Import Tolerances for Residues of Unapproved New Animal Drugs in Food, 3653-3664 [2012-1430]

Agencies

• Food and Drug Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3653-3664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1430]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 10, 20, 25, and 510

[Docket No. FDA-2001-N-0075 (formerly Docket No. 2001N-0284)]
RIN 0910-AF78


Import Tolerances for Residues of Unapproved New Animal Drugs in 
Food

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to 
establish procedures by which a person may request that the Agency 
establish or amend tolerances for unapproved new animal drugs where 
edible portions of animals imported into the United States may contain 
residues of such drugs (import tolerances), as well as procedures to 
revoke an existing import tolerance. Such import tolerances provide a 
basis for legally marketing food of animal origin that is imported into 
the United States and contains residues of unapproved new animal drugs.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed 
rule by April 24, 2012. Submit comments on information collection 
issues under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 by February 24, 2012, 
(see the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' section of this document).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2001-
N-0075 and RIN 0910-AF78, by any of the following methods, except that 
comments on information collection issues under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 must be submitted to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (see the ``Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995'' section of this document).

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:
     Fax: (301) 827-6870.
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paperor CD-ROM 
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency 
name, Docket No. FDA-2001-N-0075, and RIN 0910-AF78 for this 
rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the 
``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the 
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into 
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of 
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Melton, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-232), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, (240) 276-8666, email: scott.melton@fda.hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Legislative and Rulemaking Background

    The President signed into law the Animal Drug Availability Act of 
1996 (ADAA) on October 9, 1996. Section 4 of the ADAA amended section 
512(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 
U.S.C. 360b(a)) by adding the following: ``(6) For purposes of section 
402(a)(2)(D) (now section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) as a result of the Food 
Quality Protection Act), a use or intended use of a new animal drug 
shall not be deemed unsafe under this section if the Secretary 
establishes a tolerance for such drug (import tolerance) and any edible 
portion of any animal imported into the United States does not contain 
residues exceeding such tolerance. In establishing such tolerance, the 
Secretary shall rely on data sufficient to demonstrate that a proposed 
tolerance is safe based on similar food safety criteria used by the 
Secretary to establish tolerances for applications for new animal drugs 
filed under subsection (b)(1). The Secretary may consider and rely on 
data submitted by the drug manufacturer, including data submitted to 
appropriate regulatory authorities in any country where the new animal 
drug is lawfully used or data available from a relevant international 
organization, to the extent such data are not inconsistent with the 
criteria used by the Secretary

[[Page 3654]]

to establish a tolerance for applications for new animal drugs filed 
under subsection (b)(1). For purposes of this paragraph, `relevant 
international organization' means the Codex Alimentarius Commission or 
other international organization deemed appropriate by the Secretary. 
The Secretary may, under procedures specified by regulation, revoke a 
tolerance established under this paragraph if information demonstrates 
that the use of the new animal drug under actual use conditions results 
in food being imported into the United States with residues exceeding 
the tolerance or if scientific evidence shows the tolerance to be 
unsafe.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) 
has delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the 
Commissioner) the functions vested in the Secretary under the FD&C 
Act and therefore, the authority under section 512(a)(6) of the FD&C 
Act is exercised by the Commissioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A residue is any compound present in edible tissues that results 
from the use of a drug, and includes the drug, its metabolites, and any 
other substance formed in or on food because of the drug's use (title 
21 of the Code of Federal Regulations Sec.  530.3(f) (21 CFR 
530.3(f))).
    Any amount of residue in imported, animal-derived food from a new 
animal drug not approved or conditionally approved in the United States 
and for which no import tolerance exists, even a level of residue 
considered safe by a country where the new animal drug is lawfully 
used, would cause the imported, animal-derived food to be adulterated 
under section 402(a)(2)(C)(ii) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
342(a)(2)(C)(ii)) because the drug would be deemed unsafe under section 
512 of the FD&C Act. Such food could be denied entry into the United 
States under section 801(a)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)(3)).
    Thus, it is unlawful to import animal-derived food that bears or 
contains residues of a new animal drug that is not approved or 
conditionally approved in the United States, unless a tolerance has 
been established for the residues of that new animal drug in imported, 
animal-derived food (import tolerance) and the residue of the new 
animal drug in the imported, animal-derived food does not exceed the 
import tolerance. It should be noted that the establishment of an 
import tolerance for an unapproved new animal drug does not provide for 
the lawful use of the drug in the United States, and such use would 
cause the drug to be deemed unsafe within the meaning of section 512 of 
the FD&C Act and adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(5) of 
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(5)).
    This import tolerance proposed regulation, if finalized, will be 
FDA's last action to fully implement the ADAA. This proposed regulation 
describes procedures by which a person could request that the Agency 
establish or amend an import tolerance for a new animal drug not 
approved or conditionally approved for use in the United States. This 
proposed regulation would also establish procedures to revoke an 
existing import tolerance as provided in section 512(a)(6) of the FD&C 
Act. This regulation does not preclude the Commissioner from 
establishing or amending an import tolerance on his or her own 
initiative under Sec.  10.25(b) (21 CFR 10.25(b)).
Public and Advisory Committee Input Prior To Rulemaking
    In the Federal Register of August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42167), the 
Agency published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to 
discuss issues pertaining to the development of regulations regarding 
import tolerances. FDA solicited comments on four specific issues and 
for any other issues relating to import tolerances. In January 2002, 
FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM, the Center) held a public 
meeting with the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) to 
discuss import tolerances. The Center presented the four specific 
issues that were included in the previously published ANPRM. These 
questions, as well as a summary of VMAC's responses and public comments 
to the ANPRM, follow:
Issue 1: Approaches the Agency Could Use To Find a Safe Import 
Tolerance
    There are different approaches the Agency could use to find a safe 
import tolerance. It could look at toxicity and residue data and build 
in a conservative safety factor. Alternatively, it could also review 
conditions of use such as good agricultural practices, route of 
administration, and dose, which may result in a different safety factor 
or factors. Additionally, it could consider manufacturing information 
such as that required for a domestic application, which also could 
result in a different safety factor or factors. Which approach is 
preferable?
    The consensus of VMAC was that import tolerances should be based on 
a food safety approach similar to that currently employed by FDA to 
establish tolerances for new animal drugs for which applications are 
filed under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act. The committee noted that 
there should be some assurance that drugs covered by import tolerances 
are manufactured under good manufacturing practices (GMP)-like 
conditions.
    Comments received from the public on this issue were similar to the 
comments that were received from VMAC.
Issue 2: Analytical Techniques
    Only the drug marker residue for the drug substance, not the 
product formulation or the sponsor of the import tolerance, can be 
determined by the type of analytical method that is typically used to 
assay imports. Are there analytical techniques or other approaches that 
would allow the Agency to determine whether a residue is due to use of 
the drug product for which the tolerance is approved?
    The consensus of VMAC was that they were not aware of a practical 
methodology to accomplish this task.
Issue 3: Agency Disclosure to the Public
     Should the Agency disclose to the public that it is 
considering an import tolerance for a new animal drug?
     If so, when (e.g., upon request, upon filing)?
     How should the Agency do so (e.g., Federal Register, 
Internet)?
     How much detail should the Agency provide, keeping in mind 
that it cannot disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial 
information?
    The consensus of VMAC was that FDA should do an initial review of 
each request to establish or amend an import tolerance to determine the 
completeness of the submission package. If the requester's package is 
complete, then the public should be made aware that the Agency is 
considering establishing the requested import tolerance. This public 
notification should occur via publication in the Federal Register, the 
CVM Web site and other avenues, as appropriate. This notification 
should occur in a timely manner in order to allow for adequate public 
feedback and consideration of public concerns prior to a decision on 
the establishment of an import tolerance.
    Public comments on this issue included suggestions that requests to 
establish import tolerances should be disclosed to the public early in 
the process. Commenters also indicated that submitted data should have 
the same confidentiality protections as that provided to data submitted 
as part of a new animal drug application (NADA). Most commenters felt 
that a Freedom of Information (FOI) summary should be made publicly 
available following establishment of the import tolerance.

[[Page 3655]]

Issue 4: Import Tolerances Effect on the Environment
    FDA is considering amending the regulations at 21 CFR 25.33 to 
allow a categorical exclusion for import tolerances under the National 
Environmental Policy Act, if there is information that shows that 
establishing import tolerances does not have a significant effect on 
the environment. The Agency is seeking information on whether import 
tolerances will have a significant effect on the environment.
    The consensus of VMAC was that they could not think of any instance 
relative to residues within animal-derived food products that would 
have a significant environmental impact.
    Other public comments on this issue included that categorical 
exclusion from the requirement to submit an environmental assessment 
would be appropriate for import tolerances on a case-by-case basis, if 
no extraordinary circumstances exist.
Issue 5: Please Comment on Any Other Aspects of Import Tolerances You 
Wish To Raise
    There were no additional comments from VMAC.
    Other public comments on this issue included that FDA should not 
establish an import tolerance for a new animal drug not allowed to be 
used in food animals in the United States or prohibited in the United 
States from extra-label use in food producing animals. Another comment 
suggested that an import tolerance for an unapproved new animal drug 
should apply to domestically-produced animal-derived food. Some 
commenters questioned whether the Agency would have the resources for 
residue testing.

B. Current Process for Establishing New Animal Drug Tolerances

1. Overview of the Approval Process for NADAs Submitted Under Section 
512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act
    Before FDA can approve an NADA submitted under section 512(b)(1) of 
the FD&C Act, the Agency must, among other things, determine that there 
is substantial evidence that the new animal drug will have the effect 
it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use 
prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling, and 
that the NADA contains full reports of investigations including 
adequate tests by all methods reasonably applicable to show whether the 
new animal drug is safe for use under the conditions prescribed, 
recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling (21 U.S.C. 
360b(d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(E)). In addition, for new animal drugs 
intended for use in food-producing animals, in determining whether a 
new animal drug is safe for use under the conditions prescribed, 
recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling, FDA must consider, 
among other factors, the probable consumption of such drug by humans 
due to its presence in or on animal-derived food and the effect of such 
drug on humans (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(2)). As a part of that determination, 
FDA may set tolerances for new animal drug residues that occur in the 
food (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(1)(F)).
2. Human Food Safety Data Requirements To Establish New Animal Drug 
Tolerances
    The human food safety requirements for approval of an NADA are 
broadly described in 21 CFR part 500, subpart E and in 21 CFR 
514.1(a)(7) and (a)(8). The sponsor of a new animal drug is required to 
furnish FDA with evidence demonstrating that the residues of the new 
animal drug in the edible products of treated animals are safe. FDA has 
developed a number of guidance documents, which are available on the 
FDA Web site (https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm123817.htm), to 
inform sponsors of the scientific data FDA believes could provide an 
acceptable basis for determining the human food safety of a new animal 
drug.
    Human food safety data are generated by conducting studies to 
assess the nature and quantity of residues in foods derived from 
animals treated with a new animal drug. The human food safety studies 
fall into three general categories: Toxicity studies; residue chemistry 
studies; and, for antimicrobial new animal drugs, microbial safety 
studies.
    The toxicity studies are designed to evaluate the oral toxicity of 
a new animal drug to humans, who may be exposed to the drug through the 
consumption of food derived from animals treated with the new animal 
drug. The goal of the toxicity studies is to determine an acceptable 
daily intake (ADI). The ADI is used to calculate the amount of total 
residues permitted in each edible tissue, also known as the safe 
concentration.
    The residue chemistry studies are designed to determine the 
concentration of drug residue actually appearing at the time of 
slaughter of the target animal in the edible tissues of that animal 
species as a result of treatment with the proposed new animal drug. 
Data from studies that investigate the metabolism of the veterinary 
drug are used to establish a relationship between the residue selected 
for assay (marker residue) and the concentration of the total residue 
in the target tissue. These residue chemistry data are used to 
calculate the tolerance. Tolerances are the maximum concentration of a 
new animal drug residue that can legally remain in an edible tissue 
from animals treated with the new animal drug. When a tolerance is 
assigned for an approved or conditionally approved new animal drug, a 
practicable regulatory analytical method is also established to 
quantify and confirm residues of the new animal drug to monitor the 
safety of the food supply.
    For antimicrobial new animal drugs, typically data are generated 
that support the conduct of a qualitative risk assessment that 
addresses the release, exposure, and consequence of the effects of the 
new animal drug on the development of resistant bacteria in or on the 
target animal and the potential impact on human health.

C. International Harmonization of Food Safety Standards

    FDA works toward international harmonization of food safety 
standards, including food safety controls such as veterinary drug 
tolerances.
    Under the proposed regulation, FDA intends to harmonize its import 
tolerances with the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established by the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission of the Joint Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) Food Standards 
Program (Codex MRL), provided that the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
has established a permanent Codex MRL and that the Agency has 
sufficient information to make a determination that the permanent Codex 
MRL will protect the U.S. public health and will meet the standards of 
the FD&C Act. If the Codex Alimentarius Commission has established a 
permanent Codex MRL for a new animal drug, the Agency would allow the 
submission of human food safety information in the form of monographs 
and reports from the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) 
and/or the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the FAO and the 
WHO (JECFA) to support the requested import tolerance. The JMPR and/or 
JECFA monographs and reports provide an evaluation of human food safety 
data; these data are then used to derive the ADI and the recommended 
MRL. If FDA review of the committee reports and monographs raises 
additional scientific concerns that merit more detailed review, the 
Agency

[[Page 3656]]

proposes to require submission of the complete toxicology and residue 
chemistry study reports, including the underlying data.
    If the Codex Alimentarius Commission has not established a 
permanent Codex MRL for a new animal drug, the Agency proposes to 
require submission of the complete toxicology and residue chemistry 
study reports, including the underlying data. In addition, in the 
absence of a permanent Codex MRL, the Agency proposes that the 
requester should provide full reports of investigations made with 
respect to the human food safety of the new animal drug, including data 
submitted to the appropriate regulatory authority in any country where 
the new animal drug is lawfully used.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Scope (Proposed Sec.  510.201)

    Proposed Sec.  510.201 establishes and restricts proposed subpart C 
to procedures by which the Agency may establish, amend, or revoke an 
import tolerance for residues of a new animal drug not approved or 
conditionally approved for use in the United States but lawfully used 
in other countries and present in imported, animal-derived food and 
food products, as well as procedures to reconsider or stay actions 
regarding an import tolerance. Under section 512(a)(6) of the FD&C Act, 
the Secretary may consider and rely on data submitted to appropriate 
regulatory authorities in any country where the new animal drug is 
lawfully used. In addition, the Secretary may use data available from a 
relevant international organization to the extent such data are not 
inconsistent with the criteria used to establish a tolerance for new 
animal drug applications submitted under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C 
Act. For purposes of section 512(a)(6) of the FD&C Act, ``relevant 
international organization'' means the Codex Alimentarius Commission or 
other international organization deemed appropriate by the Secretary.
    When evaluating the residue of a new animal drug as part of the 
determination of a tolerance, FDA considers the conditions of use 
including dose, duration, and formulation. The conditions of use can 
affect the uptake, metabolism, and distribution of the residues in the 
treated food animal and therefore, are a critical component of the 
human food safety evaluation for a tolerance of a domestic new animal 
drug as part of a new animal drug approval. Similarly, the Codex 
Alimentarius requires that a veterinary drug under evaluation for an 
MRL be approved in at least one member country in order to assure that 
the conditions of use are available as part of the scientific 
evaluation. FDA believes that it would also be important that the 
evaluation for a tolerance for residues of a new animal drug in 
imported food consider conditions of use. Consequently, FDA believes 
that the new animal drug under evaluation must be lawfully used in at 
least one country in a manner consistent with the conditions of use 
that cause the residues in the imported food, and that the information 
resulting from this lawful use be made available to FDA as part of the 
evaluation for an import tolerance.

B. Definitions (Proposed Sec.  510.203)

    Proposed Sec.  510.203 contains definitions for the terms import 
tolerance and request. The proposed definition of import tolerance (``a 
tolerance for a residue of a new animal drug not approved or 
conditionally approved for use in the United States, but present in any 
imported edible portion of any animal'') is derived from the statutory 
language, which provides that a use or intended use of a new animal 
drug shall not be deemed unsafe under section 512 of the FD&C Act, ``if 
the Secretary establishes a tolerance for such drug and any edible 
portion of any animal imported into the United States does not contain 
residues exceeding such tolerance.'' 21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(6). The proposed 
definition for request (``a request to establish or amend an import 
tolerance'') sets forth the meaning of the term, as it is used in 
proposed subpart C.

C. Requests To Establish or Amend an Import Tolerance (Proposed Sec.  
510.205)

1. Initiation of a Request To Establish or Amend an Import Tolerance 
(Proposed Sec.  510.205(a))
    Proposed Sec.  510.205(a) provides that any person could request 
that the Commissioner establish or amend an import tolerance and that 
such a request would have to be in the form specified in proposed Sec.  
510.205, which is described in this section of the document. Proposed 
Sec.  510.205(a) also provides that the Commissioner could initiate a 
proceeding to establish or amend an import tolerance on his or her own 
initiative under 21 CFR 10.25(b).
2. Content and Administration of a Request (Proposed Sec.  510.205(b))
    Under this proposed section, a request to establish or amend an 
import tolerance would have to include the following information: (1) 
The established name and all pertinent information concerning the new 
animal drug, including chemical identity and composition of the new 
animal drug, and its physical, chemical, and biological properties; (2) 
the conditions of use for the new animal drug, including the route of 
administration and dosage, together with all labeling, directions, and 
recommendations regarding the uses in countries in which the new animal 
drug is lawfully used; (3) the proposed import tolerance(s) for the new 
animal drug; (4) human food safety information to support the proposed 
import tolerance(s); and (5) a complete description of a practicable 
validated method for measuring the residue level in imported edible 
portions of any animal treated with the new animal drug.
    The contents of the request would have to include data sufficient 
to demonstrate that a proposed tolerance is safe based on similar human 
food safety criteria used by the Commissioner to establish tolerances 
for applications for new animal drugs filed under section 512(b)(1) of 
the FD&C Act. Consistent with section 512(a)(6) of the FD&C Act, 
information to support the establishment of an import tolerance for a 
new animal drug could include data submitted by the drug manufacturer, 
including data submitted to appropriate regulatory authorities in any 
country where the new animal drug is lawfully used, or data available 
from a relevant international organization, such as the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission, to the extent such data are not inconsistent 
with the criteria used by the Commissioner to establish a tolerance for 
applications for new animal drugs filed under section 512(b)(1) of the 
FD&C Act.
    Under the proposed rule, human food safety information to support 
the proposed import tolerance could be submitted in two possible forms. 
First, if a permanent Codex MRL has been established, the requester 
would provide the permanent Codex MRL and monographs and reports from 
the JECFA and/or monographs and reports from the JMPR that support the 
development of the permanent Codex MRL. FDA could request additional 
information as needed. If no permanent Codex MRL has been established, 
or upon notification by FDA, the requester would have to provide full 
reports of investigations made with respect to the human food safety of 
the new animal drug.
    Should full reports be required by the rule or requested by FDA, a 
request to establish or amend an import tolerance could be regarded as 
incomplete unless it includes full reports of adequate tests,

[[Page 3657]]

by all methods reasonably applicable, to show whether or not any edible 
portion of any animal receiving the new animal drug would be safe for 
human consumption. The reports would have to include detailed data 
derived from appropriate animal and other biological experiments in 
which the methods used and the results obtained are clearly set forth. 
Under the proposed rule, the request would have to include either a 
statement that all such reports have been submitted or an explanation 
of why such reports were not submitted. With respect to each 
nonclinical laboratory study contained in the request, the requestor 
would have to submit either a statement that the study was conducted in 
compliance with the good laboratory practice regulations set forth in 
21 CFR part 58, or, if the study was not conducted in compliance with 
such regulations, a brief statement of the reason for the 
noncompliance, and an explanation of how the noncompliance may have 
impacted the study.
    Furthermore, a request to establish or amend an import tolerance 
would have to include any other information that could be deemed 
necessary by the Commissioner to address particular human food safety 
concerns that may be associated with certain new animal drugs or 
classes of new animal drugs. For example, for certain antimicrobial new 
animal drugs, the Agency could consider information regarding 
antimicrobial resistance concerns in making its determination that a 
proposed import tolerance is safe.
    A request to establish or amend an import tolerance would also have 
to include information on where the new animal drug is lawfully used. 
Such information includes the conditions of use for the new animal 
drug, including the route of administration and dosage; labeling; 
directions; and recommendations. When an import tolerance is 
established, it would be available to any importer into the United 
States of the same food product(s) containing the unapproved drug 
product that is subject to the import tolerance.
    The request would also have to include a complete description of a 
practicable validated method for measuring the residue level of the new 
animal drug in the imported edible product derived from animals treated 
with the new animal drug. The availability of such a method is 
important for monitoring compliance with the import tolerance.
    Under this proposed rule, if finalized, a requester would be 
required to submit an environmental assessment, as described in 21 CFR 
25.40, to facilitate the Agency's assessment of potential environmental 
impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act; Executive Order 
12114, ``Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,'' of 
January 4, 1979 (44 FR 1957, January 9, 1979); and 21 CFR 25.60. As 
previously discussed in this document, the Agency solicited comments on 
the issue of whether import tolerances will have a significant effect 
on the environment in the August 2001 ANPRM and January 2002 VMAC. 
Although categorical exclusions are not addressed in this proposed 
rule, the Agency is still considering the comments received in response 
to the August 2001 ANPRM and January 2002 VMAC. If, in the future, the 
Agency determines it to be appropriate, FDA will consult with the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regarding the establishment of 
categorical exclusions for certain import tolerance requests. FDA 
reiterates its previous requests for comments and supporting 
information relevant to the issue of whether import tolerances will 
have a significant effect on the environment in the United States or 
abroad.
    Proposed Sec.  501.205(b) provides that requests for an import 
tolerance would have to be submitted to FDA in triplicate. By prior 
arrangement, requests could be submitted in an electronic format.
    Pertinent information previously submitted to and currently 
retained in the files of FDA could be incorporated in, and would be 
considered as part of, a request to establish or amend an import 
tolerance on the basis of specific reference to such information. If 
the requester refers to any nonpublic information other than its own, 
the requester would have to obtain a written right of reference to that 
nonpublic information and submit such right of reference with the 
request. Any reference to published information would have to be 
accompanied by reprints or copies of such references. If a part of the 
material submitted is in a foreign language, it would have to be 
accompanied by a complete and accurate English translation. 
Translations of literature printed in a foreign language would have to 
be accompanied by copies of the original publication.
    Furthermore, the request would have to be dated and signed by the 
requester or by his or her authorized representative. If the requester 
or such authorized representative does not reside or have a place of 
business within the United States, the requester would also have to 
furnish the name and post office address of, and the request would have 
to be countersigned by, an authorized attorney, agent, or official 
residing or maintaining a place of business within the United States.
    A request to amend an established import tolerance would have to 
contain information to support each proposed change. The request could 
omit statements made in the original request for which no change is 
proposed.
    The requester could withdraw a request to establish or amend an 
import tolerance at any time before the notification provided for in 
proposed Sec.  510.205(d)(2) has been made publicly available.
3. Review of Information Submitted in a Request (Proposed Sec.  
510.205(c))
    In establishing an import tolerance or amending an existing import 
tolerance, the Commissioner would rely on data sufficient to 
demonstrate that a proposed tolerance is safe based on similar human 
food safety criteria used by the Commissioner to establish tolerances 
for applications for new animal drugs filed under section 512(b)(1) of 
the FD&C Act. In establishing or amending an import tolerance, the 
Commissioner would give appropriate consideration to the residue 
concentrations and conditions of use of the animal drug in the import 
tolerance request.
4. Disclosure of Information Submitted in a Request (Proposed Sec.  
510.205(d))
    FDA intends to be as transparent as possible about requests to 
establish, amend, or revoke import tolerances, as well as the basis for 
establishing, amending, or revoking import tolerances. This 
transparency is in response to the VMAC consensus that disclosure of 
import tolerance requests be made to the public early in the review 
process. The rule proposes that when a request to establish or amend an 
import tolerance has been filed, this request would be made publicly 
available. In addition, the decision to establish, amend, or revoke an 
import tolerance would be made publicly available. A summary of the 
basis for the decision would also be publicly released. All information 
and safety data submitted with, or incorporated by reference in, the 
request would be available for public disclosure, in accordance with 
the provisions of part 20 (21 CFR part 20). Trade secrets and 
confidential commercial or financial information would be exempted from 
release under Sec.  20.61.

[[Page 3658]]

5. Establishment or Amendment of an Import Tolerance (Proposed Sec.  
510.205(e))
    The rule proposes that when a request to establish or amend an 
import tolerance is granted, a copy of the public notification would be 
sent to the requestor. Similarly, when a request to establish or amend 
an import tolerance is denied, a copy of the notification of the denial 
would be sent to the requestor as well as made publicly available,. 
This proposed section also makes clear that if a tolerance is 
established as part of an approval of a new animal drug application 
under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(b)(1)), or 
conditional approval under section 571 of the FD&C Act, (21 U.S.C. 
360ccc), the approved new animal drug tolerance would supersede any 
existing import tolerance for that new animal drug. A notification that 
the existing import tolerance has been superseded by a tolerance for 
that new animal drug would be made publicly available and a copy of 
this notification would be sent to the requester.
    In the event that the conditionally approved application for a new 
animal drug is not renewed or is withdrawn, or such drug does not 
achieve full approval under section 512 of the FD&C Act within 5 years 
following the date of the conditional approval, the Agency would 
reinstate the import tolerance and a notification would be made 
available to the public, and copy of this public notification would be 
sent to the original requestor.

D. Revoking an Import Tolerance (Proposed Sec.  510.207)

    Proposed Sec.  510.207 specifies the procedures by which an 
established tolerance for residues of an unapproved new animal drug in 
food products of animal origin imported into the United States could be 
revoked. Section 512(a)(6) of the FD&C Act authorizes this action if 
information demonstrates that the use of the new animal drug under 
actual use conditions results in food being imported into the United 
States with residues exceeding the tolerance or if scientific evidence 
shows the tolerance to be unsafe. The Commissioner, on his or her own 
initiative or on the petition of an interested person, under part 10 
(21 CFR part 10), could revoke an import tolerance. The grounds for 
revocation of the import tolerance would be made publicly available.

E. Reconsideration of Action (Proposed Sec.  510.209)

    Proposed Sec.  510.209 specifies the process for an interested 
person to petition that the Commissioner reconsider a decision to 
establish, amend, or revoke an import tolerance and also provides that 
the Commissioner could reconsider a decision on his or her own 
initiative. The section proposes that a petition for reconsideration of 
such a decision would have to be filed with the Division of Dockets 
Management under Sec.  10.20, and be in the form set out in Sec.  
10.33. Under proposed Sec.  510.209, an interested person would have to 
petition for reconsideration no later than 30 days after public 
notification of the decision, although the Commissioner could, for good 
cause, permit a petition to be filed more than 30 days after public 
notification of the decision. The petition for reconsideration would 
have to demonstrate that the Commissioner did not adequately consider 
relevant information and views that are in the administrative record. 
No new information could be included in a petition for reconsideration.

F. Administrative Stay of Action (Proposed Sec.  510.211)

    Proposed Sec.  510.211 specifies the process for an interested 
person to petition that the Commissioner stay or extend the effective 
date of a decision to establish, amend, or revoke an import tolerance. 
It also provides that the Commissioner, on his or her own initiative, 
could stay or extend the effective date of a decision to establish, 
amend, or revoke an import tolerance. The proposed section would 
specify that a petition for a stay or for an extension of the effective 
date of such a decision be filed with the Division of Dockets 
Management in accordance with Sec.  10.20, and be in the form set out 
in Sec.  10.35. Under proposed Sec.  510.211, an interested person 
would have to petition the Commissioner stay or extend the effective 
date of a decision with respect to establishing, amending, or revoking 
an import tolerance no later than 30 days after the date of public 
notification, although the Commissioner could, for good cause, permit a 
petition to be filed more than 30 days after the date of public 
notification of the decision.

III. Conforming Changes

    FDA is proposing conforming changes to certain applicable sections 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that would add a reference to 
the processes for establishing or amending import tolerances and 
revoking such tolerances listed under section 512 of the FD&C Act. The 
affected sections in title 21 of the CFR are:
     Sec.  10.25 Initiation of administrative proceedings.
     Sec.  20.100 Applicability; cross-reference to other 
regulations.
     Sec.  25.20 Actions requiring preparation of an 
environmental assessment.

IV. Legal Authority

    FDA is proposing this rule under the authority of section 512(a)(6) 
of the FD&C Act, which states that ``a use or intended use of a new 
animal drug shall not be deemed unsafe * * * if the Secretary 
establishes a tolerance for such drug and any edible portion of any 
animal imported into the United States does not contain residues 
exceeding such tolerance.'' Furthermore, ``the Secretary may, under 
procedures specified by regulation, revoke a tolerance established 
under this paragraph if information demonstrates that the use of the 
new animal drug under actual use conditions results in food being 
imported into the United States with residues exceeding the tolerance 
or if scientific evidence shows the tolerance to be unsafe.'' FDA is 
also proposing these regulations under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act 
(21 U.S.C. 371(a)), which authorizes the issuance of regulations for 
the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.

V. Analysis of Impacts

A. Introduction

    FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive 
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and 
equity). The Agency believes that this proposed rule is not a 
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze 
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule 
on small entities. Because FDA anticipates most requests will rely on 
data already gathered, analyzed, and summarized in publicly available 
dossiers supporting a

[[Page 3659]]

permanent Codex MRL, and because FDA has received only two requests to 
establish import tolerances since 1996, both from large manufacturers 
of new animal drugs, the Agency proposes to certify that the final rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 
that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment 
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that 
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by 
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment 
for inflation is $136 million, using the most current (2010) Implicit 
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this 
proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or 
exceed this amount.

B. The Proposed Rule

    FDA is proposing procedures to establish or amend a tolerance for a 
new animal drug that has not been approved or conditionally approved 
for use in the United States where edible portions of animals imported 
into the United States may contain residues of such drugs (import 
tolerance), as well as procedures to revoke an existing import 
tolerance. Import tolerances will provide a basis for legally marketing 
food of animal origin that is imported into the United States 
containing residues of unapproved new animal drugs. The proposed rule 
sets forth the information that a requester would need to submit to 
support the establishment or amendment of an import tolerance. This 
information may include data submitted by the requester, including data 
submitted to appropriate regulatory authorities in any country where 
the new animal drug is used legally, or data available from a relevant 
international organization such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 
The proposed rule would also require that requests to establish or 
amend an import tolerance include a practical validated method for 
measuring the residue level of the new animal drug in the imported 
edible product derived from animals treated with the new animal drug. 
The proposed rule also allows for the public notification of requests 
to establish or amend an import tolerance, information supporting such 
requests, and for public notification when establishing, amending, or 
revoking import tolerances. In addition, the proposed rule describes 
procedures for revoking an existing import tolerance if scientific 
evidence shows the tolerance to be unsafe or if information 
demonstrates that use of the new animal drug under actual use 
conditions results in food being imported into the United States with 
residues exceeding the tolerance.

C. Need for the Proposed Rule

    While interested parties may currently submit requests for the 
establishment of import tolerances under the authority of the statutory 
provision (21 U.S.C. 360b(a)(6)), this proposed rule, if finalized, 
will provide a more efficient method for the submission of requests to 
establish import tolerances since the regulation would set forth the 
information required to be submitted in such a request. In addition, 
under section 512(a)(6) of the FD&C Act, in order to be able to revoke 
existing import tolerances, the Agency must specify, by regulation, 
procedures to revoke an import tolerance. This proposed rule, if 
finalized, would establish such procedures.

D. Benefits of the Proposed Rule

    As stated previously in this document, this proposed rule, if 
finalized, would set forth procedures by which interested parties may 
submit requests for the establishment, amendment or revocation of an 
import tolerance. In doing so, the proposed rule, if finalized, should 
initially increase the number of requests to establish, amend, or 
revoke an import tolerance the Agency would otherwise expect to 
receive. Under the new procedures, FDA estimates that it will receive 
2.2 requests to establish import tolerances per year. At this time FDA 
does not expect the number of annual requests to increase any further 
in future years. FDA currently does not have the data to estimate the 
value of these import tolerances should they be established. FDA 
assumes, however, that profits earned importing animal-derived food 
containing allowable residues of unapproved new animal drugs that are 
the subject of established import tolerances would be greater than the 
marginal costs of requesting the establishment of such import 
tolerances.

E. Costs of the Proposed Rule

1. Requesters
    Those who choose to request the establishment, amendment, or 
revocation of an import tolerance will voluntarily incur compliance 
costs. These costs are expected to be composed of labor costs for 
organizing the pertinent information that will be submitted with a 
request to establish, amend, or revoke an import tolerance.
    FDA expects to receive two requests annually to establish import 
tolerances for unapproved new animal drugs for which a permanent Codex 
MRL has been established. In these cases, FDA estimates that a 
requester would expend about 50 hours to locate and review the 
toxicology and residue chemistry reports from the Codex MRL dossier and 
to prepare and submit the request to FDA. The median compliance officer 
wage rate for the pharmaceutical industry (NAICS 325400--Pharmaceutical 
and Medicine Manufacturing), adjusted 35 percent for benefits, is about 
$42 per hour. The annual compliance cost for petitioners requesting the 
establishment of an import tolerance for unapproved new animal drugs 
with permanent Codex MRLs would be about $4,000 (2 requesters times 50 
hours times $42 per hour), or about $2,100 per request.
    FDA estimates that it would receive 0.2 requests annually to 
establish import tolerances for unapproved new animal drugs for which a 
permanent Codex MRL has not been established. FDA estimates that a 
requester would expend about 80 hours to prepare such a request. Using 
the same $42 per hour rate for wages and benefits, the cost to prepare 
a request of this type would be about $3,300. Since FDA expects only 
one of these requests every 5 years, the average annual cost would be 
about $650.
    Total annual industry costs for the 2.2 requests to establish an 
import tolerance are estimated at about $4,800 (2 requests that cost 
$2,100 each plus one request that costs $650).
    Requests to revoke or amend an import tolerance are expected to be 
extremely infrequent events. FDA believes that these requests are 
likely to be submitted significantly less than even once every 5 years. 
FDA recognizes that requesters may incur some administrative costs for 
time spent in preparing a request to amend or revoke an import 
tolerance. While FDA has not added such costs to the total compliance 
cost estimates, due to the relative infrequency of these requests FDA 
concludes that the annual cost for each of these types of requests 
would be insignificant. Even in the rare year in which FDA receives one 
of these requests, at an estimated burden of about 32 labor hours, the 
marginal cost would amount to about $1,300. This would add about 28 
percent to the very low annual costs of the proposed rule.
    FDA projects the compliance costs of this rule to industry over a 
10-year period at $42,400 using a 3 percent

[[Page 3660]]

discount rate, and at $36,300 using a 7 percent discount rate.
2. Government
    FDA estimates that each request to establish, amend, or revoke an 
import tolerance would require up to 100 hours of total time spent in 
review and document preparation by mid-level FDA employees. Assuming a 
GS-13, Step-1 hourly pay rate of about $43, with a 35 percent increase 
for benefits, the 100 hours of labor for each review are estimated to 
cost about $5,800. This equates to about $12,800 annually for the 2.2 
reviews. Over a 10-year period, the administrative costs to the 
Government are projected at $112,200 using a 3 percent discount rate, 
and at $96,000 using a 7 percent discount rate.

F. Regulatory Alternatives

    Section 4 of the ADAA, which provides for the establishment and 
revocation of import tolerances, requires FDA to make determinations on 
requests to establish, amend or revoke import tolerances based on human 
food safety criteria similar to those used to establish tolerances for 
new animal drug applications. FDA consulted VMAC at a public meeting in 
2001 to discuss issues pertaining to the development of regulations 
regarding import tolerances. The ADAA language and VMAC recommendations 
provided a framework for the proposed import tolerance procedures that 
did not allow for the development of alternative procedures significant 
enough to have led FDA to estimate a substantially larger or smaller 
number of annual requests to establish import tolerances than the 2.2 
requests previously described.

G. Impacts on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule is expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Although the Agency believes it is very unlikely that significant 
economic impacts would occur, the Agency cannot rule out this 
possibility completely because of some uncertainty in the type or size 
of entities that may request the establishment, amendment, or 
revocation of import tolerances.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires a description of the small 
entities that would be affected by the rule, and an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the rule would apply. FDA believes 
that manufacturers of new animal drugs will make all or nearly all 
requests to establish import tolerances. Manufacturers of new animal 
drugs are classified in the North American Industrial Classification 
System (NAICS) under industry code 325412--Pharmaceutical Preparation 
Manufacturing. Census data in this category from 2007 show that 744 
companies with 963 establishments manufacture pharmaceuticals in the 
United States. FDA requests public comment on the probability that any 
entities other than pharmaceutical manufacturers would request the 
establishment, amendment, or revocation of an import tolerance.
    The Small Business Administration defines those entities within 
NAICS code 325412 as small entities if they employ less than 750 
employees. Census data shows that 711 of the 963 establishments within 
NAICS code 325412, or 74 percent, had less than 100 employees in 2007. 
Available Census data from 2007 identifies the number of establishments 
in NAICS code 325412 with 100 or more employees, but does not identify 
those with 100 to 749 employees. The 2002 Census data, however, 
indicates that up to 97 percent of all establishments in NAICS code 
325412 have less than 750 employees. The existence of some multi-
establishment companies in this NAICS code would likely decrease the 
number of companies that would meet the definition of a small entity. 
Regardless, FDA acknowledges that it is likely that a substantial 
number of pharmaceutical manufacturers would meet the criteria to be 
considered small entities.
    For those establishments with one to four employees and five to 
nine employees, the average annual value of shipments ranges from 
$825,000 to $3.37 million in 2002, the latest year for which value of 
shipments for establishments differentiated by employee size is 
available. For all establishments with 10 or more employees, it is much 
greater. If a manufacturer composed of only one establishment of one to 
four employees requested the establishment of one import tolerance for 
an unapproved new animal drug that was not the subject of a permanent 
Codex MRL, the one-time cost of this effort would represent about 0.40 
percent of average annual revenues. If this manufacturer requested the 
establishment of one import tolerance for an unapproved new animal drug 
that was the subject of a permanent Codex MRL, the one-time cost of 
this effort would represent about 0.25 percent of average annual 
revenues. Those establishments with more than 10 employees would incur 
compliance costs that represent significantly less than 0.1 percent of 
average revenues from requesting the establishment of an import 
tolerance for an unapproved new animal drug with or without a permanent 
Codex MRL. Further, requests to amend or revoke an established import 
tolerance, which the Agency expects to be submitted significantly less 
frequently than once every 5 years, would result in compliance costs 
that represent even smaller percentages of average annual revenues for 
the establishment sizes listed previously in this document. 
Accordingly, FDA believes that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements 
that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). A 
description of these requirements is given in table 1 of this document 
with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. Included in the 
estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 
and reviewing each collection of information.
    FDA invites comments on the following topics: (1) Whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information 
technology.
    Title: Import Tolerances for Residues of Unapproved New Animal 
Drugs in Food.
    Description: FDA is proposing procedures by which a person may 
request that the Agency establish or amend tolerances for unapproved 
new animal drugs where edible portions of animals imported into the 
United States may contain residues of such drugs (import tolerance). 
The Agency is also proposing procedures to revoke an existing import 
tolerance, as well as procedures for reconsideration of action or an 
administrative stay of action to establish, amend, or revoke an import 
tolerance. The ADAA amended the FD&C Act to authorize FDA to establish 
and revoke import tolerances. Import

[[Page 3661]]

tolerances will provide a basis for legally marketing food of animal 
origin that is imported into the United States and contains residues of 
unapproved new animal drugs.
    If there is a permanent Codex MRL for a new animal drug, the 
proposed rule provides that the requester should provide, in addition 
to the requirements outlined in proposed Sec.  510.205(b)(5)(i), 
(b)(5)(ii), (b)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(v), and (b)(5)(vi), the permanent Codex 
MRL and monographs and reports from the JECFA and/or the JMPR that 
support the development of the Codex MRL.
    If there is not a permanent Codex MRL, or upon notification by FDA, 
the proposed rule provides that the requester should provide, in 
addition to the requirements outlined in proposed Sec.  
510.205(b)(5)(i), (b)(5)(ii), (b)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(v), and (b)(5)(vi), 
full reports of investigations made with respect to the human food 
safety of the new animal drug including data submitted to the 
appropriate regulatory authority in any country where the new animal 
drug is lawfully used. A request may be regarded as incomplete unless 
it includes full reports of adequate tests by all methods reasonably 
applicable to show whether or not food derived from animals receiving 
the new animal drug will be safe for human consumption.
    Description of Respondents: We anticipate that most requests to 
establish or amend an import tolerance will come from the manufacturer 
of the unapproved new animal drug at issue in the request. Requests may 
also be submitted by trade associations of foreign producers who use 
the unapproved new animal drug or by importers of animal-derived food 
bearing or containing residues of the unapproved new animal drug. At 
this time since the Agency has not established an appreciable number of 
import tolerances, we are unable to estimate the number of requests to 
revoke an established import tolerance we may receive.
    Burden: Interested persons are required to submit human food safety 
data and other information similar to that used to establish a 
tolerance under an NADA. The collection of information required for 
submission of NADAs has been reviewed under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995. The Agency has proposed extension of this existing collection 
most recently in 2007 (72 FR 37240, July 9, 2007). A proportion of the 
time estimated in that proposed extension for the paperwork associated 
with the human food safety technical section of an NADA was used to 
estimate the time (hours per response) presented in table 1 of this 
document for the preparation of a request to establish or amend an 
import tolerance not based on a permanent Codex MRL. We believe a 
request to establish or amend an import tolerance based on a permanent 
Codex MRL will be less burdensome. Based on the Agency's experience 
with establishing tolerances for approved new animal drugs, the Agency 
believes that requests to revoke an import tolerance, as well as 
petitions for reconsideration of an action or for an administrative 
stay of an action will be infrequent occurrences.

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Number of
                           21 CFR Section                               Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
510.205(b)(5)(i), (b)(5)(ii), and (b)(5)(iii)......................              2.2              1                2.2              1                2.2
510.205(b)(5)(iv)(A) (request to establish an import tolerance                   2                1                2               50              100
 based on permanent Codex MRL).....................................
510.205(b)(5)(iv)(B) (request to establish an import tolerance not               0.2              1                0.2             80               16
 based on permanent Codex MRL).....................................
510.205(b)(6) (request to amend an import tolerance)...............              0.1              1                0.1             32                3
510.207, 510.209, and 510.211 (request to revoke an import                       0.1              1                0.1             10                1
 tolerance, for reconsideration of an action or for administrative
 stay of an action)................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating costs associated with this collection of information.

    The number of respondents and number of responses per respondent 
listed in table 1 of this document are an estimate based on the 
Agency's experience since the passage of the ADAA and actual requests 
received. The average burden per response is an estimate based on the 
review of the human food safety technical section of an NADA as 
discussed previously in this document. The number of respondents and 
number of responses per respondent for Sec. Sec.  510.207, 510.209 and 
510.211 are based on the expectation that such responses will occur 
infrequently and that the Agency anticipates the average burden per 
response will require much less time than a request to establish or 
amend a tolerance.
    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), the Agency has submitted the information collection 
provisions of this proposed rule to OMB for review. Interested persons 
are requested to fax comments regarding information collection to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. To ensure that 
comments on information collection are received, OMB recommends that 
written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, fax: (202) 395-5806.

VII. Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is 
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental 
assessment nor environmental impact statement is required.

VIII. Federalism

    FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that 
the proposed rule, if finalized, would not contain policies that have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Accordingly, the Agency tentatively concludes that the proposed rule 
does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined 
in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact 
statement is not required.

[[Page 3662]]

IX. Request for 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. 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.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 10

    Administrative practice and procedure, News media.

21 CFR Part 20

    Confidential business information, Courts, Freedom of information, 
Government employees.

21 CFR Part 25

    Environmental impact statements, Foreign relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commis