Schedules of Controlled Substances: Removal of [123, 54715-54718 [2015-22919]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
not contain adequate or appropriate
safety standards for this design feature.
Maintaining a structured assessment to
determine potential installation issues
mitigates the concern that the addition
of a full authority engine controller does
not produce a failure condition not
previously considered.
Applicability
The special conditions are applicable
to the KC–100. Should Korea Aerospace
Industries, Ltd., apply at a later date for
a change to the type certificate to
include another model incorporating the
same novel or unusual design feature,
the special conditions would also apply
to that model as well.
Conclusion
This action affects only certain novel
or unusual design features on the KC–
100. It is not a rule of general
applicability and affects only the
applicant who applied to the FAA for
approval of these features on the
airplane.
The substance of these special
conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several
prior instances and has been derived
without substantive change from those
previously issued. It is unlikely that
prior public comment would result in a
significant change from the substance
contained herein. Therefore, notice and
opportunity for prior public comment
hereon are unnecessary and the FAA
finds good cause, in accordance with 5
U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3),
making these special conditions
effective upon issuance. The FAA is
requesting comments to allow interested
persons to submit views that may not
have been submitted in response to the
prior opportunities for comment
described above.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and
symbols.
1. Electronic Engine Control
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
a. For electronic engine control
system installations, it must be
established that no single failure or
malfunction or probable combinations
of failures of Electronic Engine Control
(EEC) system components will have an
effect on the system, as installed in the
airplane, that causes the Loss of Thrust
Control (LOTC)/Loss of Power Control
(LOPC) probability of the system to
exceed those allowed in part 33
certification.
b. EEC system installations must be
evaluated for environmental and
atmospheric conditions, including
lightning. The EEC system lightning and
high intensity radiated frequency effects
that result during an LOTC/LOPC
should be considered catastrophic.
c. The components of the installation
must be constructed, arranged, and
installed so as to ensure their continued
safe operation between normal
inspections or overhauls.
d. Functions incorporated into any
EEC that make it part of any equipment,
system or installation having functions
beyond that of basic engine control, and
may also introduce system failures and
malfunctions, are not exempt from
§ 23.1309 and must be shown to meet
part 23 levels of safety as derived from
§ 23.1309. Part 33 certification data, if
applicable, may be used to show
compliance with any part 23
requirements. If part 33 data is to be
used to substantiate compliance with
part 23 requirements, then the part 23
applicant must be able to provide this
data for their showing of compliance.
Drug Enforcement Administration
Note: The term ‘‘probable’’ in the context
of ‘‘probable combination of failures’’ does
not have the same meaning as in AC
23.13091D. The term ‘‘probable’’ in
‘‘probable combination of failures’’ means
‘‘foreseeable,’’ or not ‘‘extremely
improbable,’’ as referenced in AC 23.1309–
1D.
Citation
The authority citation for these
special conditions is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and
44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR
11.38 and 11.19.
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
The Special Conditions
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on August
28, 2015.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–22872 Filed 9–10–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special
conditions are issued as part of the type
certification basis for Korea Aerospace
Industries, Ltd., Model KC–100
airplanes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Sep 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
54715
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21 CFR Part 1308
[Docket No. DEA–415F]
Schedules of Controlled Substances:
Removal of [123I]Ioflupane From
Schedule II of the Controlled
Substances Act
Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
With the issuance of this final
rule, the Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Administration removes
[123I]ioflupane from the schedules of the
Controlled Substances Act. This action
is pursuant to the Controlled Substances
Act which requires that such actions be
made on the record after an opportunity
for a hearing through formal
rulemaking. Prior to the effective date of
this rule, [123I]ioflupane was, by
definition, a schedule II controlled
substance because it is derived from
cocaine via ecgonine, both of which are
schedule II controlled substances. This
action removes the regulatory controls
and administrative, civil, and criminal
sanctions applicable to controlled
substances, including those specific to
schedule II controlled substances, on
persons who handle (manufacture,
distribute, reverse distribute, dispense,
conduct research, import, export, or
conduct chemical analysis) or propose
to handle [123I]ioflupane.
DATES: Effective Date: September 11,
2015.
SUMMARY:
John
R. Scherbenske, Office of Diversion
Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration; Mailing Address: 8701
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
22152; Telephone: (202) 598–6812.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Legal Authority
The Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) implements and
enforces titles II and III of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention
and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21
U.S.C. 801–971. Titles II and III are
referred to as the ‘‘Controlled
Substances Act’’ and the ‘‘Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act,’’
respectively, and are collectively
referred to as the ‘‘Controlled
Substances Act’’ or the ‘‘CSA’’ for the
purpose of this action. The DEA
publishes the implementing regulations
for these statutes in title 21 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II.
E:\FR\FM\11SER1.SGM
11SER1
54716
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
The CSA and its implementing
regulations are designed to prevent,
detect, and eliminate the diversion of
controlled substances and listed
chemicals into the illicit market while
ensuring an adequate supply is available
for the legitimate medical, scientific,
research, and industrial needs of the
United States. Controlled substances
have the potential for abuse and
dependence and are controlled to
protect the public health and safety.
Under the CSA, each controlled
substance is classified into one of five
schedules based upon its potential for
abuse, its currently accepted medical
use in treatment in the United States,
and the degree of dependence the
substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The
initial schedules of controlled
substances established by Congress are
found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the
current list of scheduled substances is
published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(2), the
Attorney General may, by rule, ‘‘remove
any drug or other substance from the
schedules if he finds that the drug or
other substance does not meet the
requirements for inclusion in any
schedule.’’ The Attorney General has
delegated scheduling authority under 21
U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the
DEA, 28 CFR 0.100.
The CSA provides that proceedings
for the issuance, amendment, or repeal
of the scheduling of any drug or other
substance may be initiated by the
Attorney General (1) on her own
motion, (2) at the request of the
Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS),1 or (3) on
the petition of any interested party. 21
U.S.C. 811(a). This action was initiated
at the request of the Assistant Secretary
for Health of the HHS, and is supported
by, inter alia, a recommendation from
the Assistant Secretary of the HHS and
an evaluation of all relevant data by the
DEA. This action removes the regulatory
controls and administrative, civil, and
criminal sanctions applicable to
controlled substances, including those
specific to schedule II controlled
substances, on persons who handle or
propose to handle [123I]ioflupane.
1 As discussed in a memorandum of
understanding entered into by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on
Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency
within the HHS in carrying out the Secretary’s
scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the
concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985.
The Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the
Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the
authority to make domestic drug scheduling
recommendations. 58 FR 35460, July 1, 1993.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Sep 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
Background
[123I]Ioflupane is, by definition, a
schedule II controlled substance
because it is derived from cocaine, a
schedule II substance, via ecgonine (a
schedule II substance). See 21 U.S.C.
812(c), Schedule II, (a)(4).
[123I]Ioflupane is the active
pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in the
drug product DaTscan and it is a new
molecular entity. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved the
New Drug Application (NDA) for
DaTscan on January 14, 2011, for the
indication of visualizing striatal DATs
in the brains of adult patients with
suspected Parkinsonian syndromes (PS).
DEA and HHS Eight Factor Analyses
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b), (c), and
(f), the HHS recommended to the DEA
on November 2, 2010, that FDAapproved products containing
[123I]ioflupane be removed from
schedule II of the CSA. The HHS
provided to DEA a scientific and
medical evaluation document entitled
‘‘Basis for the Recommendation to
Remove FDA Approved Products
Containing [123I]Ioflupane from
Schedule II of the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA).’’ Pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
811(b), this document contained an
eight-factor analysis of FDA-approved
products containing [123I]ioflupane,
along with the HHS’s recommendation
to remove FDA-approved products
containing [123I]ioflupane from the
schedules of the CSA. The HHS later
clarified to DEA that its November 2,
2010, recommendation also supports the
decontrol of the substance
[123I]ioflupane.2
In response, the DEA reviewed the
scientific and medical evaluation and
scheduling recommendation provided
by the HHS, and all other relevant data.
The DEA and HHS collaborated further
regarding the available information. In a
letter dated February 2, 2015, the HHS
provided detailed responses to specific
inquiries from the DEA (submitted by
letter dated September 16, 2014). Upon
further review of all of the available
information, the DEA completed its own
eight-factor review document on FDAapproved diagnostic products
containing [123I]ioflupane (currently,
only DaTscan) pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
811(c).
The FDA-approved diagnostic
product, DaTscan, was used as the basis
for the scientific and medical evaluation
of FDA-approved products containing
[123I]ioflupane for both the HHS and
2 Letter
from Karen B. DeSalvo, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Health, HHS to John J. Riley, Acting
Deputy Administrator, DEA (Aug. 19, 2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEA eight-factor analysis. Both the DEA
and HHS analyses and other relevant
documents are available in their entirety
in the public docket of this rule (Docket
Number DEA–415F) at https://
www.regulations.gov under ‘‘Supporting
and Related Material.’’
Determination To Decontrol
[123I]ioflupane
After a review of the available data,
including the scientific and medical
evaluation and recommendation, the
Administrator of the DEA published in
the Federal Register a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
‘‘Schedules of Controlled Substances:
Removal of [123I]Ioflupane from
Schedule II of the Controlled Substances
Act’’ which proposed removal of
[123I]ioflupane from the schedules of the
CSA. 80 FR 31521, June 3, 2015. The
proposed rule provided an opportunity
for interested persons to file a request
for a hearing in accordance with DEA
regulations by July 6, 2015.
No requests for such a hearing were
received by the DEA. The NPRM also
provided an opportunity for interested
persons to submit written comments on
the proposal on or before July 6, 2015.
Comments Received
The DEA received nine comments on
the proposed rule to decontrol
[123I]ioflupane. All commenters
supported the decontrol of
[123I]ioflupane.
Commenters in support of
decontrolling [123I]ioflupane included
an international medical society for
neurology; an association of industry
members that manufacture
radiopharmaceuticals; a professional
organization representing radiologists,
radiation oncologists, interventional
radiologists, nuclear medicine
physicians, and medical physicists; an
advocacy group for the Parkinson’s
community; a trade association
representing medical imaging,
radiotherapy and radiopharmaceutical
manufacturers; the sponsor of the drug
product containing [123I]ioflupane; a
physician; a health services company;
and a private citizen, all of whom
expressed support for the DEA’s
proposal to decontrol [123I]ioflupane.
Some commenters also stated that the
proposal would improve patient access
to an important diagnostic
pharmaceutical and reduce the burden
on providers and nuclear pharmacies.
The DEA appreciates the comments in
support of this rulemaking.
Effective Date of the Rule
Generally, DEA scheduling actions are
effective 30 days from the date of
E:\FR\FM\11SER1.SGM
11SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. 21 CFR 1308.45; see
also 5 U.S.C. 553(d). In this instance,
and in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.45,
the DEA finds that the conditions of
public health or safety necessitate an
earlier effective date, i.e., the date of
publication in the Federal Register. An
earlier effective date would allow
specialized members of the healthcare
community to readily utilize this
substance as a component of an
important diagnostic tool, DaTscan.
DaTscan, which contains
[123I]ioflupane, is used in differentiating
essential tremors from tremors due to
PS, (idiopathic Parkinson’s disease,
multiple system atrophy, and
progressive supranuclear palsy), and
can help healthcare professionals
provide more accurate diagnoses. This
earlier effective date will allow patients
to receive, without delay, important
diagnostic testing that is critical to their
health and treatment. These findings,
coupled with the fact that this is an
action for decontrol, indicate that
conditions of public health necessitate
an immediate effective date upon
publication in the Federal Register.
The DEA also notes that its decision
to make this rule effective upon
publication aligns with the exceptions
to the 30-day effective date requirement
of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA). One of the APA’s exceptions to
the 30-day effective date is for a
substantive rule granting or recognizing
an exemption or which relieves a
restriction. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Scheduling Conclusion
Based on consideration of all
comments, the scientific and medical
evaluation and accompanying
recommendation and clarification from
the HHS, and based on the DEA’s
consideration of its own eight-factor
analysis, the Administrator finds that
these facts and all relevant data
demonstrate that [123I]ioflupane does
not meet the requirements for inclusion
in any schedule, and will be removed
from control under the CSA.
Regulatory Analyses
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Executive Orders 12866 and 15363
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a),
this scheduling action is subject to
formal rulemaking procedures done ‘‘on
the record after opportunity for a
hearing,’’ which are conducted pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and
557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for
scheduling a drug or other substance.
Such actions are exempt from review by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Sep 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
Executive Order 12866 and the
principles reaffirmed in Executive Order
13563.
Executive Order 12988
This regulation meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil
Justice Reform to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
litigation, provide a clear legal standard
for affected conduct, and promote
simplification and burden reduction.
Executive Order 13132
This rulemaking does not have
federalism implications warranting the
application of Executive Order 13132.
The rule does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Executive Order 13175
This rule does not have tribal
implications warranting the application
of Executive Order 13175. This rule
does not have substantial direct effects
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Administrator, in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601–612) (RFA), has reviewed
this rule and by approving it certifies
that it will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The purpose of
this rule is to remove [123I]ioflupane
from the list of schedules of the CSA.
This action removes regulatory controls
and administrative, civil, and criminal
sanctions applicable to controlled
substances for handlers and proposed
handlers of [123I]ioflupane. Accordingly,
it has the potential for some economic
impact in the form of cost savings.
This rule will affect all persons who
handle, or propose to handle,
[123I]ioflupane. Due to the wide variety
of unidentifiable and unquantifiable
variables that potentially could
influence the distribution and
administration rates of
radiopharmaceutical substances, the
DEA is unable to determine the number
of entities and small entities which
might handle [123I]ioflupane. In other
instances where a controlled
pharmaceutical drug is removed from
the schedules of the CSA, the DEA is
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
54717
able to quantify the estimated number of
affected entities and small entities
because the handling of the drug is
expected to be limited to DEA
registrants even after removal from the
schedules. In such instances, the DEA’s
knowledge of its registrant population
forms the basis for estimating the
number of affected entities and small
entities. However, [123I]ioflupane is
expected to be handled by persons who
hold DEA registrations regardless of
whether this rule is promulgated (e.g.,
hospital radiopharmacies) and by
persons who are not currently registered
with the DEA to handle controlled
substances (e.g., diagnostic clinics and
imaging centers that do not routinely
handle controlled substances). The DEA
does not have a reliable basis to estimate
the number of non-registrants who plan
to handle [123I]ioflupane.
Although the DEA does not have a
reliable basis to estimate the number of
affected entities and quantify the
economic impact of this final rule, a
qualitative analysis indicates that this
rule is likely to result in some cost
savings for the healthcare industry. The
affected entities will continue to meet
existing Federal and/or state
requirements applicable to those who
handle radiopharmaceutical substances,
including licensure, security,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements, which in many cases are
more stringent than the DEA’s
requirements. However, the DEA
believes cost savings will be realized
from the removal of the administrative,
civil, and criminal sanctions for those
entities handling or proposing to handle
[123I]ioflupane, in the form of saved
DEA registration fees, and the
elimination of additional physical
security, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
Because of these facts, this rule will
not result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The DEA has determined and certifies
pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq., that this action would not
result in 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 for
inflation) in any one year . . . .’’
Therefore, neither a Small Government
Agency Plan nor any other action is
required under provisions of UMRA.
E:\FR\FM\11SER1.SGM
11SER1
54718
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 176 / Friday, September 11, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose a new
collection of information requirement
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501–3521. This action would
not impose recordkeeping or reporting
requirements on State or local
governments, individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by section 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional
Review Act (CRA)). This rule will not
result in: An annual effect on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more; a
major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and
export markets. However, pursuant to
the CRA, the DEA has submitted a copy
of this final rule to both Houses of
Congress and to the Comptroller
General.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308
Administrative practice and
procedure, Drug traffic control,
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements.
For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR
part 1308 is amended to read as follows:
PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 1308 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b),
unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 1308.12, revise paragraph (b)(4)
to read as follows:
■
§ 1308.12
Schedule II.
rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Coca leaves (9040) and any salt,
compound, derivative or preparation of
coca leaves (including cocaine (9041)
and ecgonine (9180) and their salts,
isomers, derivatives and salts of isomers
and derivatives), and any salt,
compound, derivative, or preparation
thereof which is chemically equivalent
or identical with any of these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Sep 10, 2015
Jkt 235001
substances, except that the substances
shall not include:
(i) Decocainized coca leaves or
extraction of coca leaves, which
extractions do not contain cocaine or
ecgonine; or
(ii) [123I]ioflupane.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 4, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–22919 Filed 9–10–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 147
[Docket No. USCG–2015–0512]
Table of Acronyms
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Mad Dog Truss Spar,
Green Canyon 782, Outer Continental
Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico
Coast Guard, DHS.
Interim rule and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard published in
the Federal Register on July 29, 2005, a
final rule establishing a safety zone
around the Mad Dog Truss Spar. The
coordinates for the location of the Mad
Dog Truss Spar were published
incorrectly as 27°11′18″ N., 91°05′12″
W. This interim rule corrects the
coordinates to reflect the actual location
of the Mad Dog Truss Spar as
27°11′18.124″ N., 90°16′7.363″ W.,
therefore correctly publishing the area
covered by the safety zone around the
Mad Dog Truss Spar system, located in
Green Canyon Block 782 on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of
Mexico.
DATES: This interim rule is effective
September 11, 2015. Comments and
related material must be received by the
Coast Guard on or before October 13,
2015.
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2015–0512 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail or Delivery: Docket
Management Facility (M–30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. Deliveries
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. The telephone number is 202–
366–9329.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments. To avoid duplication, please
use only one of these four methods.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this interim rule,
call or email Mr. Rusty Wright, U.S.
Coast Guard, District Eight Waterways
Management Branch; telephone 504–
671–2138, rusty.h.wright@uscg.mil. If
you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call
Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone (202)
366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
FR Federal Register
IMO International Maritime Organization
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
USCG United States Coast Guard
A. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
1. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section
of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason
for each suggestion or recommendation.
You may submit your comments and
material online at https://
www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one
of these means. If you submit a
comment online, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you
successfully transmit the comment. If
you fax, hand deliver, or mail your
comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast
Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend
that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if
we have questions regarding your
submission.
E:\FR\FM\11SER1.SGM
11SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54715-54718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22919]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
21 CFR Part 1308
[Docket No. DEA-415F]
Schedules of Controlled Substances: Removal of
[123I]Ioflupane From Schedule II of the Controlled
Substances Act
AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With the issuance of this final rule, the Administrator of the
Drug Enforcement Administration removes [\123\I]ioflupane from the
schedules of the Controlled Substances Act. This action is pursuant to
the Controlled Substances Act which requires that such actions be made
on the record after an opportunity for a hearing through formal
rulemaking. Prior to the effective date of this rule, [\123\I]ioflupane
was, by definition, a schedule II controlled substance because it is
derived from cocaine via ecgonine, both of which are schedule II
controlled substances. This action removes the regulatory controls and
administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to controlled
substances, including those specific to schedule II controlled
substances, on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse
distribute, dispense, conduct research, import, export, or conduct
chemical analysis) or propose to handle [\123\I]ioflupane.
DATES: Effective Date: September 11, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John R. Scherbenske, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address:
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202)
598-6812.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Legal Authority
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces
titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III
are referred to as the ``Controlled Substances Act'' and the
``Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,'' respectively, and are
collectively referred to as the ``Controlled Substances Act'' or the
``CSA'' for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the
implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II.
[[Page 54716]]
The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent,
detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed
chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is
available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and
industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the
potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the
public health and safety.
Under the CSA, each controlled substance is classified into one of
five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree
of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial
schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at
21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of scheduled substances is
published at 21 CFR part 1308.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(2), the Attorney General may, by rule,
``remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds
that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for
inclusion in any schedule.'' The Attorney General has delegated
scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the
DEA, 28 CFR 0.100.
The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be
initiated by the Attorney General (1) on her own motion, (2) at the
request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS),\1\ or (3) on the petition of any interested party. 21 U.S.C.
811(a). This action was initiated at the request of the Assistant
Secretary for Health of the HHS, and is supported by, inter alia, a
recommendation from the Assistant Secretary of the HHS and an
evaluation of all relevant data by the DEA. This action removes the
regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions
applicable to controlled substances, including those specific to
schedule II controlled substances, on persons who handle or propose to
handle [\123\I]ioflupane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As discussed in a memorandum of understanding entered into
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute
on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency within the HHS
in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under
the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985. The
Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for
Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling
recommendations. 58 FR 35460, July 1, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
[\123\I]Ioflupane is, by definition, a schedule II controlled
substance because it is derived from cocaine, a schedule II substance,
via ecgonine (a schedule II substance). See 21 U.S.C. 812(c), Schedule
II, (a)(4). [\123\I]Ioflupane is the active pharmaceutical ingredient
(API) in the drug product DaTscan and it is a new molecular entity. The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the New Drug Application
(NDA) for DaTscan on January 14, 2011, for the indication of
visualizing striatal DATs in the brains of adult patients with
suspected Parkinsonian syndromes (PS).
DEA and HHS Eight Factor Analyses
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b), (c), and (f), the HHS recommended to
the DEA on November 2, 2010, that FDA-approved products containing
[\123\I]ioflupane be removed from schedule II of the CSA. The HHS
provided to DEA a scientific and medical evaluation document entitled
``Basis for the Recommendation to Remove FDA Approved Products
Containing [\123\I]Ioflupane from Schedule II of the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA).'' Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b), this document
contained an eight-factor analysis of FDA-approved products containing
[\123\I]ioflupane, along with the HHS's recommendation to remove FDA-
approved products containing [\123\I]ioflupane from the schedules of
the CSA. The HHS later clarified to DEA that its November 2, 2010,
recommendation also supports the decontrol of the substance
[\123\I]ioflupane.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter from Karen B. DeSalvo, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Health, HHS to John J. Riley, Acting Deputy Administrator, DEA (Aug.
19, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, the DEA reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation
and scheduling recommendation provided by the HHS, and all other
relevant data. The DEA and HHS collaborated further regarding the
available information. In a letter dated February 2, 2015, the HHS
provided detailed responses to specific inquiries from the DEA
(submitted by letter dated September 16, 2014). Upon further review of
all of the available information, the DEA completed its own eight-
factor review document on FDA-approved diagnostic products containing
[\123\I]ioflupane (currently, only DaTscan) pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
811(c).
The FDA-approved diagnostic product, DaTscan, was used as the basis
for the scientific and medical evaluation of FDA-approved products
containing [\123\I]ioflupane for both the HHS and DEA eight-factor
analysis. Both the DEA and HHS analyses and other relevant documents
are available in their entirety in the public docket of this rule
(Docket Number DEA-415F) at https://www.regulations.gov under
``Supporting and Related Material.''
Determination To Decontrol [\123\I]ioflupane
After a review of the available data, including the scientific and
medical evaluation and recommendation, the Administrator of the DEA
published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Schedules of Controlled Substances: Removal of
[\123\I]Ioflupane from Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act''
which proposed removal of [\123\I]ioflupane from the schedules of the
CSA. 80 FR 31521, June 3, 2015. The proposed rule provided an
opportunity for interested persons to file a request for a hearing in
accordance with DEA regulations by July 6, 2015.
No requests for such a hearing were received by the DEA. The NPRM
also provided an opportunity for interested persons to submit written
comments on the proposal on or before July 6, 2015.
Comments Received
The DEA received nine comments on the proposed rule to decontrol
[\123\I]ioflupane. All commenters supported the decontrol of
[\123\I]ioflupane.
Commenters in support of decontrolling [\123\I]ioflupane included
an international medical society for neurology; an association of
industry members that manufacture radiopharmaceuticals; a professional
organization representing radiologists, radiation oncologists,
interventional radiologists, nuclear medicine physicians, and medical
physicists; an advocacy group for the Parkinson's community; a trade
association representing medical imaging, radiotherapy and
radiopharmaceutical manufacturers; the sponsor of the drug product
containing [\123\I]ioflupane; a physician; a health services company;
and a private citizen, all of whom expressed support for the DEA's
proposal to decontrol [\123\I]ioflupane. Some commenters also stated
that the proposal would improve patient access to an important
diagnostic pharmaceutical and reduce the burden on providers and
nuclear pharmacies.
The DEA appreciates the comments in support of this rulemaking.
Effective Date of the Rule
Generally, DEA scheduling actions are effective 30 days from the
date of
[[Page 54717]]
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 21 CFR 1308.45;
see also 5 U.S.C. 553(d). In this instance, and in accordance with 21
CFR 1308.45, the DEA finds that the conditions of public health or
safety necessitate an earlier effective date, i.e., the date of
publication in the Federal Register. An earlier effective date would
allow specialized members of the healthcare community to readily
utilize this substance as a component of an important diagnostic tool,
DaTscan. DaTscan, which contains [\123\I]ioflupane, is used in
differentiating essential tremors from tremors due to PS, (idiopathic
Parkinson's disease, multiple system atrophy, and progressive
supranuclear palsy), and can help healthcare professionals provide more
accurate diagnoses. This earlier effective date will allow patients to
receive, without delay, important diagnostic testing that is critical
to their health and treatment. These findings, coupled with the fact
that this is an action for decontrol, indicate that conditions of
public health necessitate an immediate effective date upon publication
in the Federal Register.
The DEA also notes that its decision to make this rule effective
upon publication aligns with the exceptions to the 30-day effective
date requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). One of the
APA's exceptions to the 30-day effective date is for a substantive rule
granting or recognizing an exemption or which relieves a restriction. 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Scheduling Conclusion
Based on consideration of all comments, the scientific and medical
evaluation and accompanying recommendation and clarification from the
HHS, and based on the DEA's consideration of its own eight-factor
analysis, the Administrator finds that these facts and all relevant
data demonstrate that [\123\I]ioflupane does not meet the requirements
for inclusion in any schedule, and will be removed from control under
the CSA.
Regulatory Analyses
Executive Orders 12866 and 15363
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this scheduling action is
subject to formal rulemaking procedures done ``on the record after
opportunity for a hearing,'' which are conducted pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for
scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section
3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in
Executive Order 13563.
Executive Order 12988
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform
to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation,
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote
simplification and burden reduction.
Executive Order 13132
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting
the application of Executive Order 13132. The rule does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Executive Order 13175
This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the
application of Executive Order 13175. This rule does not have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA), has reviewed this rule and by approving
it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The purpose of this rule is to
remove [\123\I]ioflupane from the list of schedules of the CSA. This
action removes regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and
criminal sanctions applicable to controlled substances for handlers and
proposed handlers of [\123\I]ioflupane. Accordingly, it has the
potential for some economic impact in the form of cost savings.
This rule will affect all persons who handle, or propose to handle,
[\123\I]ioflupane. Due to the wide variety of unidentifiable and
unquantifiable variables that potentially could influence the
distribution and administration rates of radiopharmaceutical
substances, the DEA is unable to determine the number of entities and
small entities which might handle [\123\I]ioflupane. In other instances
where a controlled pharmaceutical drug is removed from the schedules of
the CSA, the DEA is able to quantify the estimated number of affected
entities and small entities because the handling of the drug is
expected to be limited to DEA registrants even after removal from the
schedules. In such instances, the DEA's knowledge of its registrant
population forms the basis for estimating the number of affected
entities and small entities. However, [\123\I]ioflupane is expected to
be handled by persons who hold DEA registrations regardless of whether
this rule is promulgated (e.g., hospital radiopharmacies) and by
persons who are not currently registered with the DEA to handle
controlled substances (e.g., diagnostic clinics and imaging centers
that do not routinely handle controlled substances). The DEA does not
have a reliable basis to estimate the number of non-registrants who
plan to handle [\123\I]ioflupane.
Although the DEA does not have a reliable basis to estimate the
number of affected entities and quantify the economic impact of this
final rule, a qualitative analysis indicates that this rule is likely
to result in some cost savings for the healthcare industry. The
affected entities will continue to meet existing Federal and/or state
requirements applicable to those who handle radiopharmaceutical
substances, including licensure, security, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements, which in many cases are more stringent than the DEA's
requirements. However, the DEA believes cost savings will be realized
from the removal of the administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions
for those entities handling or proposing to handle [\123\I]ioflupane,
in the form of saved DEA registration fees, and the elimination of
additional physical security, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
Because of these facts, this rule will not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The DEA has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., that this
action would not result in 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 for
inflation) in any one year . . . .'' Therefore, neither a Small
Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under
provisions of UMRA.
[[Page 54718]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose a new collection of information
requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on
State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(Congressional Review Act (CRA)). This rule will not result in: An
annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal,
State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and
export markets. However, pursuant to the CRA, the DEA has submitted a
copy of this final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the
Comptroller General.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control,
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1308 is amended to read
as follows:
PART 1308--SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1308 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 1308.12, revise paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 1308.12 Schedule II.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Coca leaves (9040) and any salt, compound, derivative or
preparation of coca leaves (including cocaine (9041) and ecgonine
(9180) and their salts, isomers, derivatives and salts of isomers and
derivatives), and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation
thereof which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of these
substances, except that the substances shall not include:
(i) Decocainized coca leaves or extraction of coca leaves, which
extractions do not contain cocaine or ecgonine; or
(ii) [\123\I]ioflupane.
* * * * *
Dated: September 4, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-22919 Filed 9-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P