Food Safety Modernization Act Domestic and Foreign Facility Reinspections, Recall, and Importer Reinspection User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2012, 45820-45825 [2011-19331]
Download as PDF
45820
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2011 / Notices
C. If FDA considers reduced fee
amounts in the proposed set of
guidelines, what factors should FDA
consider in establishing the amount by
which fees could be reduced?
1. Should FDA consider the
following:
• A waiver of all of the fees;
• A percentage reduction of the fees;
or
• A fixed dollar reduction of the fees?
2. Are there circumstances that justify
one approach over another? Please
explain.
3. Are there other approaches that
should be considered? Please explain.
III. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written
comments regarding this document. It is
only necessary to send one set of
comments. It is no longer necessary to
send two copies of mailed comments.
Identify comments with the docket
number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
IV. References
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The following references have been
placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES)
and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday. (FDA has verified the
Web site addresses, but FDA is not
responsible for any subsequent changes
to the Web sites after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.)
1. Scallan E., R.M. Hoekstra, F.J.
Angulo, R.V. Tauxe, M-A.
Widdowson, S.L. Roy, et al.,
‘‘Foodborne Illness Acquired in the
United States—Major Pathogens,’’
Emerging Infectious Diseases,
17(1):7–15, 2011. Available at
https://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/
17/1/7.htm.
2. Scallan E., P.M. Griffin, F.J. Angulo,
R.V. Tauxe, R.M. Hoekstra,
‘‘Foodborne Illness Acquired in the
United States—Unspecified
Agents,’’ Emerging Infectious
Diseases, 17(1):16–22, 2011.
Available at https://www.cdc.gov/
EID/content/17/1/16.htm.
Dated: July 26, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–19333 Filed 7–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:45 Jul 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0528]
Food Safety Modernization Act
Domestic and Foreign Facility
Reinspections, Recall, and Importer
Reinspection User Fee Rates for Fiscal
Year 2012
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing the
fiscal year (FY) 2012 fee rates for certain
domestic and foreign facility
reinspections, failure to comply with a
recall order, and importer reinspections
that are mandated in the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act),
amended by the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA). These fees
are effective on October 1, 2011, and
will remain in effect through September
30, 2012. Invoices for these fees for FY
2012 will be issued using the fee
schedule established in this document.
FDA is accepting comments to this
document and intends to consider such
comments in implementing these user
fees in FY 2013.
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments by October 31, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Waltrip, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rm.
2012, Rockville, MD 20857, 301–796–
8811, email: Amy.Waltrip@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
FSMA (Pub. L. 111–353), section 743
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j–31),
establishes three different kinds of fees.
The fees are assessed for the costs of the
following activities: (1) Certain domestic
and foreign facility reinspections
(section 743(a)(1)(A)), (2) failure to
comply with a recall order under
section 423 or 412(f) of the FD&C Act
(section 743(a)(1)(B)), and (3) certain
importer reinspections (section
743(a)(1)(D)).
Fees for each of these activities are to
be established to capture 100 percent of
the costs of each activity for each year
(sections 743(b)(2)(A), (B), and (D) of the
FD&C Act), and must be made available
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
solely to pay for the costs of each
activity for which the fee was incurred
(section 743(b)(3) of the FD&C Act.
These fees are effective on October 1,
2011, and will remain in effect through
September 30, 2012. FDA is accepting
comments to this document and intends
to consider such comments, as well as
experience and additional data gained
in implementing these user fees in FY
2012, in implementing these user fees in
FY 2013.
II. Estimating the Average Cost of a
Supported Direct FDA Work Hour for
FY 2012
FDA is required to estimate 100
percent of its cost for each activity and
assess fees for FY 2012. In each year, the
costs of salary (or personnel
compensation) and benefits for FDA
employees account for between 50 and
60 percent of the funds available to, and
used by, FDA. Almost all of the
remaining funds (or the operating funds)
available to FDA are used to support
FDA employees for paying rent, travel,
utility, information technology, and
other operating costs.
A. Estimating the Full Cost Per Direct
Work Hour in FY 2010
In general, the starting point for
estimating the full cost per direct work
hour is to estimate the cost of a fulltime-equivalent (FTE) or paid staff year
for the relevant activity. This is most
reasonably done by dividing the total
funds allocated to the elements of FDA
primarily responsible for carrying out
the activities for which fees are being
collected by the total FTEs allocated to
those activities, using information from
the most recent FY for which data are
available. For the purposes of the FSMA
fee provisions, primary responsibility
for the activities for which fees will be
collected rests with FDA’s Office of
Regulatory Affairs (ORA), which carries
out inspection and other field-based
activities on behalf of FDA’s product
centers, including the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)
and the Center for Veterinary Medicine
(CVM), which have FSMA
implementation responsibilities. Thus,
as the starting point for estimating the
full cost per direct work hour, FDA will
use the total funds allocated to ORA for
CFSAN and CVM related field activities.
The most recent FY with available data
is FY 2010. In that year, FDA obligated
a total of $626,095,116 for the Office of
Regulatory Affairs (ORA) in carrying out
work related to programs of the CFSAN
and CVM, excluding the costs of foreign
inspection travel. These are the staff
primarily conducting the work related
to the reinspection and recall activities
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
45821
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2011 / Notices
for which fees would be charged. The
obligated total amount paid for salary,
benefits, and operating costs of 2,701
FTEs or paid staff years utilized by ORA
in FY 2010, but exclude the cost of
foreign inspection travel. Dividing
$626,095,116 by 2,701 FTEs, results in
an average cost of $231,801 per paid
staff year, excluding the costs of foreign
inspection travel.
Not all of the FTEs required to
support the activities for which fees will
be collected are conducting direct work
such as inspecting or reinspecting
facilities, examining imports, or
monitoring recalls. Data collected over a
number of years and used consistently
in other FDA user fee programs (e.g.,
under the Prescription Drug User Fee
Act (PDUFA) and the Medical Device
User Fee and Modernization Act
(MDUFMA)) show that every seven
FTEs who perform direct FDA work
require three indirect and supporting
FTEs. These indirect and supporting
FTEs function in budget, facility, human
resource, information technology,
planning, security, administrative
support, legislative liaison, legal
counsel, program management, and
other essential program areas. On
average, two of these indirect and
supporting FTEs are located in ORA or
the FDA center where the direct work is
being conducted, and one of them is
located in the Office of the
Commissioner. To get the fully
supported cost of an FTE, FDA needs to
multiply the average cost of an FTE by
1.43, to take into account the indirect
and supporting functions. The 1.43
factor is derived by dividing the 10 fully
supported FTEs by 7 direct FTEs. In FY
2010, the average cost of an FTE was
$231,801. Multiplying this amount by
1.43 results in an average fully
supported cost of $331,476 per FTE,
excluding the cost of foreign inspection
travel.
To calculate an hourly rate, FDA must
divide the average fully supported cost
of $331,476 per FTE by the average
number of supported direct FDA work
hours. See table 1.
cumulative and compounded annually
after FY 2008 (see section 736(c)(1)).
For FY 2012, the first factor is the CPI
Total number of hours in a
increase for the 12-month period ending
paid staff year ...................
2,080 in June 2011. The CPI for June 2011 was
Less:
10 paid holidays ................
80 225.722 and the CPI for June 2010 was
20 days of annual leave ...
160 217.965. (These CPI figures are available
10 days of sick leave ........
80 on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web
10 days of training ............
80 site at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/
2 hours of meetings per
surveymost?bls by checking the first box
week ..............................
80
under ‘‘Price Indexes’’ and then clicking
Net Supported Direct FDA
‘‘Retrieve Data’’ at the bottom of the
Work Hours Available for
Assignments ......................
1,600 page. FDA has verified the Web site
addresses throughout this document,
Dividing the average fully supported
but is not responsible for any
cost of an FTE in FY 2010 ($331,476) by subsequent changes to the Web sites
the total number of supported direct
after this document publishes in the
work hours available for assignment
Federal Register.) The CPI for June 2011
(1,600) results in an average fully
is 3.559 percent higher than the CPI for
supported cost of $207 (rounded to the
the previous 12-month period.
nearest dollar), excluding foreign
The second factor for the FY 2012
inspection travel costs, per supported
inflationary increase is the increase in
direct work hour in FY 2010—the last
pay for the previous FY (FY 2011 in this
FY for which data are available.
case) for Federal employees stationed in
B. Adjusting FY 2010 Costs for Inflation the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
to Estimate FY 2012 Costs
(This figure is published by the Office
To adjust the hourly rate for FY 2012, of Personnel Management, and can be
FDA must estimate cost of inflation in
found on the Web site at https://
each year for FY 2011 and FY 2012.
www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/html/
FDA uses the method prescribed for
dcb.asp above the salary table. For FY
estimating inflationary costs under the
2011, the inflationary increase was 0.00
PDUFA provisions of the FD&C Act
percent.
(section 736(c)(1) (21 U.S.C.
For FY 2012, the third factor is the
379h(c)(1))), the only provision the
average change in FDA’s cost for
FD&C Act that provides a method for
estimating future inflationary costs. The compensation and benefits per FTE over
the previous five of the most recent six
inflationary adjustment specified in
FYs (FY 2006 through FY 2010). The
these provisions, since FY 2008, is the
data on total compensation and benefits
greater of the following amounts: (1)
paid and numbers of FTEs paid, from
The total percentage change that
which the average cost per FTE can be
occurred in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) (all items; U.S. city average)
derived, are published in FDA’s
during the 12-month period ending June Justification of Estimates for
30 preceding the FY for which fees are
Appropriations Committees. Table 2 of
being set; (2) the total percentage pay
this document summarizes the actual
change for the previous FY for Federal
costs and FTE data for the specified
employees stationed in the Washington, FYs, and provides the percent changes
DC metropolitan area; or (3) the average from the previous FYs and the average
annual change in cost, per FDA FTE, of
percent change over the previous five of
all personnel compensation and benefits the most recent six FYs, which is 3.72
paid per FTE over the previous five of
percent.
the most recent six FYs. PDUFA IV
provides for this adjustment to be
TABLE 1—SUPPORTED DIRECT FDA
WORK HOURS IN A PAID STAFF YEAR
TABLE 2—FDA PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS (PC&B) EACH YEAR AND PERCENT CHANGE
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FY 2005
Total PC&B ...........................................
Total FTE ..............................................
PC&B per FTE ......................................
% Change from Previous Year .............
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Average
for latest
5 years
$1,077,604,000
9,910
$108,739
5.75%
$1,114,704,000
9,698
$114,942
5.70%
$1,144,369,000
9,569
$119,591
4.05%
$1,215,627,000
9,811
$123,905
3.61%
$1,464,445,000
11,413
$128,314
3.56%
$1,634,108,000
12,526
$130,457
1.67%
....................
....................
....................
3.72%
Taking all three factors into
consideration, the inflationary increase
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:19 Jul 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
for FY 2012 is 3.72 percent. The average
percent change over the previous five of
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the most recent six FYs is 3.72 percent
which is greater than the CPI change
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
45822
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2011 / Notices
during the 12-month period ending June
30 preceding the FY for which fees are
being set (3.559 percent), and the
increase in pay for the previous FY (FY
2011 in this case) for Federal employees
stationed in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area (0.00 percent).
Therefore, the average percent change in
PC&B cost per FTE (3.72 percent)
becomes the inflation adjustment for the
fee revenue for FY 2012.
The inflationary adjustment for FY
2011 under the same provisions in
section 736(c)(1) of the FD&C Act was
4.53 percent—the average percent
change over the previous five of the
most recent six FYs (FY 2005 through
FY 2009). This 4.53 percent is greater
than the CPI increase during the 12month period ending June 30 preceding
the FY for which fees were being set on
June 30, 2010 (1.053 percent), and the
increase in pay for FY 2010 for Federal
employees stationed in Washington, DC
(2.42 percent).
Section 736(c)(1) of the FD&C Act
requires the inflationary adjustment to
be cumulative and compounded. This
factor for FY 2012 (3.72 percent) is
compounded by adding 1 and then
multiplying by 1 plus the inflationary
adjustment factor for FY 2011 (4.53
percent), to account for the 2 years of
inflationary adjustments since FY 2010.
The result of this multiplication (1.0372
times 1.0453) becomes the inflationary
adjustment for FY 2012, which is
1.0842, or an increase of 8.42 percent
over FY 2010 costs.
Increasing FY 2010 average fully
supported cost per supported direct
FDA work hour of $207 (excluding
foreign inspection travel costs) by 8.42
percent yields an inflationary adjusted
cost of $224 per a supported direct work
hour in FY 2012, excluding foreign
inspection travel costs. This is the unit
cost that FDA will use in billing the
reinspection and the recall activities for
FY 2012 if no foreign travel is required
for the activity.
In FY 2010, ORA spent a total of
$1,010,900 on a total of 91 foreign
inspection trips related to FDA’s food
and veterinary medicine programs,
which averaged a total of $11,109 per
foreign inspection trip. These trips
averaged 3 weeks (or 120 paid hours)
per trip. Dividing $11,109 per trip by
120 hours per trip results in a total and
an additional cost of $93 per paid hour
spent for foreign inspection travel costs
in FY 2010. To adjust $93 for
inflationary increases in FY 2011 and
FY 2012, FDA must multiply it by the
same inflation factor mentioned
previously in this document (1.0842)
which results in an estimated cost of
$101 dollars per paid hour in addition
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:45 Jul 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
to $224 for a total of $335 per paid hour
($224 plus $101) for each direct hour of
work requiring foreign inspection travel.
These are the rates that FDA will use in
charging fees in FY 2012 when foreign
travel is required.
TABLE 3—FSMA FEE SCHEDULE FOR
FY 2012
Fee rates
for FY 2012
Fee category
Hourly rate if no foreign travel
is required .............................
Hourly rate if foreign travel is
required .................................
$224
335
Congress directed FDA to publish,
within 180 days of enactment of FSMA,
a proposed set of guidelines in
consideration of the burden of fee
amounts on small business (section
743(b)(2)(B)(iii) of the FD&C Act). Such
consideration may include reduced fee
amounts for small businesses. FDA
believes it is important to gather
additional information before
publishing such guidelines. Therefore,
the Agency is publishing a separate
document in this issue of the Federal
Register requesting public input to help
the Agency understand what factors
should be taken into account when
drafting the proposed guidelines. The
Agency intends to consider the
comments received and then publish for
comment a proposed set of guidelines
on the considerations of the burden of
fee amounts on small business. Any
adjustment to the fee schedule for small
business must be done through notice
and comment rulemaking (see section
743(b)(2)(B)(iii)). Thus, there will be no
separate small business fees published
for FY 2012 (table 3 of this document)
and the published fees in this document
will apply to all businesses in FY 2012.
FDA recognizes, however, that for
some small businesses the full cost
recovery of FDA reinspection or recall
oversight could impose severe economic
hardship, and there may be unique
circumstances in which some relief
would be appropriate. Thus, during FY
2012, FDA will consider waiving in
limited cases some or all of an invoiced
fee based on a severe economic
hardship, the nature and extent of the
underlying violation, and other relevant
factors.
III. Fees for Reinspections of Domestic
or Foreign Facilities Under Section
743(a)(1)(A)
A. What will cause this fee to be
assessed?
The fee will be assessed for a
reinspection conducted under section
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
704 of the FD&C Act to determine
whether corrective actions have been
implemented and are effective and
compliance has been achieved to the
Secretary of Health and Human
Services’ (the Secretary) (and, by
delegation, FDA’s) satisfaction at a
facility that manufactures, processes,
packs or holds food 1 for consumption
necessitated as a result of a previous
inspection (also conducted under
section 704) of this facility which had
a final classification of Official Action
Indicated (OAI) conducted by or on
behalf of FDA, when FDA determined
the non-compliance was materially
related to food safety requirements of
the FD&C Act. FDA considers such noncompliance to include non-compliance
with a statutory or regulatory
requirement under section 402 of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) and section
403(w) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
343(w)). However, FDA does not
consider non-compliance that is
materially related to a food safety
requirement to include circumstances
where the non-compliance is of a
technical nature and not food safety
related (e.g., failure to comply with a
food standard or incorrect font size on
a food label). Determining when noncompliance, other than under section
402 and 403(w) of the FD&C Act, is
materially related to food safety may
depend on the facts of a particular
situation. FDA may consider issuing
guidance to provide additional
information about the circumstances
under which FDA would consider when
non-compliance is materially related to
a food safety requirement.
Under section 743(a)(1)(A) of the
FD&C Act, FDA shall assess and collect
fees from ‘‘the responsible party for each
domestic facility (as defined in section
415(b) (21 U.S.C. 350d)) and the United
States agent for each foreign facility
subject to a reinspection’’ to cover
reinspection-related costs.
Section 743(a)(2)(A)(i) of the FD&C
Act defines the term ‘‘reinspection’’
with respect to domestic facilities as ‘‘1
or more inspections conducted under
section 704 subsequent to an inspection
conducted under such provision which
identified non-compliance materially
related to a food safety requirement of
th[e] Act, specifically to determine
whether compliance has been achieved
to the Secretary’s satisfaction.’’
The FD&C Act does not contain a
definition of ‘‘reinspection’’ specific to
foreign facilities. In order to give
meaning to the language in section
1 The term ‘‘food’’ for purposes of this document
has the same meaning as such term in section 201(f)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)).
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2011 / Notices
743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act to collect
fees from the United States agent of a
foreign facility subject to a reinspection,
the Agency is using the following
definition, of ‘‘reinspection,’’ for
purposes of assessing and collecting fees
under section 743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C
Act, with respect to a foreign facility: ‘‘1
or more inspections conducted by
officers or employees duly designated
by the Secretary subsequent to such an
inspection which identified noncompliance materially related to a food
safety requirement of the FD&C Act,
specifically to determine whether
compliance has been achieved to the
Secretary’s (and, by delegation, FDA’s)
satisfaction.’’
This definition allows FDA to fulfill
the mandate to assess and collect fees
from the United States agent of a foreign
facility in the event that an inspection
reveals non-compliance materiallyrelated to a food safety requirement
causing one or more subsequent
inspections to determine whether
compliance has been achieved to the
Secretary’s (and, by delegation, FDA’s)
satisfaction. By requiring the initial
inspection to be conducted by officers
or employees duly designated by the
Secretary, the definition ensures that a
foreign facility would be subject to fees
only in the event that FDA, or an entity
designated to act on its behalf, has made
the requisite identification at an initial
inspection of non-compliance materially
related to a food-safety requirement of
the FD&C Act. The definition of
‘‘reinspection-related costs,’’ as defined
in section 743(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act,
relates to both a domestic facility
reinspection and a foreign facility
reinspection, as described in section
743(a)1)(A) of the FD&C Act.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Who will be responsible for paying
this fee?
The FD&C Act states that this fee is to
be paid by the responsible party for each
domestic facility (as defined in section
415(b) of the FD&C Act) and by the
United States agent for each foreign
facility (section 743(a)(1)(A) of the
FD&C Act). This is the party to whom
FDA will send the invoice for any fees
that are assessed under this section.
C. How much will this fee be?
The fee is based on the number of
direct hours spent on such
reinspections, including time spent
conducting the physical surveillance
and/or compliance reinspection at the
facility, or whatever components of
such an inspection are deemed
necessary, making preparations and
arrangements for the reinspection,
traveling to and from the facility,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:45 Jul 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
preparing any reports, analyzing any
samples or examining any labels if
required, and performing other activities
as part of the OAI reinspection until the
facility is again determined to be in
compliance. The direct hours spent on
each such reinspection will be billed at
the appropriate hourly rate shown in
table 3 of this document.
IV. Fees for Non-Compliance With a
Recall Order Under Section 743(a)(1)(B)
A. What will cause this fee to be
assessed?
The fee will be assessed for not
complying with a recall order under
section 423(d) or 412(f) of the FD&C Act
to cover food recall activities associated
with such order performed by the
Secretary (and by delegation, FDA)
(section 743(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
Noncompliance may include the
following: (1) Not initiating a recall as
ordered by FDA; (2) not conducting the
recall in the manner specified by FDA
in the recall order; or (3) not providing
FDA with requested information
regarding the recall, as ordered by FDA.
B. Who will be responsible for paying
this fee?
Section 743(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act
states that the fee is to be paid by the
responsible party for a domestic facility
(as defined in section 415(b) of the
FD&C Act and an importer who does not
comply with a recall order under
section 423 or under section 412(f) of
the FD&C Act. In other words, the party
paying the fee would be the party that
received the recall order.
C. How much will this fee be?
The fee is based on the number of
direct hours spent on taking action in
response to the firm’s failure to comply
with a recall order. Types of activities
could include conducting recall audit
checks, reviewing periodic status
reports, analyzing the status reports and
the results of the audit checks,
conducting inspections, traveling to and
from locations, and monitoring product
disposition. The direct hours spent on
each such recall will be billed at the
appropriate hourly rate shown in table
3 of this document.
V. Fees for Import Reinspection/
Reexamination Under Section
743(a)(1)(D)
A. What will cause this fee to be
assessed?
Under section 743(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the
FD&C Act, for a fee to be assessed, there
must be two sets of examinations. First,
there must be an examination
conducted under section 801 of the
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45823
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 381), which must
identify noncompliance materially
related to a food safety requirement of
the FD&C Act.
Second, subsequent to the first
examination, there must be 1 or more
additional examinations conducted
under section 801. These additional
examinations must be conducted
specifically to determine whether
compliance has been achieved to the
Secretary’s (and, by delegation, FDA’s)
satisfaction. Moreover, per section
743(a)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, an
importer subject to a reinspection will
be assessed a fee to cover reinspectionrelated costs.
FDA has determined that at least the
following four specific situations will
cause a fee to be assessed:
1. Reconditioning of Imported Food
FDA reviews food that is imported or
offered for import to determine
admissibility into the United States (see,
e.g., section 801(a) of the FD&C Act).
Food is subject to refusal of admission
if, among other reasons, (a) it appears to
be adulterated or misbranded, or (b) if
it is a dietary supplement subject to
section 761 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
379aa–1), FDA has credible evidence or
information indicating that the
responsible person has not complied
with a requirement of that section or has
not allowed access to records described
in that section. When FDA initiates a
refusal of admission, often referred to as
detaining the product, notice is given to
the owner or consignee. If the detention
is based on one of the reasons just
described, the owner or consignee of the
food may request permission to
recondition the food under section
801(b) of the FD&C Act. When the basis
is that the food appears to be
adulterated or misbranded, the request
can be to bring the food into compliance
by relabeling or other action, such as
heat treatment, or to render it other than
a food, drug, device, or cosmetic. When
the basis relates to section 761 (serious
adverse event reporting for dietary
supplements), the request can be for the
responsible person, as defined in
section 761, to take action to ensure that
the responsible person is in compliance
with section 761.
A request for reconditioning is made
after FDA has determined that the food
is subject to refusal of admission under
section 801(a) of the FD&C Act. For the
purpose of section 743 of the FD&C Act,
FDA considers its review of information
for the purpose of determining whether
an article of food is admissible to be ‘‘an
examination conducted under section
801.’’ If that review leads FDA to
determine that the food is subject to
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
45824
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2011 / Notices
refusal of admission under section
801(a), FDA considers that to mean that
its examination ‘‘identified
noncompliance’’ for the purpose of
section 743. This examination could
involve, for example, a laboratory
analysis of physical samples of the
product or a review of the product’s
label. It could also involve reviewing
other information FDA obtains, such as
reviewing sample results from a reliable
third party, relevant epidemiological
evidence, or the results from an FDA or
third party inspection of a facility where
the food was processed. A detention
without physical examination could
also be based on information contained
in an import alert.
When food is on an import alert, it
typically means that FDA has concluded
there is sufficient evidence or other
information to detain without physical
examination of future shipments of the
imported food (e.g., that future
shipments appear to be adulterated or
misbranded) and they are subject to
refusal unless the owner or consignee
shows the product is compliant (e.g.,
through third-party laboratory analysis).
FDA considers situations where FDA’s
review of information leads it to
conclude that food should be placed on
an import alert for detention without
physical examination to be ‘‘an
examination conducted under section
801 [that] identified noncompliance’’ for
the purposes of section 743. FDA’s
Regulatory Procedures Manual (RPM),
Chap. 9, discusses the types of reviews
FDA conducts, and the types of
information it reviews, in determining
whether to detain a product or to place
a product on an import alert.
For a fee to be assessed under section
743, FDA’s determination that the food
is subject to refusal of admission must
be on a basis materially related to food
safety requirements (see section III.A of
this document for a discussion about
‘‘materially related to food safety
requirements’’).
If FDA authorizes a request for
reconditioning, the reconditioning
operations are carried out under the
supervision of either FDA or U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
(section 801(b) of the FD&C Act; 21 CFR
1.96(a)). FDA considers the review and
approval of the request, as well as this
supervision to be ‘‘1 or more
examinations conducted under section
801 * * * specifically to determine
whether compliance has been achieved’’
to FDA’s satisfaction.
2. Importer Seeking Admission of an
Article That Has Been Detained
If FDA has determined that an article
of food is subject to refusal of admission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:45 Jul 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
under section 801(a) of the FD&C Act,
FDA gives notice of this to the owner or
consignee, who then has an opportunity
to introduce evidence regarding the
admissibility of the food (section 801(a)
of the FD&C Act; 21 CFR 1.94(a)). As
discussed previously in this document,
where FDA has reviewed information
for the purpose of admissibility and
determined that the food is subject to
refusal of admission under section 801,
FDA considers that it has conducted ‘‘an
examination conducted under section
801 [that] identified noncompliance.’’
This includes situations where FDA’s
review determines that food should be
placed on an import alert for detention
without physical examination.
If the owner or consignee chooses to
submit evidence regarding
admissibility, FDA reviews the
information to determine whether—
despite the appearance that the product
is adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise
subject to refusal of admission—the
food is compliant and admissible into
the United States. The evidence the
owner or consignee submits varies.
Depending on the circumstances, it
could include, for example, the results
of laboratory analyses of samples
conducted on the owner/consignee’s
behalf to show the product is not
contaminated. FDA considers its review
of the evidence submitted to be ‘‘1 or
more examinations conducted under
section 801 * * * specifically to
determine whether compliance has been
achieved’’ to FDA’s satisfaction.
Not all situations where the owner/
consignee provides information or
evidence to demonstrate compliance
will result in the assessment of a fee. An
example is if a food, not subject to an
Import Alert, is detained based on an
appearance of adulteration or
misbranding, but information is
presented that demonstrates that the
food is not adulterated or misbranded.
FDA considers such a situation to be
one in which a fee is not assessed.
A fee may or may not be assessed
under certain circumstances related to
food that is detained based on an import
alert for detention without physical
examination covering food from a
particular geographic region or country.
FDA may place a region or country on
an import alert if there appears to be an
ongoing problem or condition in that
region or country such that it causes the
appearance of a violation for future
shipments of imported articles
originating there. If food from a region
or country is subject to an import alert
and is subsequently detained based on
the overarching import alert, the owner
or consignee may seek admission by
providing evidence that the problem or
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conditions regarding the food it is
importing have been resolved.
Alternatively, the owner or consignee
may provide evidence that the problems
or conditions that led to the alert, even
if widespread in the region or country,
did not apply to its food and, thus, it
did not need to resolve any compliancerelated issues. FDA considers the latter
situation to be one in which a fee is not
assessed. A fee may be assessed,
however, when FDA reviews
compliance information specific to the
food being imported or specific to a
particular processor in determining
whether to issue a region- or countrywide import alert. An example is a
situation where FDA analyzed samples
of food from Processor A and found it
to be contaminated, the food is later
placed on a region- or country-wide
import alert, and the owner or consignee
is now importing or offering for import
food from Processor A. If the owner or
consignee seeks admission of the food
by providing third party laboratory
analyses to show the food is not
contaminated, FDA’s review of this
information would be ‘‘1 or more
examinations conducted under section
801 * * * specifically to determine
whether compliance has been achieved’’
to FDA’s satisfaction.
3. Entity Requesting Removal From an
Import Alert for Detention Without
Physical Examination
Once placed on import alert, food
imported from a particular firm, region,
or country may remain in this status
until FDA has sufficient evidence or
other information, such as information
that removes the appearance of the
violation that led to the initial
placement on import alert. Depending
on the situation that led to the import
alert, FDA’s RPM Chapter 9 or the
import alert itself may explain the types
of information that should be provided.
As discussed previously in this
document, where FDA has reviewed
information and determined that food
should be placed on an import alert for
detention without physical
examination, it considers that it has
conducted 1 or more examinations
conducted under section 801 that
identified noncompliance.
Where an entity requests removal of
food from an import alert and provides
supporting information, FDA considers
its review of this information, along
with any other related examination it
undertakes in considering the request,
to be ‘‘1 or more examinations
conducted under section 801 * * *
specifically to determine whether
compliance has been achieved’’ to
FDA’s satisfaction.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2011 / Notices
As discussed in section V.A.2 of this
document, some requests for removal
from region- or country-wide import
alerts will not lead to the assessment of
a fee. Fees would only be assessed in
situations where, in issuing the alert,
FDA reviewed compliance information
specific to a particular person or entity
sufficiently related to the request for
removal. An example of such a situation
is where FDA analyzed samples of food
from Processor A and found it to be
contaminated, the food is then placed
on a region- or country-wide import
alert, and FDA receives a request to
remove food from Processor A from the
import alert.
3. Entity Requesting Removal From an
Import Alert for Detention Without
Physical Examination.
4. Destruction of Food That Has Been
Refused Admission
C. How much will this fee be?
If a product is refused admission
under section 801(a) of the FD&C Act,
it must be exported within 90 days of
the document of refusal or it is subject
to destruction by CBP (section 801(a) of
the FD&C Act). In practice, when a
product is destroyed, destruction is
often conducted by the owner or
consignee under the supervision of FDA
or CBP. Where FDA conducts a review
and/or approves a destruction proposal
and such supervision of destruction
occurs, FDA considers this to be ‘‘1 or
more examinations conducted under
section 801 * * * specifically to
determine whether compliance has been
achieved’’ to FDA’s satisfaction.
B. Who will be responsible for paying
this fee?
The importer that is subject to the
additional examinations that are
described in section V.A of this
document is responsible for paying the
fee, according to section 743(a)(1)(D) of
the FD&C Act.
1. Reconditioning of Imported Food
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
For reconditioning, the entity that is
responsible for the reconditioning is
responsible for paying the fee. The
request for reconditioning can only be
made by the owner or consignee of the
food (21 CFR 1.95). If ownership
changes, the new owner will be
responsible for the reconditioning if that
new owner executes a bond and obtains
a new authorization (21 CFR 1.96(d)).
2. Importer Seeking Admission of an
Article That Has Been Detained
The entity that introduces evidence
regarding admissibility is responsible
for paying this fee. This is the owner or
consignee of the food that is being
imported or offered for import. (Section
801(a) of the FD&C Act; 21 CFR 1.83(b)
and 1.94(a).)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:45 Jul 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
FDA considers the entity that requests
removal of the food from the import
alert to be the importer subject to the
examination and, thus, responsible for
paying this fee.
4. Destruction of Food That Has Been
Refused Admission
FDA considers the entity that destroys
the product under FDA or CBP
supervision to be the importer subject to
the examination and, thus, responsible
for paying this fee.
The fee is to cover all expenses
incurred in connection with arranging,
conducting, and evaluating the results
of the one or more additional
examinations that are described in
section V.A of this document.
For reconditioning, section 801(c) of
the FD&C Act directs the owner or
consignee to pay all expenses in
connection with the supervision of
reconditioning with respect to food and
certain other FDA-regulated products.
Those parties have been paying these
expenses, but FDA did not have
authority to retain those fees. FDA
considers the enactment of section 743
of the FD&C Act to mean that, for food,
FDA is now authorized to assess and
retain these fees, but only with respect
to the reconditioning of food and only
if the other conditions of section 743 are
met. If a fee is authorized under section
743 for a particular article of food, FDA
considers this to mean it cannot collect
a fee related to reconditioning that
article under section 801(c).
For destruction, section 801(c) of the
FD&C Act also directs the owner or
consignee to pay all expenses in
connection with the destruction of food
and certain other FDA-regulated
products under section 801(a). However,
neither FDA nor CBP have had the
authority to retain those fees. FDA
considers the enactment of section 743
of the FD&C Act to mean that, for food,
FDA is now authorized to assess and
retain these fees, but only with respect
to the destruction of food and only if the
other conditions of section 743 are met.
If a fee is authorized under section 743
for a particular article of food, FDA
considers this to mean it cannot collect
a fee related to destruction of that article
under section 801(c) of the FD&C Act.
The direct hours spent on each such
import reinspections will be billed at
the appropriate hourly rate shown in
table 3 of this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45825
VI. How must the fees be paid?
An invoice will be sent to the
responsible party for paying the fee after
FDA completes the work on which the
invoice is based. Payment must be made
within 30 days of the invoice date in
U.S. currency by check, bank draft, or
U.S. postal money order payable to the
order of the Food and Drug
Administration. Detailed payment
information will be included with the
invoice when it is issued.
VII. What are the consequences of not
paying these user fees?
Under section 743(e)(2) of the FD&C
Act, any fee that is not paid within 30
days after it is due shall be treated as a
claim of the United States Government
subject to provisions of subchapter II of
chapter 37 of title 31, United States
Code.
VIII. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written
comments regarding this document. It is
only necessary to send one set of
comments. It is no longer necessary to
send two copies of mailed comments.
Identify comments with the docket
number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Dated: July 26, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–19331 Filed 7–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0556]
Center for Devices and Radiological
Health 510(k) Clearance Process;
Institute of Medicine Report: ‘‘Medical
Devices and the Public’s Health, The
FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35
Years;’’ Request for Comments
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Request for comments.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is requesting
comments on the Institute of Medicine
(IOM) report entitled: ‘‘Medical Devices
and the Public’s Health, The FDA 510(k)
Clearance Process at 35 Years.’’ The
establishment of this public docket does
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45820-45825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0528]
Food Safety Modernization Act Domestic and Foreign Facility
Reinspections, Recall, and Importer Reinspection User Fee Rates for
Fiscal Year 2012
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
fiscal year (FY) 2012 fee rates for certain domestic and foreign
facility reinspections, failure to comply with a recall order, and
importer reinspections that are mandated in the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), amended by the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA). These fees are effective on October 1, 2011,
and will remain in effect through September 30, 2012. Invoices for
these fees for FY 2012 will be issued using the fee schedule
established in this document. FDA is accepting comments to this
document and intends to consider such comments in implementing these
user fees in FY 2013.
DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by October 31,
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Waltrip, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rm.
2012, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-8811, email:
Amy.Waltrip@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353), section 743 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
379j-31), establishes three different kinds of fees. The fees are
assessed for the costs of the following activities: (1) Certain
domestic and foreign facility reinspections (section 743(a)(1)(A)), (2)
failure to comply with a recall order under section 423 or 412(f) of
the FD&C Act (section 743(a)(1)(B)), and (3) certain importer
reinspections (section 743(a)(1)(D)).
Fees for each of these activities are to be established to capture
100 percent of the costs of each activity for each year (sections
743(b)(2)(A), (B), and (D) of the FD&C Act), and must be made available
solely to pay for the costs of each activity for which the fee was
incurred (section 743(b)(3) of the FD&C Act.
These fees are effective on October 1, 2011, and will remain in
effect through September 30, 2012. FDA is accepting comments to this
document and intends to consider such comments, as well as experience
and additional data gained in implementing these user fees in FY 2012,
in implementing these user fees in FY 2013.
II. Estimating the Average Cost of a Supported Direct FDA Work Hour for
FY 2012
FDA is required to estimate 100 percent of its cost for each
activity and assess fees for FY 2012. In each year, the costs of salary
(or personnel compensation) and benefits for FDA employees account for
between 50 and 60 percent of the funds available to, and used by, FDA.
Almost all of the remaining funds (or the operating funds) available to
FDA are used to support FDA employees for paying rent, travel, utility,
information technology, and other operating costs.
A. Estimating the Full Cost Per Direct Work Hour in FY 2010
In general, the starting point for estimating the full cost per
direct work hour is to estimate the cost of a full-time-equivalent
(FTE) or paid staff year for the relevant activity. This is most
reasonably done by dividing the total funds allocated to the elements
of FDA primarily responsible for carrying out the activities for which
fees are being collected by the total FTEs allocated to those
activities, using information from the most recent FY for which data
are available. For the purposes of the FSMA fee provisions, primary
responsibility for the activities for which fees will be collected
rests with FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), which carries out
inspection and other field-based activities on behalf of FDA's product
centers, including the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN) and the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), which have FSMA
implementation responsibilities. Thus, as the starting point for
estimating the full cost per direct work hour, FDA will use the total
funds allocated to ORA for CFSAN and CVM related field activities. The
most recent FY with available data is FY 2010. In that year, FDA
obligated a total of $626,095,116 for the Office of Regulatory Affairs
(ORA) in carrying out work related to programs of the CFSAN and CVM,
excluding the costs of foreign inspection travel. These are the staff
primarily conducting the work related to the reinspection and recall
activities
[[Page 45821]]
for which fees would be charged. The obligated total amount paid for
salary, benefits, and operating costs of 2,701 FTEs or paid staff years
utilized by ORA in FY 2010, but exclude the cost of foreign inspection
travel. Dividing $626,095,116 by 2,701 FTEs, results in an average cost
of $231,801 per paid staff year, excluding the costs of foreign
inspection travel.
Not all of the FTEs required to support the activities for which
fees will be collected are conducting direct work such as inspecting or
reinspecting facilities, examining imports, or monitoring recalls. Data
collected over a number of years and used consistently in other FDA
user fee programs (e.g., under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
(PDUFA) and the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA))
show that every seven FTEs who perform direct FDA work require three
indirect and supporting FTEs. These indirect and supporting FTEs
function in budget, facility, human resource, information technology,
planning, security, administrative support, legislative liaison, legal
counsel, program management, and other essential program areas. On
average, two of these indirect and supporting FTEs are located in ORA
or the FDA center where the direct work is being conducted, and one of
them is located in the Office of the Commissioner. To get the fully
supported cost of an FTE, FDA needs to multiply the average cost of an
FTE by 1.43, to take into account the indirect and supporting
functions. The 1.43 factor is derived by dividing the 10 fully
supported FTEs by 7 direct FTEs. In FY 2010, the average cost of an FTE
was $231,801. Multiplying this amount by 1.43 results in an average
fully supported cost of $331,476 per FTE, excluding the cost of foreign
inspection travel.
To calculate an hourly rate, FDA must divide the average fully
supported cost of $331,476 per FTE by the average number of supported
direct FDA work hours. See table 1.
Table 1--Supported Direct FDA Work Hours in a Paid Staff Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of hours in a paid staff year.............. 2,080
Less:
10 paid holidays...................................... 80
20 days of annual leave............................... 160
10 days of sick leave................................. 80
10 days of training................................... 80
2 hours of meetings per week.......................... 80
Net Supported Direct FDA Work Hours Available for 1,600
Assignments............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dividing the average fully supported cost of an FTE in FY 2010
($331,476) by the total number of supported direct work hours available
for assignment (1,600) results in an average fully supported cost of
$207 (rounded to the nearest dollar), excluding foreign inspection
travel costs, per supported direct work hour in FY 2010--the last FY
for which data are available.
B. Adjusting FY 2010 Costs for Inflation to Estimate FY 2012 Costs
To adjust the hourly rate for FY 2012, FDA must estimate cost of
inflation in each year for FY 2011 and FY 2012. FDA uses the method
prescribed for estimating inflationary costs under the PDUFA provisions
of the FD&C Act (section 736(c)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379h(c)(1))), the only
provision the FD&C Act that provides a method for estimating future
inflationary costs. The inflationary adjustment specified in these
provisions, since FY 2008, is the greater of the following amounts: (1)
The total percentage change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) (all items; U.S. city average) during the 12-month period ending
June 30 preceding the FY for which fees are being set; (2) the total
percentage pay change for the previous FY for Federal employees
stationed in the Washington, DC metropolitan area; or (3) the average
annual change in cost, per FDA FTE, of all personnel compensation and
benefits paid per FTE over the previous five of the most recent six
FYs. PDUFA IV provides for this adjustment to be cumulative and
compounded annually after FY 2008 (see section 736(c)(1)).
For FY 2012, the first factor is the CPI increase for the 12-month
period ending in June 2011. The CPI for June 2011 was 225.722 and the
CPI for June 2010 was 217.965. (These CPI figures are available on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls by checking the first box under ``Price Indexes'' and
then clicking ``Retrieve Data'' at the bottom of the page. FDA has
verified the Web site addresses throughout this document, but is not
responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this
document publishes in the Federal Register.) The CPI for June 2011 is
3.559 percent higher than the CPI for the previous 12-month period.
The second factor for the FY 2012 inflationary increase is the
increase in pay for the previous FY (FY 2011 in this case) for Federal
employees stationed in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. (This
figure is published by the Office of Personnel Management, and can be
found on the Web site at https://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/html/dcb.asp
above the salary table. For FY 2011, the inflationary increase was 0.00
percent.
For FY 2012, the third factor is the average change in FDA's cost
for compensation and benefits per FTE over the previous five of the
most recent six FYs (FY 2006 through FY 2010). The data on total
compensation and benefits paid and numbers of FTEs paid, from which the
average cost per FTE can be derived, are published in FDA's
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees. Table 2 of
this document summarizes the actual costs and FTE data for the
specified FYs, and provides the percent changes from the previous FYs
and the average percent change over the previous five of the most
recent six FYs, which is 3.72 percent.
Table 2--FDA Personnel Compensation and Benefits (PC&B) Each Year and Percent Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 for latest
5 years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PC&B........................... $1,077,604,000 $1,114,704,000 $1,144,369,000 $1,215,627,000 $1,464,445,000 $1,634,108,000 ...........
Total FTE............................ 9,910 9,698 9,569 9,811 11,413 12,526 ...........
PC&B per FTE......................... $108,739 $114,942 $119,591 $123,905 $128,314 $130,457 ...........
% Change from Previous Year.......... 5.75% 5.70% 4.05% 3.61% 3.56% 1.67% 3.72%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking all three factors into consideration, the inflationary
increase for FY 2012 is 3.72 percent. The average percent change over
the previous five of the most recent six FYs is 3.72 percent which is
greater than the CPI change
[[Page 45822]]
during the 12-month period ending June 30 preceding the FY for which
fees are being set (3.559 percent), and the increase in pay for the
previous FY (FY 2011 in this case) for Federal employees stationed in
the Washington, DC metropolitan area (0.00 percent). Therefore, the
average percent change in PC&B cost per FTE (3.72 percent) becomes the
inflation adjustment for the fee revenue for FY 2012.
The inflationary adjustment for FY 2011 under the same provisions
in section 736(c)(1) of the FD&C Act was 4.53 percent--the average
percent change over the previous five of the most recent six FYs (FY
2005 through FY 2009). This 4.53 percent is greater than the CPI
increase during the 12-month period ending June 30 preceding the FY for
which fees were being set on June 30, 2010 (1.053 percent), and the
increase in pay for FY 2010 for Federal employees stationed in
Washington, DC (2.42 percent).
Section 736(c)(1) of the FD&C Act requires the inflationary
adjustment to be cumulative and compounded. This factor for FY 2012
(3.72 percent) is compounded by adding 1 and then multiplying by 1 plus
the inflationary adjustment factor for FY 2011 (4.53 percent), to
account for the 2 years of inflationary adjustments since FY 2010. The
result of this multiplication (1.0372 times 1.0453) becomes the
inflationary adjustment for FY 2012, which is 1.0842, or an increase of
8.42 percent over FY 2010 costs.
Increasing FY 2010 average fully supported cost per supported
direct FDA work hour of $207 (excluding foreign inspection travel
costs) by 8.42 percent yields an inflationary adjusted cost of $224 per
a supported direct work hour in FY 2012, excluding foreign inspection
travel costs. This is the unit cost that FDA will use in billing the
reinspection and the recall activities for FY 2012 if no foreign travel
is required for the activity.
In FY 2010, ORA spent a total of $1,010,900 on a total of 91
foreign inspection trips related to FDA's food and veterinary medicine
programs, which averaged a total of $11,109 per foreign inspection
trip. These trips averaged 3 weeks (or 120 paid hours) per trip.
Dividing $11,109 per trip by 120 hours per trip results in a total and
an additional cost of $93 per paid hour spent for foreign inspection
travel costs in FY 2010. To adjust $93 for inflationary increases in FY
2011 and FY 2012, FDA must multiply it by the same inflation factor
mentioned previously in this document (1.0842) which results in an
estimated cost of $101 dollars per paid hour in addition to $224 for a
total of $335 per paid hour ($224 plus $101) for each direct hour of
work requiring foreign inspection travel. These are the rates that FDA
will use in charging fees in FY 2012 when foreign travel is required.
Table 3--FSMA Fee Schedule for FY 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee rates
Fee category for FY 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly rate if no foreign travel is required............... $224
Hourly rate if foreign travel is required.................. 335
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress directed FDA to publish, within 180 days of enactment of
FSMA, a proposed set of guidelines in consideration of the burden of
fee amounts on small business (section 743(b)(2)(B)(iii) of the FD&C
Act). Such consideration may include reduced fee amounts for small
businesses. FDA believes it is important to gather additional
information before publishing such guidelines. Therefore, the Agency is
publishing a separate document in this issue of the Federal Register
requesting public input to help the Agency understand what factors
should be taken into account when drafting the proposed guidelines. The
Agency intends to consider the comments received and then publish for
comment a proposed set of guidelines on the considerations of the
burden of fee amounts on small business. Any adjustment to the fee
schedule for small business must be done through notice and comment
rulemaking (see section 743(b)(2)(B)(iii)). Thus, there will be no
separate small business fees published for FY 2012 (table 3 of this
document) and the published fees in this document will apply to all
businesses in FY 2012.
FDA recognizes, however, that for some small businesses the full
cost recovery of FDA reinspection or recall oversight could impose
severe economic hardship, and there may be unique circumstances in
which some relief would be appropriate. Thus, during FY 2012, FDA will
consider waiving in limited cases some or all of an invoiced fee based
on a severe economic hardship, the nature and extent of the underlying
violation, and other relevant factors.
III. Fees for Reinspections of Domestic or Foreign Facilities Under
Section 743(a)(1)(A)
A. What will cause this fee to be assessed?
The fee will be assessed for a reinspection conducted under section
704 of the FD&C Act to determine whether corrective actions have been
implemented and are effective and compliance has been achieved to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services' (the Secretary) (and, by
delegation, FDA's) satisfaction at a facility that manufactures,
processes, packs or holds food \1\ for consumption necessitated as a
result of a previous inspection (also conducted under section 704) of
this facility which had a final classification of Official Action
Indicated (OAI) conducted by or on behalf of FDA, when FDA determined
the non-compliance was materially related to food safety requirements
of the FD&C Act. FDA considers such non-compliance to include non-
compliance with a statutory or regulatory requirement under section 402
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) and section 403(w) of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 343(w)). However, FDA does not consider non-compliance that is
materially related to a food safety requirement to include
circumstances where the non-compliance is of a technical nature and not
food safety related (e.g., failure to comply with a food standard or
incorrect font size on a food label). Determining when non-compliance,
other than under section 402 and 403(w) of the FD&C Act, is materially
related to food safety may depend on the facts of a particular
situation. FDA may consider issuing guidance to provide additional
information about the circumstances under which FDA would consider when
non-compliance is materially related to a food safety requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``food'' for purposes of this document has the same
meaning as such term in section 201(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
321(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act, FDA shall assess and
collect fees from ``the responsible party for each domestic facility
(as defined in section 415(b) (21 U.S.C. 350d)) and the United States
agent for each foreign facility subject to a reinspection'' to cover
reinspection-related costs.
Section 743(a)(2)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act defines the term
``reinspection'' with respect to domestic facilities as ``1 or more
inspections conducted under section 704 subsequent to an inspection
conducted under such provision which identified non-compliance
materially related to a food safety requirement of th[e] Act,
specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved to the
Secretary's satisfaction.''
The FD&C Act does not contain a definition of ``reinspection''
specific to foreign facilities. In order to give meaning to the
language in section
[[Page 45823]]
743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act to collect fees from the United States
agent of a foreign facility subject to a reinspection, the Agency is
using the following definition, of ``reinspection,'' for purposes of
assessing and collecting fees under section 743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C
Act, with respect to a foreign facility: ``1 or more inspections
conducted by officers or employees duly designated by the Secretary
subsequent to such an inspection which identified non-compliance
materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act,
specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved to the
Secretary's (and, by delegation, FDA's) satisfaction.''
This definition allows FDA to fulfill the mandate to assess and
collect fees from the United States agent of a foreign facility in the
event that an inspection reveals non-compliance materially-related to a
food safety requirement causing one or more subsequent inspections to
determine whether compliance has been achieved to the Secretary's (and,
by delegation, FDA's) satisfaction. By requiring the initial inspection
to be conducted by officers or employees duly designated by the
Secretary, the definition ensures that a foreign facility would be
subject to fees only in the event that FDA, or an entity designated to
act on its behalf, has made the requisite identification at an initial
inspection of non-compliance materially related to a food-safety
requirement of the FD&C Act. The definition of ``reinspection-related
costs,'' as defined in section 743(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, relates to
both a domestic facility reinspection and a foreign facility
reinspection, as described in section 743(a)1)(A) of the FD&C Act.
B. Who will be responsible for paying this fee?
The FD&C Act states that this fee is to be paid by the responsible
party for each domestic facility (as defined in section 415(b) of the
FD&C Act) and by the United States agent for each foreign facility
(section 743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act). This is the party to whom FDA
will send the invoice for any fees that are assessed under this
section.
C. How much will this fee be?
The fee is based on the number of direct hours spent on such
reinspections, including time spent conducting the physical
surveillance and/or compliance reinspection at the facility, or
whatever components of such an inspection are deemed necessary, making
preparations and arrangements for the reinspection, traveling to and
from the facility, preparing any reports, analyzing any samples or
examining any labels if required, and performing other activities as
part of the OAI reinspection until the facility is again determined to
be in compliance. The direct hours spent on each such reinspection will
be billed at the appropriate hourly rate shown in table 3 of this
document.
IV. Fees for Non-Compliance With a Recall Order Under Section
743(a)(1)(B)
A. What will cause this fee to be assessed?
The fee will be assessed for not complying with a recall order
under section 423(d) or 412(f) of the FD&C Act to cover food recall
activities associated with such order performed by the Secretary (and
by delegation, FDA) (section 743(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
Noncompliance may include the following: (1) Not initiating a recall as
ordered by FDA; (2) not conducting the recall in the manner specified
by FDA in the recall order; or (3) not providing FDA with requested
information regarding the recall, as ordered by FDA.
B. Who will be responsible for paying this fee?
Section 743(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act states that the fee is to be
paid by the responsible party for a domestic facility (as defined in
section 415(b) of the FD&C Act and an importer who does not comply with
a recall order under section 423 or under section 412(f) of the FD&C
Act. In other words, the party paying the fee would be the party that
received the recall order.
C. How much will this fee be?
The fee is based on the number of direct hours spent on taking
action in response to the firm's failure to comply with a recall order.
Types of activities could include conducting recall audit checks,
reviewing periodic status reports, analyzing the status reports and the
results of the audit checks, conducting inspections, traveling to and
from locations, and monitoring product disposition. The direct hours
spent on each such recall will be billed at the appropriate hourly rate
shown in table 3 of this document.
V. Fees for Import Reinspection/Reexamination Under Section
743(a)(1)(D)
A. What will cause this fee to be assessed?
Under section 743(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act, for a fee to be
assessed, there must be two sets of examinations. First, there must be
an examination conducted under section 801 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
381), which must identify noncompliance materially related to a food
safety requirement of the FD&C Act.
Second, subsequent to the first examination, there must be 1 or
more additional examinations conducted under section 801. These
additional examinations must be conducted specifically to determine
whether compliance has been achieved to the Secretary's (and, by
delegation, FDA's) satisfaction. Moreover, per section 743(a)(1)(D) of
the FD&C Act, an importer subject to a reinspection will be assessed a
fee to cover reinspection-related costs.
FDA has determined that at least the following four specific
situations will cause a fee to be assessed:
1. Reconditioning of Imported Food
FDA reviews food that is imported or offered for import to
determine admissibility into the United States (see, e.g., section
801(a) of the FD&C Act). Food is subject to refusal of admission if,
among other reasons, (a) it appears to be adulterated or misbranded, or
(b) if it is a dietary supplement subject to section 761 of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 379aa-1), FDA has credible evidence or information
indicating that the responsible person has not complied with a
requirement of that section or has not allowed access to records
described in that section. When FDA initiates a refusal of admission,
often referred to as detaining the product, notice is given to the
owner or consignee. If the detention is based on one of the reasons
just described, the owner or consignee of the food may request
permission to recondition the food under section 801(b) of the FD&C
Act. When the basis is that the food appears to be adulterated or
misbranded, the request can be to bring the food into compliance by
relabeling or other action, such as heat treatment, or to render it
other than a food, drug, device, or cosmetic. When the basis relates to
section 761 (serious adverse event reporting for dietary supplements),
the request can be for the responsible person, as defined in section
761, to take action to ensure that the responsible person is in
compliance with section 761.
A request for reconditioning is made after FDA has determined that
the food is subject to refusal of admission under section 801(a) of the
FD&C Act. For the purpose of section 743 of the FD&C Act, FDA considers
its review of information for the purpose of determining whether an
article of food is admissible to be ``an examination conducted under
section 801.'' If that review leads FDA to determine that the food is
subject to
[[Page 45824]]
refusal of admission under section 801(a), FDA considers that to mean
that its examination ``identified noncompliance'' for the purpose of
section 743. This examination could involve, for example, a laboratory
analysis of physical samples of the product or a review of the
product's label. It could also involve reviewing other information FDA
obtains, such as reviewing sample results from a reliable third party,
relevant epidemiological evidence, or the results from an FDA or third
party inspection of a facility where the food was processed. A
detention without physical examination could also be based on
information contained in an import alert.
When food is on an import alert, it typically means that FDA has
concluded there is sufficient evidence or other information to detain
without physical examination of future shipments of the imported food
(e.g., that future shipments appear to be adulterated or misbranded)
and they are subject to refusal unless the owner or consignee shows the
product is compliant (e.g., through third-party laboratory analysis).
FDA considers situations where FDA's review of information leads it to
conclude that food should be placed on an import alert for detention
without physical examination to be ``an examination conducted under
section 801 [that] identified noncompliance'' for the purposes of
section 743. FDA's Regulatory Procedures Manual (RPM), Chap. 9,
discusses the types of reviews FDA conducts, and the types of
information it reviews, in determining whether to detain a product or
to place a product on an import alert.
For a fee to be assessed under section 743, FDA's determination
that the food is subject to refusal of admission must be on a basis
materially related to food safety requirements (see section III.A of
this document for a discussion about ``materially related to food
safety requirements'').
If FDA authorizes a request for reconditioning, the reconditioning
operations are carried out under the supervision of either FDA or U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (section 801(b) of the FD&C Act; 21
CFR 1.96(a)). FDA considers the review and approval of the request, as
well as this supervision to be ``1 or more examinations conducted under
section 801 * * * specifically to determine whether compliance has been
achieved'' to FDA's satisfaction.
2. Importer Seeking Admission of an Article That Has Been Detained
If FDA has determined that an article of food is subject to refusal
of admission under section 801(a) of the FD&C Act, FDA gives notice of
this to the owner or consignee, who then has an opportunity to
introduce evidence regarding the admissibility of the food (section
801(a) of the FD&C Act; 21 CFR 1.94(a)). As discussed previously in
this document, where FDA has reviewed information for the purpose of
admissibility and determined that the food is subject to refusal of
admission under section 801, FDA considers that it has conducted ``an
examination conducted under section 801 [that] identified
noncompliance.'' This includes situations where FDA's review determines
that food should be placed on an import alert for detention without
physical examination.
If the owner or consignee chooses to submit evidence regarding
admissibility, FDA reviews the information to determine whether--
despite the appearance that the product is adulterated, misbranded, or
otherwise subject to refusal of admission--the food is compliant and
admissible into the United States. The evidence the owner or consignee
submits varies. Depending on the circumstances, it could include, for
example, the results of laboratory analyses of samples conducted on the
owner/consignee's behalf to show the product is not contaminated. FDA
considers its review of the evidence submitted to be ``1 or more
examinations conducted under section 801 * * * specifically to
determine whether compliance has been achieved'' to FDA's satisfaction.
Not all situations where the owner/consignee provides information
or evidence to demonstrate compliance will result in the assessment of
a fee. An example is if a food, not subject to an Import Alert, is
detained based on an appearance of adulteration or misbranding, but
information is presented that demonstrates that the food is not
adulterated or misbranded. FDA considers such a situation to be one in
which a fee is not assessed.
A fee may or may not be assessed under certain circumstances
related to food that is detained based on an import alert for detention
without physical examination covering food from a particular geographic
region or country. FDA may place a region or country on an import alert
if there appears to be an ongoing problem or condition in that region
or country such that it causes the appearance of a violation for future
shipments of imported articles originating there. If food from a region
or country is subject to an import alert and is subsequently detained
based on the overarching import alert, the owner or consignee may seek
admission by providing evidence that the problem or conditions
regarding the food it is importing have been resolved. Alternatively,
the owner or consignee may provide evidence that the problems or
conditions that led to the alert, even if widespread in the region or
country, did not apply to its food and, thus, it did not need to
resolve any compliance-related issues. FDA considers the latter
situation to be one in which a fee is not assessed. A fee may be
assessed, however, when FDA reviews compliance information specific to
the food being imported or specific to a particular processor in
determining whether to issue a region- or country-wide import alert. An
example is a situation where FDA analyzed samples of food from
Processor A and found it to be contaminated, the food is later placed
on a region- or country-wide import alert, and the owner or consignee
is now importing or offering for import food from Processor A. If the
owner or consignee seeks admission of the food by providing third party
laboratory analyses to show the food is not contaminated, FDA's review
of this information would be ``1 or more examinations conducted under
section 801 * * * specifically to determine whether compliance has been
achieved'' to FDA's satisfaction.
3. Entity Requesting Removal From an Import Alert for Detention Without
Physical Examination
Once placed on import alert, food imported from a particular firm,
region, or country may remain in this status until FDA has sufficient
evidence or other information, such as information that removes the
appearance of the violation that led to the initial placement on import
alert. Depending on the situation that led to the import alert, FDA's
RPM Chapter 9 or the import alert itself may explain the types of
information that should be provided.
As discussed previously in this document, where FDA has reviewed
information and determined that food should be placed on an import
alert for detention without physical examination, it considers that it
has conducted 1 or more examinations conducted under section 801 that
identified noncompliance.
Where an entity requests removal of food from an import alert and
provides supporting information, FDA considers its review of this
information, along with any other related examination it undertakes in
considering the request, to be ``1 or more examinations conducted under
section 801 * * * specifically to determine whether compliance has been
achieved'' to FDA's satisfaction.
[[Page 45825]]
As discussed in section V.A.2 of this document, some requests for
removal from region- or country-wide import alerts will not lead to the
assessment of a fee. Fees would only be assessed in situations where,
in issuing the alert, FDA reviewed compliance information specific to a
particular person or entity sufficiently related to the request for
removal. An example of such a situation is where FDA analyzed samples
of food from Processor A and found it to be contaminated, the food is
then placed on a region- or country-wide import alert, and FDA receives
a request to remove food from Processor A from the import alert.
4. Destruction of Food That Has Been Refused Admission
If a product is refused admission under section 801(a) of the FD&C
Act, it must be exported within 90 days of the document of refusal or
it is subject to destruction by CBP (section 801(a) of the FD&C Act).
In practice, when a product is destroyed, destruction is often
conducted by the owner or consignee under the supervision of FDA or
CBP. Where FDA conducts a review and/or approves a destruction proposal
and such supervision of destruction occurs, FDA considers this to be
``1 or more examinations conducted under section 801 * * * specifically
to determine whether compliance has been achieved'' to FDA's
satisfaction.
B. Who will be responsible for paying this fee?
The importer that is subject to the additional examinations that
are described in section V.A of this document is responsible for paying
the fee, according to section 743(a)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act.
1. Reconditioning of Imported Food
For reconditioning, the entity that is responsible for the
reconditioning is responsible for paying the fee. The request for
reconditioning can only be made by the owner or consignee of the food
(21 CFR 1.95). If ownership changes, the new owner will be responsible
for the reconditioning if that new owner executes a bond and obtains a
new authorization (21 CFR 1.96(d)).
2. Importer Seeking Admission of an Article That Has Been Detained
The entity that introduces evidence regarding admissibility is
responsible for paying this fee. This is the owner or consignee of the
food that is being imported or offered for import. (Section 801(a) of
the FD&C Act; 21 CFR 1.83(b) and 1.94(a).)
3. Entity Requesting Removal From an Import Alert for Detention Without
Physical Examination.
FDA considers the entity that requests removal of the food from the
import alert to be the importer subject to the examination and, thus,
responsible for paying this fee.
4. Destruction of Food That Has Been Refused Admission
FDA considers the entity that destroys the product under FDA or CBP
supervision to be the importer subject to the examination and, thus,
responsible for paying this fee.
C. How much will this fee be?
The fee is to cover all expenses incurred in connection with
arranging, conducting, and evaluating the results of the one or more
additional examinations that are described in section V.A of this
document.
For reconditioning, section 801(c) of the FD&C Act directs the
owner or consignee to pay all expenses in connection with the
supervision of reconditioning with respect to food and certain other
FDA-regulated products. Those parties have been paying these expenses,
but FDA did not have authority to retain those fees. FDA considers the
enactment of section 743 of the FD&C Act to mean that, for food, FDA is
now authorized to assess and retain these fees, but only with respect
to the reconditioning of food and only if the other conditions of
section 743 are met. If a fee is authorized under section 743 for a
particular article of food, FDA considers this to mean it cannot
collect a fee related to reconditioning that article under section
801(c).
For destruction, section 801(c) of the FD&C Act also directs the
owner or consignee to pay all expenses in connection with the
destruction of food and certain other FDA-regulated products under
section 801(a). However, neither FDA nor CBP have had the authority to
retain those fees. FDA considers the enactment of section 743 of the
FD&C Act to mean that, for food, FDA is now authorized to assess and
retain these fees, but only with respect to the destruction of food and
only if the other conditions of section 743 are met. If a fee is
authorized under section 743 for a particular article of food, FDA
considers this to mean it cannot collect a fee related to destruction
of that article under section 801(c) of the FD&C Act.
The direct hours spent on each such import reinspections will be
billed at the appropriate hourly rate shown in table 3 of this
document.
VI. How must the fees be paid?
An invoice will be sent to the responsible party for paying the fee
after FDA completes the work on which the invoice is based. Payment
must be made within 30 days of the invoice date in U.S. currency by
check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of
the Food and Drug Administration. Detailed payment information will be
included with the invoice when it is issued.
VII. What are the consequences of not paying these user fees?
Under section 743(e)(2) of the FD&C Act, any fee that is not paid
within 30 days after it is due shall be treated as a claim of the
United States Government subject to provisions of subchapter II of
chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.
VIII. Comments
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Dated: July 26, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-19331 Filed 7-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P