Drugs for Human Use; Drug Efficacy Study Implementation; Oral Prescription Drugs Offered for Relief of Symptoms of Cough, Cold, or Allergy; Withdrawal of Hearing Requests; Opportunity To Affirm Outstanding Hearing Requests; Final Resolution of Dockets, 1174-1180 [2011-104]

Download as PDF 1174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices IV. Electronic Access Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at https:// www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ GuidanceCompliance RegulatoryInformation/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ GuidanceCompliance RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/ MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationand Guidance/GuidanceDocuments/ default.htm, and https:// www.regulations.gov. Dated: January 1, 2011. Leslie Kux, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2011–73 Filed 1–6–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA–1981–N–0361 (formerly 81N–0391), FDA–1981–N–0077 (formerly 81N–0393), FDA–1981–N–0248 (formerly 81N–0396), FDA–1982–N–0225 (formerly 82N–0078), FDA–1982–N–0046 (formerly 82N–0095), FDA–1982–N–0264 (formerly 82N–0096), FDA–1982–N–0310 (formerly 82N–0311), and FDA–1983–N–0137 (formerly 83N–0095); DESI 5213, 6290, 6303, 6514, 8658, 11935, and 12152] Drugs for Human Use; Drug Efficacy Study Implementation; Oral Prescription Drugs Offered for Relief of Symptoms of Cough, Cold, or Allergy; Withdrawal of Hearing Requests; Opportunity To Affirm Outstanding Hearing Requests; Final Resolution of Dockets ACTION: Notice. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that all outstanding hearing requests pertaining to Docket Nos. 81N–0391, 82N–0078, and 82N–0311 have been withdrawn and therefore, shipment in interstate commerce of the products identified in those dockets, or any identical, related, or similar product that is not the subject of an approved new drug application (other than an over-the-counter (OTC) product that complies with an applicable OTC monograph), is unlawful as of the effective date of this notice. FDA is also offering an opportunity to affirm outstanding hearing requests in Docket Nos. 81N–0393, 81N–0396, 82N–0095, 82N–0096, and 83N–0095. FDA will assume that companies with outstanding hearing requests that do not respond to this notice are no longer jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:30 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 interested in pursuing their requests, and will deem the requests withdrawn. DATES: Effective Date: This notice is effective February 7, 2011. Hearing requests must be affirmed by notifying FDA by February 7, 2011. Hearing requests not affirmed within that time frame will be deemed withdrawn. ADDRESSES: All communications in response to this notice should be identified with the appropriate docket number, and directed to the appropriate office listed as follows: To affirm or withdraw hearing requests: Sakineh Walther, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 5242, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. All other communications: Sakineh Walther, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 5242, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sakineh Walther, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 5242, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301– 796–3349, e-mail: sakineh.walther@fda.hhs.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background When initially enacted in 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C act) required that ‘‘new drugs’’ be approved for safety by FDA before they could legally be sold in interstate commerce.1 To this end, the FD&C Act made it the sponsor’s responsibility, prior to marketing a new drug, to submit a new drug application (NDA) to FDA to prove that its drug was safe. Between 1938 and 1962, if a drug obtained approval, FDA considered drugs that were identical, related, or similar (IRS) 2 to the approved drug to be ‘‘covered’’ by that approval, and allowed those IRS 1 A ‘‘new drug’’ is defined by the FD&C Act as a drug that ‘‘is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof, except that such a drug not so recognized shall not be deemed to be a ‘new drug’ if at any time prior to the enactment of this FD&C Act it was subject to the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, as amended, and if at such time its labeling contained the same representations concerning the conditions of its use * * *.’’ (21 U.S.C. 321(p)). 2 Section 310.6(b)(1) (21 CFR 310.6(b)(1)) provides: ‘‘An identical, related, or similar drug includes other brands, potencies, dosage forms, salts, and esters of the same drug moiety as well as of any drug moiety related in chemical structure or known pharmacological properties.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 drugs to be marketed without independent approval. In 1962, Congress amended the act to require that new drugs be proven effective for their labeled indications, as well as safe, in order to obtain FDA approval. This amendment also necessitated that FDA conduct a retrospective evaluation of the effectiveness of the drug products that FDA had approved as safe between 1938 and 1962. FDA contracted with the National Academy of Science/National Research Council (NAS/NRC) to make an initial evaluation of the effectiveness of over 3,400 products that had been approved only for safety between 1938 and 1962. The NAS/NRC reports for these drug products were submitted to FDA in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The agency reviewed and re-evaluated the reports and published its findings in Federal Register notices. FDA’s administrative implementation of the NAS/NRC reports was called the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation (DESI). DESI covered the approximately 3,400 products specifically reviewed by the NAS/NRC, as well as the even larger number of IRS products that entered the market without FDA approval. In the early 1970s, FDA granted temporary exemptions 3 from the time limits established 4 for completing certain phases of the DESI program for certain oral prescription drugs offered for relief of cough, cold, allergy, and related symptoms. The exemptions were granted because of the close relationship between these prescription drugs and drugs sold over the counter (OTC) that were subject to the ongoing OTC drug review (see 21 CFR part 330). Postponement of final evaluations of these DESI prescription products enabled the agency to consider the recommendations of the OTC review panel in addition to any evidence submitted by NDA holders and other parties in response to various DESI notices covering relevant products. All drugs covered by the DESI review are ‘‘new drugs’’ under the FD&C Act. If FDA’s final DESI determination classifies a drug product as lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness for one or more indications, that drug product and those IRS to it may no longer be marketed for such indications and are subject to enforcement action as unapproved new drugs. If FDA’s final DESI determination classifies the drug product as effective for one or more of its labeled indications, the drug can be marketed for such indications, provided 3 38 FR 34481 (December 14, 1973). FR 4006 (February 9, 1973) and 37 FR 15022 (July 27, 1972). 4 38 E:\FR\FM\07JAN1.SGM 07JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices it is the subject of an application approved for safety and effectiveness. Sponsors of drug products that have been found to be effective for one or more indications through the DESI process may rely on FDA’s effectiveness determinations, but typically must update their labeling to conform to the indications found to be effective by FDA and to include any additional safety information required by FDA. Those drug products with NDAs approved before 1962 for safety therefore require approved supplements to their original applications if found to be effective under DESI; IRS drug products require an approved NDA or abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), as appropriate. Furthermore, labeling for drug products classified as effective may contain only those indications for which the review found the product effective unless the firm marketing the product has received an approval for the additional indication(s). II. DESI Review of Oral Prescription Drugs Offered for Relief of Symptoms of Cough, Cold, or Allergy jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES A. DESI Cough, Cold, or Allergy Dockets for Which Hearing Requests Have Been Withdrawn 1. Tussionex Tablets and Suspension and Omni-Tuss Suspension, Docket 81N–0391 (DESI 6514) In a notice published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1982 (47 FR 22606), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness, and offered an opportunity for a hearing on a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the products. Tussionex Tablets and Suspension, both containing dihydrocodeinone and phenyltoloxamine dihydrogen sulfate, were marketed under NDA 10–768, and labeled as antitussives. Omni-Tuss Suspension, containing codeine sulfate, phenyltoloxamine dihydrogen sulfate, chlorpheniramine maleate, ephedrine sulfate, and guaiacol carbonate, was marketed under NDA 12–666, and was also labeled as an antitussive. In response to the May 25, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests were filed by Pennwalt Corp., 755 Jefferson Rd., Rochester, NY 14623, for its products marketed under NDA 10–768 5, 5 This Federal Register notice identifies the products that are the subjects of hearing requests to the extent possible based on the information VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:30 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 and Boots Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 6540 Line Ave., Shreveport, LA 71106–9989, for its product IRS to Omni-Tuss Suspension. Pennwalt, the NDA holder for OmniTuss Suspension, did not request a hearing for that product. On May 24, 1983 (48 FR 23311), FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of NDA 12–666, effective June 23, 1983. On February 29, 1988, Pennwalt withdrew its hearing request for the Tussionex products, following approval of a reformulation of the suspension product (NDA 19–111). On March 23, 1988 (53 FR 9492), FDA announced it was withdrawing approval of NDA 10–768, effective April 22, 1988. On May 23, 1988, Boots withdrew its hearing request. Thus, all outstanding hearing requests related to Docket 81N–0391 have now been withdrawn and, as stated previously, the approvals for NDA 10–768 and NDA 12–666 were withdrawn in 1988 and 1983, respectively. Shipment in interstate commerce of the previously mentioned products, or any IRS product that is not the subject of an approved NDA or ANDA, is unlawful as of the effective date of this notice. This notice is not applicable to OTC products that comply with an OTC monograph (21 CFR 310.6(f)). Any person who wishes to determine whether a specific product is covered by this notice should write to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (address given previously). 2. Hycodan Syrup, Tablets, and Powder; Benadryl With Ephedrine Sulfate Kapseal; Chlor-Trimeton Repetabs Tablets; PBZ Lontabs and PBZ–SR; Dimetane Extentabs; Hispril Spansule Capsules; Disophrol Tablets; and Novrad with A.S.A. Pulvules; Docket 82N–0078 (DESI 5213, 6290, 6303, 8658, 11935) In a notice published in the Federal Register on June 1, 1982 (47 FR 23809), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness for certain indications, and offered an contained in the hearing requests. In some cases, the companies requesting hearings identified the product that was the subject of the hearing request by name. In other cases, the company simply identified the subject of its hearing request as a product that is IRS to one of the products reviewed under DESI. In yet other cases, there is no information provided by the requester about the product that is the subject of its hearing request. PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1175 opportunity for a hearing on a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for those indications. Hycodan Syrup, Tablets, and Powder, containing hydrocodone bitrartrate and homatropine methylbromide, were marketed under NDA 5–213. Benadryl with Ephedrine Sulfate Kapseal, containing diphenhydramine hydrochloride and ephedrine sulfate, was marketed under NDA 5–845. ChlorTrimeton Repetabs Tablets, containing 12 milligrams (mg) chlorpheniramine maleate, were marketed under NDA 7–638. PBZ Lontabs and PBZ–SR, containing tripelennamine hydrochloride, were marketed under NDA 10–533. Dimetane Extentabs, containing brompheniramine maleate, was marketed under NDA 10–799. Hispril Spansule Capsules, containing diphenylpyraline hydrochloride, was marketed under NDA 11–945. Disophrol Tablets, containing dexbrompheniramine maleate and pseudoephrine sulfate, was marketed under NDA 12–394. Novrad with A.S.A. Pulvules, containing levopropoxyphene napsylate and aspirin, was marketed under NDA 13–097. In response to the June 1, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests were filed by Cord Laboratories, Inc., 2555 W. Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, for its IRS products Chlorpheniramine Maleate S.R. Capsules and Efedra-PA Tablets, and KV Pharmaceutical Co., 2503 South Hanley Rd., St. Louis, MO 63144, for its IRS products chlorpheniramine maleate sustained release capsules, 8 and 12 mg. A late hearing request was filed by Sidmak Laboratories, 17 West St., P.O. Box 371, East Hanover, NJ 07936, for three IRS products: Chlorpheniramine maleate 8 mg.; chlorpheniramine maleate 12 mg; and a dexbrompheniramine maleate and pseudoephedrine sulfate product. NDAs 5–213, 5–845, and 7–638 have not been withdrawn, but the products marketed under NDA 5–213 and NDA 7–638 have been discontinued, and the oral Benadryl products associated with NDA 5–845 are marketed with indications that are consistent with the OTC monograph, 21 CFR part 341. NDAs 10–533, 10–799, 11–945, and 12–394 were voluntarily withdrawn on November 7, 2007 (72 FR 62858), June 16, 2006 (71 FR 34940), March 21, 1994 (59 FR 9989), and October 9, 1986 (51 FR 36295), effective on December 7, 2007, June 16, 2006, April 1, 1994, and November 10, 1986, respectively. On June 7, 1977, FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of NDA 13–097, effective June 13, 1977, for failure to file required reports (42 FR 29104). NDA 13–097 was included in E:\FR\FM\07JAN1.SGM 07JAN1 1176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices the June 1982 notice to inform manufacturers of IRS products of the agency’s finding of effectiveness for the product (42 FR 23809). On October 21, 2009, the hearing request filed by Cord Laboratories, Inc., was withdrawn by its successor-ininterest, Sandoz, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020. On December 4, 2009, KV Pharmaceutical Co. also withdrew its hearing request. On February 15, 2010, Sidmak Laboratories’ hearing request was withdrawn by its successor-ininterest, Teva Pharmaceuticals. Thus, all outstanding hearing requests related to Docket 82N–0078 have now been withdrawn. Shipment in interstate commerce of the previously mentioned products, or any IRS product that is not the subject of an approved NDA or ANDA, is unlawful as of the effective date of this notice. This notice is not applicable to OTC products that comply with an OTC monograph (21 CFR 310.6(f)). Any person who wishes to determine whether a specific product is covered by this notice should write to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (address given previously). jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 3. Actifed Syrup and Tablets; Docket 82N–0311 (DESI 11935) In a notice published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1982 (47 FR 47085), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. In the notice, FDA also announced the conditions for marketing these products for the indication for which they were regarded as effective, and offered an opportunity for a hearing concerning a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the indications reclassified to lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness. Actifed Syrup and Tablets both contained triprolidine hydrochloride and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, and were marketed under NDA 11–935 and NDA 11–936, respectively. In response to the October 22, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests were filed by Cord Laboratories, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, for its IRS products Corphed Syrup and Tablets, and Lemmon Co., 850 Cathill Rd., Sellersville, PA 18960, for its IRS products Tri-Fed and Actiprem. A late hearing request was filed by Sidmak Laboratories, Inc., 17 West St., P.O. Box 371, East Hanover, NJ 07936, for its product IRS to Actifed Tablets. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:30 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 On May 26, 1983, Lemmon Co. withdrew its hearing request relating to this docket. Sandoz, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, the successor-in-interest to Cord Laboratories, Inc., withdrew its hearing request on October 21, 2009. On February 15, 2010, Teva Pharmaceuticals, the successor-ininterest to Sidmak Laboratories, withdrew its hearing request. Thus, all outstanding hearing requests related to Docket 82N–0311 have now been withdrawn. NDAs 11–935 and 11–936 were withdrawn by FDA on November 28, 1997, effective December 29, 1997, following requests by the application holders. (62 FR 63347). Shipment in interstate commerce of the previously mentioned products, or any IRS product that is not the subject of an approved NDA or ANDA, is unlawful as of the effective date of this notice. This notice is not applicable to OTC products that comply with an OTC monograph (21 CFR 310.6(f)). Any person who wishes to determine whether a specific product is covered by this notice should write to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (address given above). B. DESI Cough, Cold, or Allergy Dockets With Outstanding Hearing Requests In 2006, FDA announced a new drug safety initiative to address unapproved drugs currently being marketed in the United States, and to facilitate a rational process to bring all such unapproved drugs into the approval process. As part of the Unapproved Drugs Initiative, the Office of Compliance of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is reviewing proceedings that remain open under DESI. According to FDA’s records, the dockets discussed below contain pending hearing requests. In cases where FDA was able to obtain current contact information for a company (or its successor-in-interest) or its representative, FDA sent letters directly to the companies (or their successors-in-interest) and/or their representatives requesting that outstanding hearing requests be withdrawn or affirmed within a specified time frame. In some cases, however, FDA was unable to find current contact information for the companies that requested hearings. Because many of the products that are the subjects of these hearing requests may no longer be marketed 6 and some 6 For example, many of the products covered by these dockets, as originally formulated or as reformulated, contain phenylpropanolamine (PPA). In 2001, FDA proposed to withdraw several new drug applications for products containing PPA, due to evidence that the ingredient increases the risk of PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 of the companies that requested hearings may no longer be in business, FDA is seeking to determine whether there is continued interest in pursuing these outstanding hearing requests. Through this Federal Register notice, FDA seeks to have any company with an outstanding hearing request covered by this notice that has not already responded to a direct communication from FDA either withdraw or affirm its hearing request. FDA will assume that companies with outstanding hearing requests that do not respond to this notice are no longer in business and/or do not have a continuing interest in the hearings, and FDA will deem their requests withdrawn. To withdraw an outstanding hearing request, a company (or its successor-ininterest) or its representative should send a letter stating its intention to do so to the address provided above. The letter should include the docket number of the proceeding, as well as the name and NDC (National Drug Code) number of the product that is the subject of the hearing request. To affirm an outstanding hearing request, a company (or its successor-ininterest), or its representative should send a letter stating its intention to do so to the address provided previously. The letter should include the docket number of the proceeding, as well as the name and NDC number of the product that is the subject of the hearing request. Letters affirming outstanding hearing requests must be postmarked or emailed within 30 calendar days of the date of this notice. Only currently outstanding hearing requests may be affirmed; this notice does not provide a new opportunity to request a hearing under any of these dockets. 1. Phenergan Expectorant With Codeine, Phenergan VC Expectorant Plain, Phenergan VC Expectorant With Codeine, Phenergan Expectorant Plain, and Pediatric Phenergan Expectorant With Dextromethorphan; Docket 81N– 0393 (DESI 6514) In a notice published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1982 (47 FR 22610), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness, and offered an opportunity for a hearing hemorrhagic stroke (66 FR 42665, August 14, 2001). FDA believes products containing PPA are no longer being marketed. E:\FR\FM\07JAN1.SGM 07JAN1 jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices on a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the products. Phenergan Expectorant With Codeine, containing promethazine hydrochloride, ipecac fluidextract, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, sodium citrate, and codeine phosphate, was marketed under NDA 8–306. Phenergan VC Expectorant Plain, containing promethazine hydrochloride, ipecac fluidextract, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, sodium citrate, and phenylephrine hydrochloride, was marketed under NDA 8–306. Phenergan VC Expectorant With Codeine, containing promethazine hydrochloride, ipecac fluidextract, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, sodium citrate, phenylephrine hydrochloride, and codeine phosphate, was marketed under NDA 8–306. Phenergan Expectorant Plain, containing promethazine hydrochloride, ipecac fluidextract, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, and sodium citrate, was marketed under NDA 8–604. Pediatric Phenergan Expectorant With Dextromethorphan, containing promethazine hydrochloride, ipecac fluidextract, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, sodium citrate, and dextromethorphan hydrobromide, was marketed under NDA 11–265. All of the products were marketed as expectorants. In response to the May 25, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests were filed by Bay Laboratories, 3654 West Jarvis, Skokie, IL 60076, for its IRS products Promethazine Expectorant with Codeine, Promethazine VC Expectorant Plain, Promethazine VC Expectorant with Codeine, Promethazine Expectorant Plain, and Promethazine Pediatric Expectorant; Cord Laboratories, Inc., 2555 W. Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, for two IRS products, the first a syrup containing codeine phosphate, promethazine hydrochloride, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, anhydrous, sodium citrate, hydrous, and ipecac fluidextract and the second a syrup containing codeine phosphate, promethazine hydrochloride, phenylephrine hydrochloride, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, anhydrous, sodium citrate, hydrous, and ipecac fluidextract; Lederle Laboratories, 401 N Middletown Rd., Pearl River, NY 10965, for its products IRS to the Phenergan products considered under this docket except for the pediatric formulation; National Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 7205 Windsor Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21207, for its products IRS to all five Phenergan products considered under this docket; Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., 200 Elmora VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:30 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 Ave., Elizabeth, NJ 07207, for IRS products Promethazine HCl Expectorant VC with Codeine, Promethazine HCl Expectorant Plain, and Promethazine HCl Expectorant with Codeine; and Wyeth Laboratories, P.O. Box 8299, Philadelphia, PA 19101, the manufacturer of the Phenergan products, for all five of the Phenergan products considered under this docket. On July 13, 1984, Wyeth, the holder of the NDAs for the Phenergan products, withdrew its hearing request after approval of reformulated versions of four of its five products. Accordingly, on August 15, 1984 (49 FR 32681), FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of NDAs 8–306, 8–604, and 11–265 pertaining to the old formulations of the Phenergan products, effective September 14, 1984. On October 25, 1984, Cord also withdrew its hearing request relating to this docket, based on discontinuation of the products that were the subject of the hearing request. FDA sent letters to Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42nd St., New York, NY 10017, successor to Lederle Laboratories, and to Actavis, 60 Columbia Rd., Building B, Morristown, NJ 07960, successor to Purepac Pharmaceuticals, on November 16, 2010, requesting that these companies withdraw or affirm their outstanding hearing requests under this docket within 30 days. On December 7, 2010, Pfizer withdrew its hearing request. On December 10, 2010, Actavis withdrew its hearing request. FDA was unable to find current contact information for Bay Laboratories and National Pharmaceuticals. If either of these companies, or its successor-ininterest, continues to have an interest in pursuing its hearing requests under this docket, the company (or its successorin-interest) must affirm its hearing request in writing by the date specified in this notice. FDA will assume that hearing requests that are not affirmed within that time frame are no longer being pursued, and will deem them withdrawn. 2. Dimetane Expectorant, Dimetane Expectorant-DC, and Actifed-C Expectorant; Docket 81N–0396 (DESI 6514) In a notice published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1982 (47 FR 22609), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness, and offered an opportunity for a hearing PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1177 on a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the products. Dimetane Expectorant, containing brompheniramine maleate, phenylephrine hydrochloride, phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride, and guaifenesin, was marketed under NDA 11–694. Dimetane Expectorant-DC, containing codeine phosphate, brompheniramine maleate, phenylephrine hydrochloride, phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride, and guaifenesin, was marketed under NDA 11–694. Actifed-C Expectorant, containing codeine phosphate, triprolidine hydrochloride, pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, and guaifenesin, was marketed under NDA 12–575. All of these products were marketed as expectorants. In response to the May 25, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests were filed by A.H. Robins Co., 1407 Cummings Dr., Richmond, VA 23220, for its products marketed under NDA 11–694; Bay Laboratories, 3654 West Jarvis, Skokie, IL 60076, for its IRS products Triphen Expectorant, Triphen Expectorant DC, and Pseudodine ‘‘C’’ Expectorant; Burroughs Wellcome Co., 3030 Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, for its product marketed under NDA 12–575; Cord Laboratories, Inc., 2555 W. Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, for its IRS product, a syrup containing codeine phosphate, triprolidine hydrochloride, pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, and guaifenesin; Lederle Laboratories, 401 N. Middletown Rd., Pearl River, NY 10965, based on its distribution of Dimetane Expectorant; National Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 7205 Windsor Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21207, for its products IRS to Dimetane Expectorant, Dimetane Expectorant DC, and ActifedC; and Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., 200 Elmora Ave., Elizabeth, NJ 07207, based on its distribution of an IRS product, Brompheniramine Maleate Expectorant. On April 3, 1984, A.H. Robins, the holder of the NDA for Dimetane Expectorant and Dimetane ExpectorantDC, withdrew its hearing request after approval of reformulated versions of its products. Accordingly, on August 24, 1984 (49 FR 33726), FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of those portions of NDA 11–694 pertaining to the old formulations of the Dimetane Expectorant products, effective September 24, 1984. On September 14, 1984, FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of those portions of NDA 12– 575 pertaining to the old formulation of Actifed-C Expectorant (49 FR 36169), effective October 15, 1984, after the NDA holder, Burroughs Wellcome, E:\FR\FM\07JAN1.SGM 07JAN1 1178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES obtained approval for a reformulated version of the product and withdrew its hearing request. On October 25, 1984, Cord also withdrew its hearing request relating to this docket, based on discontinuation of the product that was the subject of the hearing request. FDA sent letters to Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42nd St., New York, NY 10017, successor to Lederle Laboratories, and to Actavis, 60 Columbia Rd., Building B, Morristown, NJ 07960, successor to Purepac Pharmaceuticals, on November 16, 2010, requesting that these companies withdraw or affirm their outstanding hearing requests under this docket within 30 days. On December 7, 2010, Pfizer withdrew its hearing request. On December 10, 2010, Actavis withdrew its hearing request. FDA was unable to find current contact information for Bay Laboratories and National Pharmaceuticals. If either of these companies, or its successor-ininterest, continues to have an interest in pursuing its hearing request under this docket, the company (or its successorin-interest) must affirm its hearing request in writing by the date specified in this notice. FDA will assume that hearing requests that are not affirmed within that time frame are no longer being pursued, and will deem them withdrawn. 3. Ambenyl Expectorant and Pyribenzamine and Ephedrine Tablets; Docket 82N–0095 (DESI 6514, 11935) In a notice published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1982 (47 FR 22604), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug products described below, and those products IRS to these product, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness, and offered an opportunity for a hearing on a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the products. Ambenyl Expectorant, containing codeine sulfate, bromodiphenhydramine hydrochloride, diphenhydramine hydrochloride, ammonium chloride, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, and menthol, was marketed under NDA 9–319. Pyribenzamine and Ephedrine Tablets, containing tripelennamine hydrochloride and 12 mg ephedrine sulfate, were marketed under NDA 5– 914. In response to the May 25, 1982, notice, hearing requests were filed by Bay Laboratories, 3654 West Jarvis, Skokie, IL 60076, for Ambay Expectorant, its product IRS to Ambenyl Expectorant; Marion Laboratories, Inc., VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:30 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 P.O. Box 9627, Kansas City, MO 64134, for its product marketed under NDA 9– 319; and National Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 7205 Windsor Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21207, for its products IRS to Ambenyl Expectorant. On May 24, 1983 (48 FR 23311), FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of NDA 5–914 as it pertains to Pyribenzamine and Ephedrine Tablets, effective June 23, 1983, because no hearing was requested for the product by the NDA holder. On February 27, 1984, Marion Laboratories, the NDA holder for Ambenyl Expectorant, withdrew its hearing request after a reformulated version of its product was approved. Accordingly, on August 24, 1984 (49 FR 33726), FDA announced it was withdrawing approval of those portions of NDA 9–319 pertaining to the old formulation of Ambenyl Expectorant, effective September 24, 1984. On January 16, 1985, Bay Laboratories withdrew its hearing request relating to this docket. FDA was unable to find current contact information for National Pharmaceuticals. If this company, or its successor-in-interest, continues to have an interest in pursuing its hearing request under this docket, the company (or its successor-in-interest) must affirm its hearing request in writing by the date specified in this notice. FDA will assume that if this hearing request is not affirmed within that time frame, it is no longer being pursued, and will deem it withdrawn. 4. Ornade Spansules; Docket 82N–0096 (DESI 12152) In a notice published in the Federal Register on August 17, 1982 (47 FR 35870), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug product described below, and those products IRS to this product, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. In the notice, FDA also announced the conditions for marketing these products, as reformulated, for the indication for which they were regarded as effective, and offered an opportunity for a hearing concerning a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDA with respect to the old formulation and the indications reclassified to lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness. Ornade Spansules, as formulated early in the DESI review process, was a three-ingredient product containing 8 mg of chlorpheniramine maleate, 50 mg of phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride, and 2.5 mg of isopropamide, and was marketed under NDA 12–152. Prior to the publication of the August 17, 1982, Federal Register notice, Ornade PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Spansules was reformulated to be a controlled-release product containing 12 mg chlorpheniramine maleate and 75 mg phenylpropanolamine. In response to the August 17, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests were filed by B.F. Ascher & Co., 15501 West 109th St., Lenexa, KS 66219, for its IRS product Drize Slow-Release Capsules; Cord Laboratories, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, for its IRS product Profenade #2 S.R. Capsules; Glaxo, Inc 1011 North Arendell Ave, PO Box 1217, Zebulon, NC 27597, for its IRS product Histabid Duracaps; SmithKline & French Laboratories, 1500 Spring Garden St., P.O. Box 7929, Philadelphia, PA 19101, for its product marketed under NDA 12– 152; and Zenith Laboratories, Inc., 140 LeGrand Ave., Northvale, NJ 07647, for its IRS product, a sustained release product containing chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine. Two late hearing requests were filed by Knoll Pharmaceutical Co. (formerly Boots Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), 300 Tri-State International Center, suite 200, Lincolnshire, IL 60069, for its IRS product Ru-Tuss Tablets, and Pioneer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 209 40th St., Irvington, NJ 07111, for its IRS product, characterized by the company as a generic version of Ornade Spansules. A late hearing request was also filed by Sidmak Laboratories, Inc., 17 West St., P.O. Box 371, East Hanover, NJ 07936, for two IRS products, one containing chlorpheniramine maleate 12 mg and phenylpropanolamine, and the other containing chlorpheniramine maleate 8 mg and phenylpropanolamine. On December 12, 1984 (49 FR 48387), FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of those portions of NDA 12–152 covering the old, threeingredient formulation for Ornade Spansules, effective January 11, 1985, noting that no party submitted a hearing request regarding the three-ingredient formulation. On January 15, 1986, SmithKline, the NDA holder for Ornade Spansules, withdrew its hearing request after receiving FDA approval for its supplemental NDAs covering the reformulated product. Knoll Pharmaceutical withdrew its hearing request relating to this docket on September 14, 1995. On October 21, 2009, B.F. Ascher & Co. withdrew its hearing request relating to this docket. On the same date, Sandoz, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, the successor-in-interest to Cord Laboratories, Inc., withdrew its hearing request. On February 15, 2010, Sidmak Laboratories’ successor-in-interest, Teva E:\FR\FM\07JAN1.SGM 07JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices Pharmaceuticals, withdrew its hearing request. On November 9, 2009, Glaxo’s successor, GlaxoSmithKline, indicated it transferred its interest in Histabid Duracaps, the subject of its hearing request, to Medeva Pharmaceuticals sometime between 1984 and 1990, and GlaxoSmithKline indicated to the law firm that had filed the hearing request on behalf of Glaxo that it had no interest in pursuing the hearing request. The law firm was also able to contact UCB, the successor to the Celltech Chiroscience, which had previously acquired Medeva Pharmaceuticals. UCB also indicated to the law firm that had filed the hearing request that it had no interest in pursuing the hearing request filed by Glaxo for Histabid Duracaps. As the agency has not heard from UCB formally, the agency is providing the company an opportunity to affirm its hearing request in writing by the date specified in this notice. FDA will assume that if this hearing request is not affirmed within that time frame the request is no longer being pursued, and will deem it withdrawn. FDA sent a letter to Zenith Laboratories on November 16, 2010 requesting that the company withdraw or affirm its outstanding hearing requests under this docket within 30 days. As of December 13, 2010, Zenith Laboratories had not responded to FDA. FDA was unable to find current contact information for Pioneer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. If this company, or its successor-in-interest, continues to have an interest in pursuing its hearing request under this docket, the company (or its successor-in-interest) must affirm its hearing request in writing by the date specified in this notice. FDA will assume that if this hearing request is not affirmed within that time frame the request is no longer being pursued, and will deem it withdrawn jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES 5. Dimetapp Extentabs and Elixir; Docket 83N–0095 (DESI 11935) In a notice published in the Federal Register on December 23, 1983 (48 FR 56854), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. In the notice, FDA also announced the conditions for marketing these products, as reformulated, for the indication for which they were regarded as effective, and offered an opportunity for a hearing concerning a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the old formulations and for the indications VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:30 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 reclassified to lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness. Dimetapp Extentabs, as formulated during the period of the DESI review, was a controlled-release product containing 12 mg brompheniramine maleate, 15 mg phenylephrine hydrochloride, and 15 mg phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride, and marketed under NDA 12–436. At the time of the publication of the December 23, 1983, Federal Register notice, the manufacturer had submitted a supplemental application proposing to reformulate the product to contain 12 mg brompheniramine maleate and 75 mg phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride in a controlled-release form. Dimetapp Elixir was originally formulated to contain 4 mg brompheniramine maleate, 5 mg phenylephrine hydrochloride, and 5 mg phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride per 5 milliliters (mL), and was marketed under NDA 13–087. At the time of the publication of the December 23, 1983, Federal Register notice, the manufacturer had submitted a supplemental application proposing to reformulate the product to contain 4 mg brompheniramine maleate and 25 mg phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride per 5 mL. The supplements to NDA 12– 436 and NDA 13–087 were subsequently approved by FDA on April 20, 1984, and March 29, 1984, respectively. In response to the December 23, 1983, notice, timely hearing requests were filed by A.H. Robins, 1407 Cummings Dr., Richmond, VA 23220, for its products marketed under NDA 12–436 and NDA 13–087; American Therapeutics, Inc., 75 Carlough Rd., Bohemia, NY 11716, for its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentab Tablets; Amide Pharmaceutical, Inc., 101 East Main St., Little Falls, NJ 07424, for its IRS product Ami-Tapp; Bay Laboratories, Inc., 3654 West Jarvis, Skokie, IL 60076, for Triphen Elixir, its product IRS to Dimetapp Elixir; Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., 65 Horse Hill Rd., Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927, for Nolamine Timed Release Tablets, its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc., 398 West Second St., P.O. Box 107, Boston, MA 02127, for its products IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; Cord Laboratories, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, for Cordamine-PA Tablets, its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; D.M. Graham Laboratories, Inc., Hobart, NY 13788, for unspecified IRS products; Forest Laboratories, Inc., 909 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022, for its IRS products Brocon C.R. Tablets and Chewable Brocon Tablets; Halsey Drug Co. Inc., 1827 Pacific St., Brooklyn, NY 11233, PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1179 for its products IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs and Dimetapp Elixir; Lemmon Co., 850 Cathill Rd., Sellersville, PA 18960, for Phenatapp, its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; LuChem Pharmaceuticals, Inc., P.O. Box 6038, 8910 Linwood Ave., Shreveport, LA 71136, for its IRS products Ban-Tuss HC, Ban-Tuss C Expectorant, Tuss-Delay Tablets, Ban-Tuss Plain, Klerist-D Tablets, Respergen, Am-Tuss Liquid, Novadyne DH, Novadyne Expectorant, Dexophed Tablets, Chem-Tuss-SR, Chem-Tuss Elixir, Chem-Tuss DM, Chem-Tuss DME, and Chem-Tuss N; Mayrand Inc., 4 Dundas Circle, P.O. Box 8860, Greensboro, NC 27419, for its products IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs and Dimetapp Elixir; National Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Co., 7205 Windsor Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21207, for its product IRS to Dimetapp Elixir; Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc., 301 S. Cherokee, Denver, CO 80223, for its IRS product Basamine S.R. Tablets; Pioneer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 209 40th St., Irvington, NJ 07111, for Pioten Tablets, its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; Quantum Pharmics, Ltd., 26 Edison St., Amityville, NY 11701, for its IRS product, Brom-Tapp; Superpharm Corp., 155 Oval Dr., Central Islip, NY 11722, for its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentab Tablets; United States Trading Corp., 10718 McCune Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90034, for its products IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; and UpsherSmith Laboratories, Inc., 14905 23rd Ave. North, Minneapolis, MN 55441, for unspecified products. A late hearing request was filed by Sidmak Laboratories, Inc., 17 West St., P.O. Box 371, East Hanover, NJ 07936, for its products IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs. On June 11, 1985, A.H. Robins, the NDA holder for Dimetapp Extentabs and Dimetapp Elixir, withdrew its hearing request relating to this docket, after reformulating its products to comply with the OTC monograph in part 341 (21 CFR part 341), ‘‘Cold, Cough, Allergy, Bronchodilator, and Antihistamine Drug Products for Overthe-Counter Human Use.’’ Accordingly, on July 19, 1985 (50 FR 29484), FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of those portions of NDAs 12– 436 and 13–087 pertaining to the old formulations of the Dimetapp products, effective August 19, 1985. On August 23, 1984, Lemmon Co. withdrew its hearing request relating to this docket. Sandoz, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, the successor-in-interest to Cord Laboratories, Inc., withdrew its hearing request on October 21, 2009. Forest Laboratories, Inc., withdrew its hearing request on October 22, 2009. The E:\FR\FM\07JAN1.SGM 07JAN1 1180 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 5 / Friday, January 7, 2011 / Notices hearing request filed by D.M. Graham Laboratories, Inc., was withdrawn on December 10, 2009. D.M. Graham Laboratories was previously acquired by Mallinckrodt, Inc., which is now part of Covidien, 172 Railroad Ave., Hobart, NY 13788. Teva Pharmaceuticals, the successor-in-interest to Sidmak Laboratories, withdrew its hearing request on February 15, 2010. Acura Pharmaceutical Co., 616 N. North Court, Palantine, IL 60067, successor to Halsey Drug Co., withdrew its hearing request on November 23, 2010. FDA sent a letter to Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC, P.O. Box 18806, Greensboro, NC 27419, successor to Mayrand, Inc., Pharmaceuticals, on November 16, 2010, requesting that this company withdraw or affirm its outstanding hearing request under this docket within 30 days. As of December 13, 2010, the company had not responded to FDA. FDA was unable to find current contact information for American Therapeutics, Amide Pharmaceutical, Inc., Bay Laboratories, Inc., National Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Co., Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc., Superpharm Corp., and United States Trading Corp. FDA did not receive any response to its attempt to contact Carnrick Laboratories, a subsidiary of Elan Corporation; Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc.; LuChem Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pioneer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Quantum Pharmics, Ltd.; or Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. If any of these companies, or their successors-ininterest, continue to have an interest in pursuing their hearing requests under this docket, the companies (or their successors-in-interest) must affirm their hearing requests in writing by the date specified in this notice. FDA will assume that hearing requests that are not affirmed within that time frame are no longer being pursued, and will deem them withdrawn. jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES III. Discontinued Products Some firms may have previously discontinued the manufacturing or distribution of products covered by this notice without removing them from the listing of their products under section 510(j) of the FD&C Act. Other firms may discontinue manufacturing or marketing listed products in response to this notice. Firms that wish to notify the agency of product discontinuation should send a letter, signed by the firm’s chief executive officer, fully identifying the discontinued product(s), including NDC number(s), and stating that the product(s) has (have) been VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:30 Jan 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 discontinued. The letter should be sent to Sakineh Walther (see ADDRESSES). Firms should also update the listing of their products under section 510(j) of the FD&C Act to reflect discontinuation of unapproved products. FDA plans to rely on its existing records, including drug listing records or other available information, when it targets violations for enforcement action. Firms should be aware that, after the effective date of this notice, FDA intends to take enforcement action without further notice against any firm that manufactures or ships in interstate commerce any unapproved product covered by this notice that is not the subject of an ongoing DESI proceeding. IV. Reformulated Products Some of the active ingredients found in drug products covered by this notice are included in the OTC monograph in part 341 (21 CFR part 341), ‘‘Cold, Cough, Allergy, Bronchodilator, and Antihistamine Drug Products for Overthe-Counter Human Use.’’ OTC products that comply with this monograph may be marketed without approval. However, FDA cautions firms against reformulating products into OTC products or different unapproved new drugs that are marketed under the same name or substantially the same name (including a new name that contains the old name). Reformulated products marketed under a name previously identified with a different active ingredient or combination of active ingredients have the potential to confuse health care practitioners and harm patients. This notice is issued under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sections 502 and 505 (21 U.S.C. 352 and 355), and under authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner for Policy under section 1410.21 of the FDA Staff Manual Guide. Dated: January 3, 2011. Leslie Kux, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2011–104 Filed 1–6–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA–2009–N–0247] FDA Transparency Initiative: Improving Transparency to Regulated Industry AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Notice of availability; request for comments. ACTION: As part of the third phase of the Transparency Initiative, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a report entitled ‘‘FDA Transparency Initiative: Improving Transparency to Regulated Industry.’’ The report includes 19 action items and 5 draft proposals to improve transparency to regulated industry. FDA is seeking public comment on the content of the draft proposals, as well as on which draft proposals should be given priority. DATES: Submit electronic or written comments by March 8, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to https:// www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments 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 at the heading of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Witt, Office of Policy, Planning, and Budget, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg 32, rm. 4226, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–7463, FAX: 301–847–8616, email: Ann.Witt@fda.hhs.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Background on the FDA Transparency Initiative In January 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum on Transparency and Open Government calling for an ‘‘unprecedented level of openness in Government’’ and directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue an Open Government Directive instructing executive departments and agencies to take specific actions to implement the principles of transparent, collaborative, and participatory government. The Open Government Directive was issued December 8, 2009. Under the leadership of Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has also prioritized transparency and openness. In June 2009, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner), Dr. Margaret Hamburg, launched FDA’s Transparency Initiative to implement these efforts at FDA. The initiative is overseen by a Task Force representing key leaders of FDA. The internal Task Force is chaired by the Principal Deputy Commissioner of FDA and includes five of the Agency’s E:\FR\FM\07JAN1.SGM 07JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1174-1180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-104]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-1981-N-0361 (formerly 81N-0391), FDA-1981-N-0077 
(formerly 81N-0393), FDA-1981-N-0248 (formerly 81N-0396), FDA-1982-N-
0225 (formerly 82N-0078), FDA-1982-N-0046 (formerly 82N-0095), FDA-
1982-N-0264 (formerly 82N-0096), FDA-1982-N-0310 (formerly 82N-0311), 
and FDA-1983-N-0137 (formerly 83N-0095); DESI 5213, 6290, 6303, 6514, 
8658, 11935, and 12152]


Drugs for Human Use; Drug Efficacy Study Implementation; Oral 
Prescription Drugs Offered for Relief of Symptoms of Cough, Cold, or 
Allergy; Withdrawal of Hearing Requests; Opportunity To Affirm 
Outstanding Hearing Requests; Final Resolution of Dockets

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that all 
outstanding hearing requests pertaining to Docket Nos. 81N-0391, 82N-
0078, and 82N-0311 have been withdrawn and therefore, shipment in 
interstate commerce of the products identified in those dockets, or any 
identical, related, or similar product that is not the subject of an 
approved new drug application (other than an over-the-counter (OTC) 
product that complies with an applicable OTC monograph), is unlawful as 
of the effective date of this notice. FDA is also offering an 
opportunity to affirm outstanding hearing requests in Docket Nos. 81N-
0393, 81N-0396, 82N-0095, 82N-0096, and 83N-0095. FDA will assume that 
companies with outstanding hearing requests that do not respond to this 
notice are no longer interested in pursuing their requests, and will 
deem the requests withdrawn.

DATES: Effective Date: This notice is effective February 7, 2011. 
Hearing requests must be affirmed by notifying FDA by February 7, 2011. 
Hearing requests not affirmed within that time frame will be deemed 
withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: All communications in response to this notice should be 
identified with the appropriate docket number, and directed to the 
appropriate office listed as follows:
    To affirm or withdraw hearing requests: Sakineh Walther, Center for 
Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 5242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
    All other communications: Sakineh Walther, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 5242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Sakineh Walther, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 5242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3349, e-mail: sakineh.walther@fda.hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    When initially enacted in 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FD&C act) required that ``new drugs'' be approved for 
safety by FDA before they could legally be sold in interstate 
commerce.\1\ To this end, the FD&C Act made it the sponsor's 
responsibility, prior to marketing a new drug, to submit a new drug 
application (NDA) to FDA to prove that its drug was safe. Between 1938 
and 1962, if a drug obtained approval, FDA considered drugs that were 
identical, related, or similar (IRS) \2\ to the approved drug to be 
``covered'' by that approval, and allowed those IRS drugs to be 
marketed without independent approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``new drug'' is defined by the FD&C Act as a drug that 
``is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific 
training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 
drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions 
prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof, 
except that such a drug not so recognized shall not be deemed to be 
a `new drug' if at any time prior to the enactment of this FD&C Act 
it was subject to the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, as 
amended, and if at such time its labeling contained the same 
representations concerning the conditions of its use * * *.'' (21 
U.S.C. 321(p)).
    \2\ Section 310.6(b)(1) (21 CFR 310.6(b)(1)) provides: ``An 
identical, related, or similar drug includes other brands, 
potencies, dosage forms, salts, and esters of the same drug moiety 
as well as of any drug moiety related in chemical structure or known 
pharmacological properties.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1962, Congress amended the act to require that new drugs be 
proven effective for their labeled indications, as well as safe, in 
order to obtain FDA approval. This amendment also necessitated that FDA 
conduct a retrospective evaluation of the effectiveness of the drug 
products that FDA had approved as safe between 1938 and 1962. FDA 
contracted with the National Academy of Science/National Research 
Council (NAS/NRC) to make an initial evaluation of the effectiveness of 
over 3,400 products that had been approved only for safety between 1938 
and 1962. The NAS/NRC reports for these drug products were submitted to 
FDA in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The agency reviewed and re-
evaluated the reports and published its findings in Federal Register 
notices. FDA's administrative implementation of the NAS/NRC reports was 
called the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation (DESI). DESI covered the 
approximately 3,400 products specifically reviewed by the NAS/NRC, as 
well as the even larger number of IRS products that entered the market 
without FDA approval.
    In the early 1970s, FDA granted temporary exemptions \3\ from the 
time limits established \4\ for completing certain phases of the DESI 
program for certain oral prescription drugs offered for relief of 
cough, cold, allergy, and related symptoms. The exemptions were granted 
because of the close relationship between these prescription drugs and 
drugs sold over the counter (OTC) that were subject to the ongoing OTC 
drug review (see 21 CFR part 330). Postponement of final evaluations of 
these DESI prescription products enabled the agency to consider the 
recommendations of the OTC review panel in addition to any evidence 
submitted by NDA holders and other parties in response to various DESI 
notices covering relevant products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 38 FR 34481 (December 14, 1973).
    \4\ 38 FR 4006 (February 9, 1973) and 37 FR 15022 (July 27, 
1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All drugs covered by the DESI review are ``new drugs'' under the 
FD&C Act. If FDA's final DESI determination classifies a drug product 
as lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness for one or more 
indications, that drug product and those IRS to it may no longer be 
marketed for such indications and are subject to enforcement action as 
unapproved new drugs. If FDA's final DESI determination classifies the 
drug product as effective for one or more of its labeled indications, 
the drug can be marketed for such indications, provided

[[Page 1175]]

it is the subject of an application approved for safety and 
effectiveness. Sponsors of drug products that have been found to be 
effective for one or more indications through the DESI process may rely 
on FDA's effectiveness determinations, but typically must update their 
labeling to conform to the indications found to be effective by FDA and 
to include any additional safety information required by FDA. Those 
drug products with NDAs approved before 1962 for safety therefore 
require approved supplements to their original applications if found to 
be effective under DESI; IRS drug products require an approved NDA or 
abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), as appropriate. Furthermore, 
labeling for drug products classified as effective may contain only 
those indications for which the review found the product effective 
unless the firm marketing the product has received an approval for the 
additional indication(s).

II. DESI Review of Oral Prescription Drugs Offered for Relief of 
Symptoms of Cough, Cold, or Allergy

A. DESI Cough, Cold, or Allergy Dockets for Which Hearing Requests Have 
Been Withdrawn

1. Tussionex Tablets and Suspension and Omni-Tuss Suspension, Docket 
81N-0391 (DESI 6514)
    In a notice published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1982 (47 
FR 22606), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug 
products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to 
remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The 
notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence 
of effectiveness, and offered an opportunity for a hearing on a 
proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the products.
    Tussionex Tablets and Suspension, both containing dihydrocodeinone 
and phenyltoloxamine dihydrogen sulfate, were marketed under NDA 10-
768, and labeled as antitussives. Omni-Tuss Suspension, containing 
codeine sulfate, phenyltoloxamine dihydrogen sulfate, chlorpheniramine 
maleate, ephedrine sulfate, and guaiacol carbonate, was marketed under 
NDA 12-666, and was also labeled as an antitussive.
    In response to the May 25, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests 
were filed by Pennwalt Corp., 755 Jefferson Rd., Rochester, NY 14623, 
for its products marketed under NDA 10-768 \5\, and Boots 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 6540 Line Ave., Shreveport, LA 71106-9989, for 
its product IRS to Omni-Tuss Suspension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This Federal Register notice identifies the products that 
are the subjects of hearing requests to the extent possible based on 
the information contained in the hearing requests. In some cases, 
the companies requesting hearings identified the product that was 
the subject of the hearing request by name. In other cases, the 
company simply identified the subject of its hearing request as a 
product that is IRS to one of the products reviewed under DESI. In 
yet other cases, there is no information provided by the requester 
about the product that is the subject of its hearing request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pennwalt, the NDA holder for Omni-Tuss Suspension, did not request 
a hearing for that product. On May 24, 1983 (48 FR 23311), FDA 
announced that it was withdrawing approval of NDA 12-666, effective 
June 23, 1983. On February 29, 1988, Pennwalt withdrew its hearing 
request for the Tussionex products, following approval of a 
reformulation of the suspension product (NDA 19-111). On March 23, 1988 
(53 FR 9492), FDA announced it was withdrawing approval of NDA 10-768, 
effective April 22, 1988. On May 23, 1988, Boots withdrew its hearing 
request.
    Thus, all outstanding hearing requests related to Docket 81N-0391 
have now been withdrawn and, as stated previously, the approvals for 
NDA 10-768 and NDA 12-666 were withdrawn in 1988 and 1983, 
respectively. Shipment in interstate commerce of the previously 
mentioned products, or any IRS product that is not the subject of an 
approved NDA or ANDA, is unlawful as of the effective date of this 
notice. This notice is not applicable to OTC products that comply with 
an OTC monograph (21 CFR 310.6(f)). Any person who wishes to determine 
whether a specific product is covered by this notice should write to 
the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (address given previously).
2. Hycodan Syrup, Tablets, and Powder; Benadryl With Ephedrine Sulfate 
Kapseal; Chlor-Trimeton Repetabs Tablets; PBZ Lontabs and PBZ-SR; 
Dimetane Extentabs; Hispril Spansule Capsules; Disophrol Tablets; and 
Novrad with A.S.A. Pulvules; Docket 82N-0078 (DESI 5213, 6290, 6303, 
8658, 11935)
    In a notice published in the Federal Register on June 1, 1982 (47 
FR 23809), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug 
products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to 
remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The 
notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence 
of effectiveness for certain indications, and offered an opportunity 
for a hearing on a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for those 
indications.
    Hycodan Syrup, Tablets, and Powder, containing hydrocodone 
bitrartrate and homatropine methylbromide, were marketed under NDA 5-
213. Benadryl with Ephedrine Sulfate Kapseal, containing 
diphenhydramine hydrochloride and ephedrine sulfate, was marketed under 
NDA 5-845. Chlor-Trimeton Repetabs Tablets, containing 12 milligrams 
(mg) chlorpheniramine maleate, were marketed under NDA 7-638. PBZ 
Lontabs and PBZ-SR, containing tripelennamine hydrochloride, were 
marketed under NDA 10-533. Dimetane Extentabs, containing 
brompheniramine maleate, was marketed under NDA 10-799. Hispril 
Spansule Capsules, containing diphenylpyraline hydrochloride, was 
marketed under NDA 11-945. Disophrol Tablets, containing 
dexbrompheniramine maleate and pseudoephrine sulfate, was marketed 
under NDA 12-394. Novrad with A.S.A. Pulvules, containing 
levopropoxyphene napsylate and aspirin, was marketed under NDA 13-097.
    In response to the June 1, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests 
were filed by Cord Laboratories, Inc., 2555 W. Midway Blvd., 
Broomfield, CO 80020, for its IRS products Chlorpheniramine Maleate 
S.R. Capsules and Efedra-PA Tablets, and KV Pharmaceutical Co., 2503 
South Hanley Rd., St. Louis, MO 63144, for its IRS products 
chlorpheniramine maleate sustained release capsules, 8 and 12 mg. A 
late hearing request was filed by Sidmak Laboratories, 17 West St., 
P.O. Box 371, East Hanover, NJ 07936, for three IRS products: 
Chlorpheniramine maleate 8 mg.; chlorpheniramine maleate 12 mg; and a 
dexbrompheniramine maleate and pseudoephedrine sulfate product.
    NDAs 5-213, 5-845, and 7-638 have not been withdrawn, but the 
products marketed under NDA 5-213 and NDA 7-638 have been discontinued, 
and the oral Benadryl products associated with NDA 5-845 are marketed 
with indications that are consistent with the OTC monograph, 21 CFR 
part 341. NDAs 10-533, 10-799, 11-945, and 12-394 were voluntarily 
withdrawn on November 7, 2007 (72 FR 62858), June 16, 2006 (71 FR 
34940), March 21, 1994 (59 FR 9989), and October 9, 1986 (51 FR 36295), 
effective on December 7, 2007, June 16, 2006, April 1, 1994, and 
November 10, 1986, respectively. On June 7, 1977, FDA announced that it 
was withdrawing approval of NDA 13-097, effective June 13, 1977, for 
failure to file required reports (42 FR 29104). NDA 13-097 was included 
in

[[Page 1176]]

the June 1982 notice to inform manufacturers of IRS products of the 
agency's finding of effectiveness for the product (42 FR 23809).
    On October 21, 2009, the hearing request filed by Cord 
Laboratories, Inc., was withdrawn by its successor-in-interest, Sandoz, 
Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020. On December 4, 
2009, KV Pharmaceutical Co. also withdrew its hearing request. On 
February 15, 2010, Sidmak Laboratories' hearing request was withdrawn 
by its successor-in-interest, Teva Pharmaceuticals. Thus, all 
outstanding hearing requests related to Docket 82N-0078 have now been 
withdrawn.
    Shipment in interstate commerce of the previously mentioned 
products, or any IRS product that is not the subject of an approved NDA 
or ANDA, is unlawful as of the effective date of this notice. This 
notice is not applicable to OTC products that comply with an OTC 
monograph (21 CFR 310.6(f)). Any person who wishes to determine whether 
a specific product is covered by this notice should write to the Center 
for Drug Evaluation and Research (address given previously).
3. Actifed Syrup and Tablets; Docket 82N-0311 (DESI 11935)
    In a notice published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1982 
(47 FR 47085), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the 
drug products described below, and those products IRS to these 
products, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for 
DESI. In the notice, FDA also announced the conditions for marketing 
these products for the indication for which they were regarded as 
effective, and offered an opportunity for a hearing concerning a 
proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the indications 
reclassified to lacking substantial evidence of effectiveness.
    Actifed Syrup and Tablets both contained triprolidine hydrochloride 
and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, and were marketed under NDA 11-935 
and NDA 11-936, respectively.
    In response to the October 22, 1982, notice, timely hearing 
requests were filed by Cord Laboratories, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., 
Broomfield, CO 80020, for its IRS products Corphed Syrup and Tablets, 
and Lemmon Co., 850 Cathill Rd., Sellersville, PA 18960, for its IRS 
products Tri-Fed and Actiprem. A late hearing request was filed by 
Sidmak Laboratories, Inc., 17 West St., P.O. Box 371, East Hanover, NJ 
07936, for its product IRS to Actifed Tablets.
    On May 26, 1983, Lemmon Co. withdrew its hearing request relating 
to this docket. Sandoz, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 
80020, the successor-in-interest to Cord Laboratories, Inc., withdrew 
its hearing request on October 21, 2009. On February 15, 2010, Teva 
Pharmaceuticals, the successor-in-interest to Sidmak Laboratories, 
withdrew its hearing request. Thus, all outstanding hearing requests 
related to Docket 82N-0311 have now been withdrawn. NDAs 11-935 and 11-
936 were withdrawn by FDA on November 28, 1997, effective December 29, 
1997, following requests by the application holders. (62 FR 63347).
    Shipment in interstate commerce of the previously mentioned 
products, or any IRS product that is not the subject of an approved NDA 
or ANDA, is unlawful as of the effective date of this notice. This 
notice is not applicable to OTC products that comply with an OTC 
monograph (21 CFR 310.6(f)). Any person who wishes to determine whether 
a specific product is covered by this notice should write to the Center 
for Drug Evaluation and Research (address given above).

B. DESI Cough, Cold, or Allergy Dockets With Outstanding Hearing 
Requests

    In 2006, FDA announced a new drug safety initiative to address 
unapproved drugs currently being marketed in the United States, and to 
facilitate a rational process to bring all such unapproved drugs into 
the approval process. As part of the Unapproved Drugs Initiative, the 
Office of Compliance of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is 
reviewing proceedings that remain open under DESI. According to FDA's 
records, the dockets discussed below contain pending hearing requests. 
In cases where FDA was able to obtain current contact information for a 
company (or its successor-in-interest) or its representative, FDA sent 
letters directly to the companies (or their successors-in-interest) 
and/or their representatives requesting that outstanding hearing 
requests be withdrawn or affirmed within a specified time frame. In 
some cases, however, FDA was unable to find current contact information 
for the companies that requested hearings. Because many of the products 
that are the subjects of these hearing requests may no longer be 
marketed \6\ and some of the companies that requested hearings may no 
longer be in business, FDA is seeking to determine whether there is 
continued interest in pursuing these outstanding hearing requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, many of the products covered by these dockets, 
as originally formulated or as reformulated, contain 
phenylpropanolamine (PPA). In 2001, FDA proposed to withdraw several 
new drug applications for products containing PPA, due to evidence 
that the ingredient increases the risk of hemorrhagic stroke (66 FR 
42665, August 14, 2001). FDA believes products containing PPA are no 
longer being marketed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this Federal Register notice, FDA seeks to have any company 
with an outstanding hearing request covered by this notice that has not 
already responded to a direct communication from FDA either withdraw or 
affirm its hearing request. FDA will assume that companies with 
outstanding hearing requests that do not respond to this notice are no 
longer in business and/or do not have a continuing interest in the 
hearings, and FDA will deem their requests withdrawn.
    To withdraw an outstanding hearing request, a company (or its 
successor-in-interest) or its representative should send a letter 
stating its intention to do so to the address provided above. The 
letter should include the docket number of the proceeding, as well as 
the name and NDC (National Drug Code) number of the product that is the 
subject of the hearing request.
    To affirm an outstanding hearing request, a company (or its 
successor-in-interest), or its representative should send a letter 
stating its intention to do so to the address provided previously. The 
letter should include the docket number of the proceeding, as well as 
the name and NDC number of the product that is the subject of the 
hearing request. Letters affirming outstanding hearing requests must be 
postmarked or e-mailed within 30 calendar days of the date of this 
notice. Only currently outstanding hearing requests may be affirmed; 
this notice does not provide a new opportunity to request a hearing 
under any of these dockets.
1. Phenergan Expectorant With Codeine, Phenergan VC Expectorant Plain, 
Phenergan VC Expectorant With Codeine, Phenergan Expectorant Plain, and 
Pediatric Phenergan Expectorant With Dextromethorphan; Docket 81N-0393 
(DESI 6514)
    In a notice published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1982 (47 
FR 22610), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug 
products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to 
remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The 
notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence 
of effectiveness, and offered an opportunity for a hearing

[[Page 1177]]

on a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the products.
    Phenergan Expectorant With Codeine, containing promethazine 
hydrochloride, ipecac fluidextract, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric 
acid, sodium citrate, and codeine phosphate, was marketed under NDA 8-
306. Phenergan VC Expectorant Plain, containing promethazine 
hydrochloride, ipecac fluidextract, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric 
acid, sodium citrate, and phenylephrine hydrochloride, was marketed 
under NDA 8-306. Phenergan VC Expectorant With Codeine, containing 
promethazine hydrochloride, ipecac fluidextract, potassium 
guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, sodium citrate, phenylephrine 
hydrochloride, and codeine phosphate, was marketed under NDA 8-306. 
Phenergan Expectorant Plain, containing promethazine hydrochloride, 
ipecac fluidextract, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, and 
sodium citrate, was marketed under NDA 8-604. Pediatric Phenergan 
Expectorant With Dextromethorphan, containing promethazine 
hydrochloride, ipecac fluidextract, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric 
acid, sodium citrate, and dextromethorphan hydrobromide, was marketed 
under NDA 11-265. All of the products were marketed as expectorants.
    In response to the May 25, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests 
were filed by Bay Laboratories, 3654 West Jarvis, Skokie, IL 60076, for 
its IRS products Promethazine Expectorant with Codeine, Promethazine VC 
Expectorant Plain, Promethazine VC Expectorant with Codeine, 
Promethazine Expectorant Plain, and Promethazine Pediatric Expectorant; 
Cord Laboratories, Inc., 2555 W. Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, 
for two IRS products, the first a syrup containing codeine phosphate, 
promethazine hydrochloride, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, 
anhydrous, sodium citrate, hydrous, and ipecac fluidextract and the 
second a syrup containing codeine phosphate, promethazine 
hydrochloride, phenylephrine hydrochloride, potassium 
guaiacolsulfonate, citric acid, anhydrous, sodium citrate, hydrous, and 
ipecac fluidextract; Lederle Laboratories, 401 N Middletown Rd., Pearl 
River, NY 10965, for its products IRS to the Phenergan products 
considered under this docket except for the pediatric formulation; 
National Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 7205 Windsor Blvd., Baltimore, MD 
21207, for its products IRS to all five Phenergan products considered 
under this docket; Purepac Pharmaceutical Co., 200 Elmora Ave., 
Elizabeth, NJ 07207, for IRS products Promethazine HCl Expectorant VC 
with Codeine, Promethazine HCl Expectorant Plain, and Promethazine HCl 
Expectorant with Codeine; and Wyeth Laboratories, P.O. Box 8299, 
Philadelphia, PA 19101, the manufacturer of the Phenergan products, for 
all five of the Phenergan products considered under this docket.
    On July 13, 1984, Wyeth, the holder of the NDAs for the Phenergan 
products, withdrew its hearing request after approval of reformulated 
versions of four of its five products. Accordingly, on August 15, 1984 
(49 FR 32681), FDA announced that it was withdrawing approval of NDAs 
8-306, 8-604, and 11-265 pertaining to the old formulations of the 
Phenergan products, effective September 14, 1984. On October 25, 1984, 
Cord also withdrew its hearing request relating to this docket, based 
on discontinuation of the products that were the subject of the hearing 
request.
    FDA sent letters to Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42nd St., New York, NY 
10017, successor to Lederle Laboratories, and to Actavis, 60 Columbia 
Rd., Building B, Morristown, NJ 07960, successor to Purepac 
Pharmaceuticals, on November 16, 2010, requesting that these companies 
withdraw or affirm their outstanding hearing requests under this docket 
within 30 days. On December 7, 2010, Pfizer withdrew its hearing 
request. On December 10, 2010, Actavis withdrew its hearing request.
    FDA was unable to find current contact information for Bay 
Laboratories and National Pharmaceuticals. If either of these 
companies, or its successor-in-interest, continues to have an interest 
in pursuing its hearing requests under this docket, the company (or its 
successor-in-interest) must affirm its hearing request in writing by 
the date specified in this notice. FDA will assume that hearing 
requests that are not affirmed within that time frame are no longer 
being pursued, and will deem them withdrawn.
2. Dimetane Expectorant, Dimetane Expectorant-DC, and Actifed-C 
Expectorant; Docket 81N-0396 (DESI 6514)
    In a notice published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1982 (47 
FR 22609), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug 
products described below, and those products IRS to these products, to 
remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The 
notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence 
of effectiveness, and offered an opportunity for a hearing on a 
proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the products.
    Dimetane Expectorant, containing brompheniramine maleate, 
phenylephrine hydrochloride, phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride, and 
guaifenesin, was marketed under NDA 11-694. Dimetane Expectorant-DC, 
containing codeine phosphate, brompheniramine maleate, phenylephrine 
hydrochloride, phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride, and guaifenesin, was 
marketed under NDA 11-694. Actifed-C Expectorant, containing codeine 
phosphate, triprolidine hydrochloride, pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, 
and guaifenesin, was marketed under NDA 12-575. All of these products 
were marketed as expectorants.
    In response to the May 25, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests 
were filed by A.H. Robins Co., 1407 Cummings Dr., Richmond, VA 23220, 
for its products marketed under NDA 11-694; Bay Laboratories, 3654 West 
Jarvis, Skokie, IL 60076, for its IRS products Triphen Expectorant, 
Triphen Expectorant DC, and Pseudodine ``C'' Expectorant; Burroughs 
Wellcome Co., 3030 Cornwallis Rd., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 
for its product marketed under NDA 12-575; Cord Laboratories, Inc., 
2555 W. Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, for its IRS product, a 
syrup containing codeine phosphate, triprolidine hydrochloride, 
pseudoephedrine hydrochloride, and guaifenesin; Lederle Laboratories, 
401 N. Middletown Rd., Pearl River, NY 10965, based on its distribution 
of Dimetane Expectorant; National Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 7205 Windsor 
Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21207, for its products IRS to Dimetane 
Expectorant, Dimetane Expectorant DC, and Actifed-C; and Purepac 
Pharmaceutical Co., 200 Elmora Ave., Elizabeth, NJ 07207, based on its 
distribution of an IRS product, Brompheniramine Maleate Expectorant.
    On April 3, 1984, A.H. Robins, the holder of the NDA for Dimetane 
Expectorant and Dimetane Expectorant-DC, withdrew its hearing request 
after approval of reformulated versions of its products. Accordingly, 
on August 24, 1984 (49 FR 33726), FDA announced that it was withdrawing 
approval of those portions of NDA 11-694 pertaining to the old 
formulations of the Dimetane Expectorant products, effective September 
24, 1984.
    On September 14, 1984, FDA announced that it was withdrawing 
approval of those portions of NDA 12-575 pertaining to the old 
formulation of Actifed-C Expectorant (49 FR 36169), effective October 
15, 1984, after the NDA holder, Burroughs Wellcome,

[[Page 1178]]

obtained approval for a reformulated version of the product and 
withdrew its hearing request. On October 25, 1984, Cord also withdrew 
its hearing request relating to this docket, based on discontinuation 
of the product that was the subject of the hearing request.
    FDA sent letters to Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42nd St., New York, NY 
10017, successor to Lederle Laboratories, and to Actavis, 60 Columbia 
Rd., Building B, Morristown, NJ 07960, successor to Purepac 
Pharmaceuticals, on November 16, 2010, requesting that these companies 
withdraw or affirm their outstanding hearing requests under this docket 
within 30 days. On December 7, 2010, Pfizer withdrew its hearing 
request. On December 10, 2010, Actavis withdrew its hearing request.
    FDA was unable to find current contact information for Bay 
Laboratories and National Pharmaceuticals. If either of these 
companies, or its successor-in-interest, continues to have an interest 
in pursuing its hearing request under this docket, the company (or its 
successor-in-interest) must affirm its hearing request in writing by 
the date specified in this notice. FDA will assume that hearing 
requests that are not affirmed within that time frame are no longer 
being pursued, and will deem them withdrawn.
3. Ambenyl Expectorant and Pyribenzamine and Ephedrine Tablets; Docket 
82N-0095 (DESI 6514, 11935)
    In a notice published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1982 (47 
FR 22604), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the drug 
products described below, and those products IRS to these product, to 
remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. The 
notice also reclassified the products to lacking substantial evidence 
of effectiveness, and offered an opportunity for a hearing on a 
proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the products.
    Ambenyl Expectorant, containing codeine sulfate, 
bromodiphenhydramine hydrochloride, diphenhydramine hydrochloride, 
ammonium chloride, potassium guaiacolsulfonate, and menthol, was 
marketed under NDA 9-319. Pyribenzamine and Ephedrine Tablets, 
containing tripelennamine hydrochloride and 12 mg ephedrine sulfate, 
were marketed under NDA 5-914.
    In response to the May 25, 1982, notice, hearing requests were 
filed by Bay Laboratories, 3654 West Jarvis, Skokie, IL 60076, for 
Ambay Expectorant, its product IRS to Ambenyl Expectorant; Marion 
Laboratories, Inc., P.O. Box 9627, Kansas City, MO 64134, for its 
product marketed under NDA 9-319; and National Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 
7205 Windsor Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21207, for its products IRS to 
Ambenyl Expectorant.
    On May 24, 1983 (48 FR 23311), FDA announced that it was 
withdrawing approval of NDA 5-914 as it pertains to Pyribenzamine and 
Ephedrine Tablets, effective June 23, 1983, because no hearing was 
requested for the product by the NDA holder. On February 27, 1984, 
Marion Laboratories, the NDA holder for Ambenyl Expectorant, withdrew 
its hearing request after a reformulated version of its product was 
approved. Accordingly, on August 24, 1984 (49 FR 33726), FDA announced 
it was withdrawing approval of those portions of NDA 9-319 pertaining 
to the old formulation of Ambenyl Expectorant, effective September 24, 
1984. On January 16, 1985, Bay Laboratories withdrew its hearing 
request relating to this docket.
    FDA was unable to find current contact information for National 
Pharmaceuticals. If this company, or its successor-in-interest, 
continues to have an interest in pursuing its hearing request under 
this docket, the company (or its successor-in-interest) must affirm its 
hearing request in writing by the date specified in this notice. FDA 
will assume that if this hearing request is not affirmed within that 
time frame, it is no longer being pursued, and will deem it withdrawn.
4. Ornade Spansules; Docket 82N-0096 (DESI 12152)
    In a notice published in the Federal Register on August 17, 1982 
(47 FR 35870), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the 
drug product described below, and those products IRS to this product, 
to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for DESI. In 
the notice, FDA also announced the conditions for marketing these 
products, as reformulated, for the indication for which they were 
regarded as effective, and offered an opportunity for a hearing 
concerning a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDA with respect to 
the old formulation and the indications reclassified to lacking 
substantial evidence of effectiveness.
    Ornade Spansules, as formulated early in the DESI review process, 
was a three-ingredient product containing 8 mg of chlorpheniramine 
maleate, 50 mg of phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride, and 2.5 mg of 
isopropamide, and was marketed under NDA 12-152. Prior to the 
publication of the August 17, 1982, Federal Register notice, Ornade 
Spansules was reformulated to be a controlled-release product 
containing 12 mg chlorpheniramine maleate and 75 mg 
phenylpropanolamine.
    In response to the August 17, 1982, notice, timely hearing requests 
were filed by B.F. Ascher & Co., 15501 West 109th St., Lenexa, KS 
66219, for its IRS product Drize Slow-Release Capsules; Cord 
Laboratories, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, for 
its IRS product Profenade 2 S.R. Capsules; Glaxo, Inc 1011 
North Arendell Ave, PO Box 1217, Zebulon, NC 27597, for its IRS product 
Histabid Duracaps; SmithKline & French Laboratories, 1500 Spring Garden 
St., P.O. Box 7929, Philadelphia, PA 19101, for its product marketed 
under NDA 12-152; and Zenith Laboratories, Inc., 140 LeGrand Ave., 
Northvale, NJ 07647, for its IRS product, a sustained release product 
containing chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine. Two late hearing 
requests were filed by Knoll Pharmaceutical Co. (formerly Boots 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), 300 Tri-State International Center, suite 200, 
Lincolnshire, IL 60069, for its IRS product Ru-Tuss Tablets, and 
Pioneer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 209 40th St., Irvington, NJ 07111, for 
its IRS product, characterized by the company as a generic version of 
Ornade Spansules. A late hearing request was also filed by Sidmak 
Laboratories, Inc., 17 West St., P.O. Box 371, East Hanover, NJ 07936, 
for two IRS products, one containing chlorpheniramine maleate 12 mg and 
phenylpropanolamine, and the other containing chlorpheniramine maleate 
8 mg and phenylpropanolamine.
    On December 12, 1984 (49 FR 48387), FDA announced that it was 
withdrawing approval of those portions of NDA 12-152 covering the old, 
three-ingredient formulation for Ornade Spansules, effective January 
11, 1985, noting that no party submitted a hearing request regarding 
the three-ingredient formulation. On January 15, 1986, SmithKline, the 
NDA holder for Ornade Spansules, withdrew its hearing request after 
receiving FDA approval for its supplemental NDAs covering the 
reformulated product. Knoll Pharmaceutical withdrew its hearing request 
relating to this docket on September 14, 1995.
    On October 21, 2009, B.F. Ascher & Co. withdrew its hearing request 
relating to this docket. On the same date, Sandoz, Inc., 2555 West 
Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, the successor-in-interest to Cord 
Laboratories, Inc., withdrew its hearing request. On February 15, 2010, 
Sidmak Laboratories' successor-in-interest, Teva

[[Page 1179]]

Pharmaceuticals, withdrew its hearing request.
    On November 9, 2009, Glaxo's successor, GlaxoSmithKline, indicated 
it transferred its interest in Histabid Duracaps, the subject of its 
hearing request, to Medeva Pharmaceuticals sometime between 1984 and 
1990, and GlaxoSmithKline indicated to the law firm that had filed the 
hearing request on behalf of Glaxo that it had no interest in pursuing 
the hearing request. The law firm was also able to contact UCB, the 
successor to the Celltech Chiroscience, which had previously acquired 
Medeva Pharmaceuticals. UCB also indicated to the law firm that had 
filed the hearing request that it had no interest in pursuing the 
hearing request filed by Glaxo for Histabid Duracaps. As the agency has 
not heard from UCB formally, the agency is providing the company an 
opportunity to affirm its hearing request in writing by the date 
specified in this notice. FDA will assume that if this hearing request 
is not affirmed within that time frame the request is no longer being 
pursued, and will deem it withdrawn.
    FDA sent a letter to Zenith Laboratories on November 16, 2010 
requesting that the company withdraw or affirm its outstanding hearing 
requests under this docket within 30 days. As of December 13, 2010, 
Zenith Laboratories had not responded to FDA.
    FDA was unable to find current contact information for Pioneer 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. If this company, or its successor-in-interest, 
continues to have an interest in pursuing its hearing request under 
this docket, the company (or its successor-in-interest) must affirm its 
hearing request in writing by the date specified in this notice. FDA 
will assume that if this hearing request is not affirmed within that 
time frame the request is no longer being pursued, and will deem it 
withdrawn
5. Dimetapp Extentabs and Elixir; Docket 83N-0095 (DESI 11935)
    In a notice published in the Federal Register on December 23, 1983 
(48 FR 56854), FDA revoked the temporary exemption that permitted the 
drug products described below, and those products IRS to these 
products, to remain on the market beyond the time limit established for 
DESI. In the notice, FDA also announced the conditions for marketing 
these products, as reformulated, for the indication for which they were 
regarded as effective, and offered an opportunity for a hearing 
concerning a proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs for the old 
formulations and for the indications reclassified to lacking 
substantial evidence of effectiveness.
    Dimetapp Extentabs, as formulated during the period of the DESI 
review, was a controlled-release product containing 12 mg 
brompheniramine maleate, 15 mg phenylephrine hydrochloride, and 15 mg 
phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride, and marketed under NDA 12-436. At 
the time of the publication of the December 23, 1983, Federal Register 
notice, the manufacturer had submitted a supplemental application 
proposing to reformulate the product to contain 12 mg brompheniramine 
maleate and 75 mg phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride in a controlled-
release form. Dimetapp Elixir was originally formulated to contain 4 mg 
brompheniramine maleate, 5 mg phenylephrine hydrochloride, and 5 mg 
phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride per 5 milliliters (mL), and was 
marketed under NDA 13-087. At the time of the publication of the 
December 23, 1983, Federal Register notice, the manufacturer had 
submitted a supplemental application proposing to reformulate the 
product to contain 4 mg brompheniramine maleate and 25 mg 
phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride per 5 mL. The supplements to NDA 12-
436 and NDA 13-087 were subsequently approved by FDA on April 20, 1984, 
and March 29, 1984, respectively.
    In response to the December 23, 1983, notice, timely hearing 
requests were filed by A.H. Robins, 1407 Cummings Dr., Richmond, VA 
23220, for its products marketed under NDA 12-436 and NDA 13-087; 
American Therapeutics, Inc., 75 Carlough Rd., Bohemia, NY 11716, for 
its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentab Tablets; Amide Pharmaceutical, 
Inc., 101 East Main St., Little Falls, NJ 07424, for its IRS product 
Ami-Tapp; Bay Laboratories, Inc., 3654 West Jarvis, Skokie, IL 60076, 
for Triphen Elixir, its product IRS to Dimetapp Elixir; Carnrick 
Laboratories, Inc., 65 Horse Hill Rd., Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927, for 
Nolamine Timed Release Tablets, its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; 
Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc., 398 West Second St., P.O. Box 107, Boston, 
MA 02127, for its products IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; Cord 
Laboratories, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., Broomfield, CO 80020, for 
Cordamine-PA Tablets, its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; D.M. 
Graham Laboratories, Inc., Hobart, NY 13788, for unspecified IRS 
products; Forest Laboratories, Inc., 909 Third Ave., New York, NY 
10022, for its IRS products Brocon C.R. Tablets and Chewable Brocon 
Tablets; Halsey Drug Co. Inc., 1827 Pacific St., Brooklyn, NY 11233, 
for its products IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs and Dimetapp Elixir; Lemmon 
Co., 850 Cathill Rd., Sellersville, PA 18960, for Phenatapp, its 
product IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; LuChem Pharmaceuticals, Inc., P.O. 
Box 6038, 8910 Linwood Ave., Shreveport, LA 71136, for its IRS products 
Ban-Tuss HC, Ban-Tuss C Expectorant, Tuss-Delay Tablets, Ban-Tuss 
Plain, Klerist-D Tablets, Respergen, Am-Tuss Liquid, Novadyne DH, 
Novadyne Expectorant, Dexophed Tablets, Chem-Tuss-SR, Chem-Tuss Elixir, 
Chem-Tuss DM, Chem-Tuss DME, and Chem-Tuss N; Mayrand Inc., 4 Dundas 
Circle, P.O. Box 8860, Greensboro, NC 27419, for its products IRS to 
Dimetapp Extentabs and Dimetapp Elixir; National Pharmaceutical 
Manufacturing Co., 7205 Windsor Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21207, for its 
product IRS to Dimetapp Elixir; Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc., 301 S. 
Cherokee, Denver, CO 80223, for its IRS product Basamine S.R. Tablets; 
Pioneer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 209 40th St., Irvington, NJ 07111, for 
Pioten Tablets, its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; Quantum 
Pharmics, Ltd., 26 Edison St., Amityville, NY 11701, for its IRS 
product, Brom-Tapp; Superpharm Corp., 155 Oval Dr., Central Islip, NY 
11722, for its product IRS to Dimetapp Extentab Tablets; United States 
Trading Corp., 10718 McCune Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90034, for its 
products IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs; and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, 
Inc., 14905 23rd Ave. North, Minneapolis, MN 55441, for unspecified 
products. A late hearing request was filed by Sidmak Laboratories, 
Inc., 17 West St., P.O. Box 371, East Hanover, NJ 07936, for its 
products IRS to Dimetapp Extentabs.
    On June 11, 1985, A.H. Robins, the NDA holder for Dimetapp 
Extentabs and Dimetapp Elixir, withdrew its hearing request relating to 
this docket, after reformulating its products to comply with the OTC 
monograph in part 341 (21 CFR part 341), ``Cold, Cough, Allergy, 
Bronchodilator, and Antihistamine Drug Products for Over-the-Counter 
Human Use.'' Accordingly, on July 19, 1985 (50 FR 29484), FDA announced 
that it was withdrawing approval of those portions of NDAs 12-436 and 
13-087 pertaining to the old formulations of the Dimetapp products, 
effective August 19, 1985.
    On August 23, 1984, Lemmon Co. withdrew its hearing request 
relating to this docket. Sandoz, Inc., 2555 West Midway Blvd., 
Broomfield, CO 80020, the successor-in-interest to Cord Laboratories, 
Inc., withdrew its hearing request on October 21, 2009. Forest 
Laboratories, Inc., withdrew its hearing request on October 22, 2009. 
The

[[Page 1180]]

hearing request filed by D.M. Graham Laboratories, Inc., was withdrawn 
on December 10, 2009. D.M. Graham Laboratories was previously acquired 
by Mallinckrodt, Inc., which is now part of Covidien, 172 Railroad 
Ave., Hobart, NY 13788. Teva Pharmaceuticals, the successor-in-interest 
to Sidmak Laboratories, withdrew its hearing request on February 15, 
2010. Acura Pharmaceutical Co., 616 N. North Court, Palantine, IL 
60067, successor to Halsey Drug Co., withdrew its hearing request on 
November 23, 2010.
    FDA sent a letter to Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC, P.O. Box 18806, 
Greensboro, NC 27419, successor to Mayrand, Inc., Pharmaceuticals, on 
November 16, 2010, requesting that this company withdraw or affirm its 
outstanding hearing request under this docket within 30 days. As of 
December 13, 2010, the company had not responded to FDA.
    FDA was unable to find current contact information for American 
Therapeutics, Amide Pharmaceutical, Inc., Bay Laboratories, Inc., 
National Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Co., Pharmaceutical Basics, Inc., 
Superpharm Corp., and United States Trading Corp. FDA did not receive 
any response to its attempt to contact Carnrick Laboratories, a 
subsidiary of Elan Corporation; Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc.; LuChem 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pioneer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Quantum Pharmics, 
Ltd.; or Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. If any of these companies, or 
their successors-in-interest, continue to have an interest in pursuing 
their hearing requests under this docket, the companies (or their 
successors-in-interest) must affirm their hearing requests in writing 
by the date specified in this notice. FDA will assume that hearing 
requests that are not affirmed within that time frame are no longer 
being pursued, and will deem them withdrawn.

III. Discontinued Products

    Some firms may have previously discontinued the manufacturing or 
distribution of products covered by this notice without removing them 
from the listing of their products under section 510(j) of the FD&C 
Act. Other firms may discontinue manufacturing or marketing listed 
products in response to this notice. Firms that wish to notify the 
agency of product discontinuation should send a letter, signed by the 
firm's chief executive officer, fully identifying the discontinued 
product(s), including NDC number(s), and stating that the product(s) 
has (have) been discontinued. The letter should be sent to Sakineh 
Walther (see ADDRESSES).
    Firms should also update the listing of their products under 
section 510(j) of the FD&C Act to reflect discontinuation of unapproved 
products. FDA plans to rely on its existing records, including drug 
listing records or other available information, when it targets 
violations for enforcement action. Firms should be aware that, after 
the effective date of this notice, FDA intends to take enforcement 
action without further notice against any firm that manufactures or 
ships in interstate commerce any unapproved product covered by this 
notice that is not the subject of an ongoing DESI proceeding.

IV. Reformulated Products

    Some of the active ingredients found in drug products covered by 
this notice are included in the OTC monograph in part 341 (21 CFR part 
341), ``Cold, Cough, Allergy, Bronchodilator, and Antihistamine Drug 
Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use.'' OTC products that comply 
with this monograph may be marketed without approval.
    However, FDA cautions firms against reformulating products into OTC 
products or different unapproved new drugs that are marketed under the 
same name or substantially the same name (including a new name that 
contains the old name). Reformulated products marketed under a name 
previously identified with a different active ingredient or combination 
of active ingredients have the potential to confuse health care 
practitioners and harm patients.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (sections 502 and 505 (21 U.S.C. 352 and 355), and under authority 
delegated to the Assistant Commissioner for Policy under section 
1410.21 of the FDA Staff Manual Guide.

    Dated: January 3, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-104 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.