issue based upon this
proposed rule become effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 500
Animal drugs, Animal feeds, Cancer,
Labeling, Packaging and containers,
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s).
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that
21 CFR part 500 be amended as follows:
PART 500—GENERAL
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 500 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 343,
348, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
2. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Sm’’ and
‘‘So’’ in paragraph (b) of § 500.82 to read
as follows:
§ 500.82
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Sm means the concentration of a
residue of carcinogenic concern in a
specific edible tissue corresponding to
no significant increase in the risk of
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules
cancer to the human consumer. For the
purpose of § 500.84(c)(1), FDA will
assume that this Sm will correspond to
the concentration of residue in a
specific edible tissue that corresponds
to a maximum lifetime risk of cancer in
the test animals of 1 in 1 million.
So means the concentration of a
residue of carcinogenic concern in the
total human diet that represents no
significant increase in the risk of cancer
to the human consumer. For the
purpose of § 500.84(c)(1), FDA will
assume that this So will correspond to
the concentration of test compound in
the total diet of test animals that
corresponds to a maximum lifetime risk
of cancer in the test animals of 1 in 1
million.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (c) of § 500.84 to read as
follows:
§ 500.84 Conditions for approval of the
sponsored compound.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) For each sponsored compound that
FDA decides should be regulated as a
carcinogen, FDA will either analyze the
data from the bioassays using a
statistical extrapolation procedure as
outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section or evaluate an alternate
procedure proposed by the sponsor as
provided in § 500.90. In either case,
paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this
section apply.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 15, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010–31887 Filed 12–17–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 63
RIN 2900–AN73
Health Care for Homeless Veterans
Program
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
This proposed rule would
establish regulations for contracting
with community-based treatment
facilities in the Health Care for
Homeless Veterans (HCHV) program of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
It would formalize VA’s policies and
procedures in connection with this
program, which is designed to assist
certain homeless veterans in obtaining
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:06 Dec 17, 2010
Jkt 223001
treatment from non-VA communitybased providers. It would also clarify
that veterans with substance use
disorders may qualify for the program.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule,
including comments on the information
collection provisions, must be received
on or before February 18, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted through https://
www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand
delivery to the Director, Regulations
Management (02REG), Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave.,
NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC
20420; or by fax to 202–273–9026.
Comments should indicate that they are
submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–
AN73, Health Care for Homeless
Veterans Program.’’ Copies of comments
received will be available for public
inspection in the Office of Regulation
Policy and Management, Room 1063B,
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday (except
holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902
(this is not a toll-free number) for an
appointment. In addition, during the
comment period, comments may be
viewed online through the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) at
https://www.Regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Hallett, Healthcare for Homeless
Veterans Manager, c/o Bedford VA
Medical Center, 200 Springs Road, Bldg.
12, Bedford, MA 01730; (781) 687–3187
(this is not a toll free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
HCHV program is authorized by 38
U.S.C. 2031, under which VA may
provide outreach as well as ‘‘care,
treatment, and rehabilitative services
(directly or by contract in communitybased treatment facilities, including
halfway houses)’’ to ‘‘veterans suffering
from serious mental illness, including
veterans who are homeless.’’ One of
VA’s national priorities is a renewed
effort to end homelessness for veterans.
For this reason, we are proposing to
establish regulations that are consistent
with the current administration of this
program.
The primary mission of the HCHV
program is to use outreach efforts to
contact and engage veterans who are
homeless and suffering from serious
mental illness or a substance use
disorder. Many of the veterans for
whom the HCHV program is designed
have not previously used VA medical
services or been enrolled in the VA
health care system.
Through the HCHV program, VA
identifies homeless veterans with
serious mental illness and/or substance
use disorder, usually through medical
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
79323
intervention, and offers communitybased care to those whose conditions
are determined, clinically, to be
managed sufficiently that the
individuals can participate in such care.
We have assisted homeless veterans
with substance use disorders through
this program because, based on our
practical understanding and experience,
the vast majority of homeless veterans
have substance use disorders. Treating
substance use as a mental disorder is
consistent with the generally accepted
‘‘disease model’’ of alcoholism and drug
addiction treatment, as well as the
modern use of medical intervention to
treat the condition. We believe that if a
substance use disorder is a contributing
cause of homelessness, then that
disorder is serious; therefore, it is
consistent to include such veterans in a
program designed for ‘‘veterans suffering
from serious mental illness, including
veterans who are homeless.’’ 38 U.S.C.
2031(a).
Veterans who are identified and who
choose to participate in this form of care
as part of their treatment plan are then
referred by VA to an appropriate nonVA community-based provider. In some
cases, VA will continue to actively
medically manage the veteran’s
condition, while in other cases a VA
clinician may determine that a veteran
can be sufficiently managed through
utilization of non-medical resources,
such as 12-step programs.
To provide the community-based
care, VA contracts, via the HCHV
program, with non-VA communitybased providers, such as halfway
houses, to provide to these veterans
housing and mental health and/or
substance use disorder treatment. VA
provides per diem payments to these
non-VA community-based providers for
the services provided to veterans.
Service provision within these contracts
is typically short-term, because during
their stay veteran-participants are
connected with other resources
designed to provide longer-term
housing. These contracts, and the per
diem payment, are governed by the
Federal Acquisition Regulations, and
the VA supplements thereto contained
in the Veterans Affairs Acquisition
Regulations at chapter 8 of title 48, CFR.
These are the rules that specifically
govern requirements exclusive to VA
contracting actions.
We propose to establish a new 38 CFR
part 63 for the HCHV program because
the program is unique and the proposed
rule would not apply to therapeutic
housing or other VA programs designed
to end homelessness. The primary
purposes of this rulemaking are to
establish eligibility criteria for veterans
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79320-79323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31887]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 500
[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0612]
Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Regulation of
Carcinogenic Compounds in Food-Producing Animals
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend
its regulations regarding compounds of carcinogenic concern used in
food-producing animals. Specifically, the Agency is clarifying the
definition of ``So'' and revising the definition of
``Sm'' so that it conforms to the clarified definition of
So. Other clarifying and conforming changes are also being
made.
DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed
rule by March 7, 2011. Submit comments on information collection issues
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by January 19, 2011 (see the
``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' section of this document).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2010-
N-0612, by any of the following methods, except that comments on
information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
must be submitted to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) (see the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995'' section of this document).
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
Fax: 301-827-6870.
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and Docket No. and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) (if a RIN number
has been assigned) for this rulemaking. All comments received may be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For additional information on submitting
comments, see the ``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Greenlees, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-6975. e-mail: kevin.greenlees@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) contains
three anticancer, or Delaney, clauses: Sections 409(c)(3)(A),
512(d)(1)(I), and 721(b)(5)(B)(i) (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A),
360b(d)(1)(I), and 379e(b)(5)(B)(i)), pertaining to food additives, new
animal drugs, and color additives, respectively.
[[Page 79321]]
These clauses prohibit approval of substances that have been shown to
induce cancer in man or animals. However, each clause contains an
exception, termed the ``Diethylstilbestrol (DES) Proviso,'' that
permits administration of such substances to food-producing animals
where: (1) The food additive, color additive, or new animal drug will
not adversely affect the animal; and (2) no residue of the food
additive, color additive, or new animal drug will be found in any
edible portion of that animal by a method of examination prescribed or
approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation.
The regulations under part 500 (21 CFR part 500), subpart E entitled
``Regulation of Carcinogenic Compounds Used in Food-Producing
Animals,'' implement the DES Proviso. To elaborate on how to determine
that there is no residue, and thus demonstrate that the second prong of
the DES Proviso has been satisfied, the regulations define several
terms, including So and Sm.
So is currently defined as the concentration of the
compound of carcinogenic concern in the total diet of test animals that
corresponds to a maximum lifetime risk of cancer to the test animals of
1 in 1 million, and is calculated from tumor data of the cancer
bioassays using a statistical extrapolation procedure. The definition
of So also provides that FDA will assume that the
So corresponds to the concentration of residue of
carcinogenic concern in the total human diet that represents no
significant increase in the risk of cancer to people. The
concentration, derived from the So, of residues of
carcinogenic concern in a specific edible tissue is termed the
Sm. Sponsors are required to submit to FDA a regulatory
analytical method that is an aggregate of all experimental procedures
for measuring and confirming the presence of the marker residue of the
sponsored compound in the target tissue of the target animal. FDA can
be assured that there is no residue of carcinogenic concern when no
residue of the compound is detectable (that is, the marker residue is
below the limit of detection) using the approved regulatory analytical
method.\1\ A marker residue is selected whose concentration is in a
known relationship to the concentration of the residue of carcinogenic
concern in the last tissue to deplete to its Sm. This tissue
is known as the target tissue and the concentration of the marker
residues is known as the Rm. The limit of detection of the
approved regulatory analytical method must be capable of measuring the
selected marker residue at the Rm in the selected target
tissue. When residues of carcinogenic concern are below the
Rm in the target tissue as measured by the approved
regulatory analytical method, the residues of carcinogenic concern in
target tissue and all other edible tissues are below their respective
Sm and therefore consumption of tissues containing these
residues would not exceed the So. The detection of the
marker residue in the target tissue below the Rm by the
approved regulatory analytical method can be taken as confirmation that
the residue of carcinogenic concern does not exceed Sm in
each of the edible tissues and, therefore, that the residue of
carcinogenic concern in the diet of people does not exceed
So. However, any detectable concentration of the marker
residue by the approved regulatory analytical method, even if below the
Rm, fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of the DES
Proviso. The detection of any concentration would mean that the second
prong of the DES Proviso has not been satisfied because it has not been
shown that no residue of the substance is present in any edible portion
of the animal at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The submission of such a method is approved as a collection
of information under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control
No. 0910-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described previously, the approach for evaluating compounds of
carcinogenic concern currently set forth in Sec. 500.84 utilizes a
statistical extrapolation procedure that calculates a concentration of
residue of carcinogenic concern that corresponds to a maximum lifetime
risk to the test animal of 1 in 1 million. In addition, to provide
flexibility, Sec. 500.90 permits the use of alternative procedures to
satisfy the DES Proviso, when the person requesting the use of
alternative procedures clearly sets forth the reasons why the
alternative procedures will provide a basis for concluding that
approval of the compound satisfies the requirements of the Delaney
Clause provisions of the FD&C Act, including the DES Proviso.
In recent years, FDA has, at times, been asked to consider allowing
the use of alternative procedures to satisfy the DES Proviso. Some of
these proposed alternative procedures did not rely on a statistical
extrapolation of the data to a 1 in 1 million risk of cancer to test
animals, but nevertheless the So, Sm,
Rm, and regulatory analytical method resulting from these
alternative approaches would be expected to ensure that consumption of
food derived from animals treated with the carcinogenic new animal drug
would result in no significant increase in the risk of cancer to
people. In the course of considering these proposed alternative
procedures, FDA has also considered whether the term So, as
currently defined, adequately addresses concentrations of residues of
carcinogenic concern in the total human diet that are found to
represent no significant increase in the risk of cancer to people, but
which are not derived from a statistical extrapolation of data to a 1
in 1 million risk of cancer to test animals.
The current definition in Sec. 500.82 primarily defines
So as the concentration of the compound of carcinogenic
concern that corresponds to the 1 in 1 million lifetime risk of cancer
to the test animals and secondarily as corresponding to the
concentration of residue of carcinogenic concern in the total human
diet that represents no significant increase in a risk of cancer to
people. Therefore, as presently constructed, the definition of
So is not primarily defined as the concentration of residues
of carcinogenic concern in the total human diet derived from procedures
not involving the extrapolation of data to a 1 in 1 million risk of
cancer to the test animals. Thus, were FDA to allow the use of
alternative procedures that do not rely on a statistical extrapolation
of the data to a 1 in 1 million risk of cancer to test animals to
satisfy the DES Proviso, it would have to develop a new set of
terminology to describe the Center for Veterinary Medicine's (CVM's)
approach for evaluating these compounds of carcinogenic concern. The
proposed changes to the definitions of So and Sm
are intended to enable CVM to consider allowing the use of alternative
procedures to satisfy the DES Proviso without requiring the development
of a second, alternative, set of terminology.
FDA believes that a careful reading of the December 31, 1987, final
rule (52 FR 49572 at 49586), suggests that an emphasis on no
significant increase in the risk of cancer to the human consumer,
rather than on the specific 1 in 1 million risk of cancer to the test
animals approach, reflects the original intent of the regulation. (See,
e.g., 52 FR 49572 at 49575 and 49582.) FDA has concluded that the
proposed redefinition of So is consistent with this original
intent of the regulation.
For clarification purposes, FDA is also proposing a redefinition of
Sm in Sec. 500.82 to conform this definition with the
redefinition of So as described previously. Specifically,
Sm would mean the concentration of a residue of carcinogenic
concern in a specific edible tissue corresponding to no
[[Page 79322]]
significant increase in the risk of cancer to the human consumer.
However, the definition of Sm would also retain the existing
reference to a maximum lifetime risk of cancer in the test animals of 1
in 1 million.
Finally, FDA is proposing to amend Sec. 500.84(c) to clarify that
for each compound that is regulated as a carcinogen, FDA will analyze
the data submitted using either a statistical extrapolation procedure
as provided in Sec. 500.84(c)(1) or an alternate approach as provided
in Sec. 500.90.
FDA's goal in these changes is to clarify that the terms
So and Sm apply even when the alternative
procedures provided for in Sec. 500.90 are used to satisfy the DES
Proviso, not to alter the usual process for approving compounds of
carcinogenic concern. As such, in the absence of a waiver of the
requirements of Sec. 500.84(c)(1), FDA maintains that sponsors must
meet the conditions for approval set for in Sec. 500.84, including the
default approach of a 1 in 1 million lifetime risk to the test animal.
II. Legal Authority
This rule, if finalized, would amend part 500, subpart E in a
manner consistent with the Agency's current understanding and
application of these provisions. FDA was given authority in 21 U.S.C.
348, 360b, and 379e to establish methods of examination to determine
that no residue of a food additive, new animal drug, or color additive
of carcinogenic concern would be found in any edible portion of animals
after slaughter or in any food yielded by or derived from living
animals. Furthermore, FDA has the authority to take the actions
proposed in this rule under various statutory provisions. These
provisions include 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 348, 360b, 371, and 379e.
III. Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) 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.
IV. Analysis of Economic Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 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 Agency believes that
this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by
the Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because the proposed rule would not impose any
direct or indirect costs on industry or government through the changes
to the definitions of So and Sm and to Sec.
500.84(c), but rather would clarify these definitions to enable FDA to
consider using alternative procedures to satisfy the DES Proviso
without requiring the development of a second, alternative, set of
terminology, the Agency proposes to certify 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 proposing ``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 $135 million, using the most current (2009) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.
V. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that
the proposed rule, if finalized, would not contain policies that would
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 tentatively concludes that the proposed 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.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in Sec. 500.84
have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0032.
VII. Request for Comments
FDA requests comments to the proposed revisions to the definitions
of Sm and So currently found in Sec. 500.82(b)
and to the proposed conforming changes to Sec. 500.84(c).
Specifically, the Agency requests that comments focus on the proposal
to emphasize ``no significant increase in the risk of cancer to the
human consumer,'' rather than the more specific ``1 in 1 million risk
of cancer to the test animals'' approach currently found in the
definitions of Sm and So.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
VIII. Proposed Effective Date
The Agency is proposing that any final rule that may issue based
upon this proposed rule become effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 500
Animal drugs, Animal feeds, Cancer, Labeling, Packaging and
containers, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's).
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is
proposed that 21 CFR part 500 be amended as follows:
PART 500--GENERAL
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 500 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 353,
360b, 371, 379e.
2. Revise the definitions of ``Sm'' and
``So'' in paragraph (b) of Sec. 500.82 to read as follows:
Sec. 500.82 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Sm means the concentration of a residue of carcinogenic concern in
a specific edible tissue corresponding to no significant increase in
the risk of
[[Page 79323]]
cancer to the human consumer. For the purpose of Sec. 500.84(c)(1),
FDA will assume that this Sm will correspond to the
concentration of residue in a specific edible tissue that corresponds
to a maximum lifetime risk of cancer in the test animals of 1 in 1
million.
So means the concentration of a residue of carcinogenic concern in
the total human diet that represents no significant increase in the
risk of cancer to the human consumer. For the purpose of Sec.
500.84(c)(1), FDA will assume that this So will correspond
to the concentration of test compound in the total diet of test animals
that corresponds to a maximum lifetime risk of cancer in the test
animals of 1 in 1 million.
* * * * *
3. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (c) of Sec. 500.84 to
read as follows:
Sec. 500.84 Conditions for approval of the sponsored compound.
* * * * *
(c) For each sponsored compound that FDA decides should be
regulated as a carcinogen, FDA will either analyze the data from the
bioassays using a statistical extrapolation procedure as outlined in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section or evaluate an alternate procedure
proposed by the sponsor as provided in Sec. 500.90. In either case,
paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section apply.
* * * * *
Dated: December 15, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-31887 Filed 12-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P