Revocation of the Test for Mycoplasma, 51635-51639 [2020-17085]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
U.S. and Canadian officials have
mutually determined that non-essential
travel between the United States and
Canada poses additional risk of
transmission and spread of the virus
associated with COVID–19 and places
the populace of both nations at
increased risk of contracting the virus
associated with COVID–19. Moreover,
given the sustained human-to-human
transmission of the virus, returning to
previous levels of travel between the
two nations places the personnel
staffing land ports of entry between the
United States and Canada, as well as the
individuals traveling through these
ports of entry, at increased risk of
exposure to the virus associated with
COVID–19. Accordingly, and consistent
with the authority granted in 19 U.S.C.
1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2),7 I have
determined that land ports of entry
along the U.S.-Canada border will
continue to suspend normal operations
and will only allow processing for entry
into the United States of those travelers
engaged in ‘‘essential travel,’’ as defined
below. Given the definition of ‘‘essential
travel’’ below, this temporary alteration
in land ports of entry operations should
not interrupt legitimate trade between
the two nations or disrupt critical
supply chains that ensure food, fuel,
medicine, and other critical materials
reach individuals on both sides of the
border.
For purposes of the temporary
alteration in certain designated ports of
entry operations authorized under 19
U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), travel
through the land ports of entry and ferry
terminals along the United States7 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) provides that
‘‘[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Treasury, when necessary to
respond to a national emergency declared under the
National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)
or to a specific threat to human life or national
interests,’’ is authorized to ‘‘[t]ake any . . . action
that may be necessary to respond directly to the
national emergency or specific threat.’’ On March
1, 2003, certain functions of the Secretary of the
Treasury were transferred to the Secretary of
Homeland Security. See 6 U.S.C. 202(2), 203(1).
Under 6 U.S.C. 212(a)(1), authorities ‘‘related to
Customs revenue functions’’ were reserved to the
Secretary of the Treasury. To the extent that any
authority under section 1318(b)(1) was reserved to
the Secretary of the Treasury, it has been delegated
to the Secretary of Homeland Security. See Treas.
Dep’t Order No. 100–16 (May 15, 2003), 68 FR
28322 (May 23, 2003). Additionally, 19 U.S.C.
1318(b)(2) provides that ‘‘[n]otwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Commissioner of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, when necessary to
respond to a specific threat to human life or
national interests, is authorized to close temporarily
any Customs office or port of entry or take any other
lesser action that may be necessary to respond to
the specific threat.’’ Congress has vested in the
Secretary of Homeland Security the ‘‘functions of
all officers, employees, and organizational units of
the Department,’’ including the Commissioner of
CBP. 6 U.S.C. 112(a)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:00 Aug 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
Canada border shall be limited to
‘‘essential travel,’’ which includes, but
is not limited to—
• U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents returning to the United States;
• Individuals traveling for medical
purposes (e.g., to receive medical
treatment in the United States);
• Individuals traveling to attend
educational institutions;
• Individuals traveling to work in the
United States (e.g., individuals working
in the farming or agriculture industry
who must travel between the United
States and Canada in furtherance of
such work);
• Individuals traveling for emergency
response and public health purposes
(e.g., government officials or emergency
responders entering the United States to
support federal, state, local, tribal, or
territorial government efforts to respond
to COVID–19 or other emergencies);
• Individuals engaged in lawful crossborder trade (e.g., truck drivers
supporting the movement of cargo
between the United States and Canada);
• Individuals engaged in official
government travel or diplomatic travel;
• Members of the U.S. Armed Forces,
and the spouses and children of
members of the U.S. Armed Forces,
returning to the United States; and
• Individuals engaged in militaryrelated travel or operations.
The following travel does not fall
within the definition of ‘‘essential
travel’’ for purposes of this
Notification—
• Individuals traveling for tourism
purposes (e.g., sightseeing, recreation,
gambling, or attending cultural events).
At this time, this Notification does not
apply to air, freight rail, or sea travel
between the United States and Canada,
but does apply to passenger rail,
passenger ferry travel, and pleasure boat
travel between the United States and
Canada. These restrictions are
temporary in nature and shall remain in
effect until 11:59 p.m. EDT on
September 21, 2020. This Notification
may be amended or rescinded prior to
that time, based on circumstances
associated with the specific threat.
The Commissioner of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) is hereby
directed to prepare and distribute
appropriate guidance to CBP personnel
on the continued implementation of the
temporary measures set forth in this
Notification. The CBP Commissioner
may determine that other forms of
travel, such as travel in furtherance of
economic stability or social order,
constitute ‘‘essential travel’’ under this
Notification. Further, the CBP
Commissioner may, on an
individualized basis and for
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51635
humanitarian reasons or for other
purposes in the national interest, permit
the processing of travelers to the United
States not engaged in ‘‘essential travel.’’
The Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed
and approved this document, is
delegating the authority to electronically
sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle,
who is the Senior Official Performing
the Duties of the General Counsel for
DHS, for purposes of publication in the
Federal Register.
Chad R. Mizelle,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the
General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2020–18470 Filed 8–19–20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9112–FP–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 610
[Docket No. FDA–2018–N–4757]
RIN 0910–AH95
Revocation of the Test for Mycoplasma
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final rule.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA, the Agency, or
we) is issuing a final rule to remove the
specified test for the presence of
Mycoplasma for live virus vaccines and
inactivated virus vaccines produced
from in vitro living cell cultures. The
rule is being finalized because the
existing test for Mycoplasma is overly
restrictive in that it identifies only one
test method in detail to be used even
though other methods also may be
appropriate. More sensitive and specific
methods exist and are currently being
practiced, and removal of the specific
method to test for Mycoplasma provides
flexibility for accommodating new and
evolving technology and capabilities
without diminishing public health
protections. This action is part of FDA’s
implementation of Executive Orders
under which FDA is comprehensively
reviewing existing regulations to
identify opportunities for repeal,
replacement, or modification that will
result in meaningful burden reduction,
while allowing the Agency to achieve
our public health mission and fulfill
statutory obligations.
DATES: This rule is effective September
21, 2020.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21AUR1.SGM
21AUR1
51636
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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 final rule into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts,
and/or go to the Dockets Management
Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301,
Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240–
402–7911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Final Rule
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the
Final Rule
C. Legal Authority
D. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
A. Introduction
B. Need for the Regulation
C. Summary of Comments to the Proposed
Rule
III. Legal Authority
IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule and FDA
Response
A. Introduction
B. Comments and FDA Response
V. Effective Date
VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
IX. Federalism
X. Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
XI. References
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Final Rule
FDA is removing the regulation
requiring a specified test for the
presence of Mycoplasma for live virus
vaccines produced from in vitro living
cell cultures and inactivated virus
vaccines produced from such living cell
cultures because the regulation is overly
restrictive in that it identifies only one
test method in detail to be used even
though other methods also may be
appropriate. More sensitive and specific
methods exist and are currently being
practiced, and removal of the required
test for Mycoplasma provides flexibility
for accommodating new and evolving
technology and capabilities without
diminishing public health protections.
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of
the Final Rule
The final rule removes § 610.30 (21
CFR 610.30), which details the method
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:00 Aug 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
for Mycoplasma testing of samples of
the virus harvest pool and control fluid
pool of live virus vaccines and
inactivated virus vaccines produced
from in vitro living cell cultures.
C. Legal Authority
FDA is taking this action under the
biological products provisions of the
Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act),
and the drugs and general
administrative provisions of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C
Act).
D. Costs and Benefits
Because this final rule will not
impose any additional regulatory
burdens, this regulation is not
anticipated to result in any compliance
costs and the economic impact is
expected to be minimal.
II. Background
A. Introduction
On February 24, 2017, Executive
Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory
Reform Agenda’’ (https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2017/03/01/2017-04107/enforcing-theregulatory-reform-agenda; 82 FR 12285,
March 1, 2017) was issued. One of the
provisions in the Executive Order
requires Agencies to evaluate existing
regulations and make recommendations
to the Agency head regarding their
repeal, replacement, or modification,
consistent with applicable law. As part
of this initiative, FDA is revoking a
regulation as specified in this final rule.
B. Need for the Regulation
It has become increasingly clear that
the requirement specifying a test for
Mycoplasma is too restrictive for live
virus vaccines and inactivated virus
vaccines produced from in vitro living
cell cultures because they specify
particular methodologies when
alternatives may be available that
provide the same or greater level of
assurance of safety. Modifications to
Mycoplasma testing described in
§ 610.30 must meet the requirements of
21 CFR 610.9.
Thus, the Agency believes that the
regulation may no longer reflect the
current testing procedures as a general
matter and that it is more appropriate,
flexible, and efficient to identify
appropriate testing requirements for
particular products in the biologics
license application (BLA).
This final rule removes the specified
test for the presence of Mycoplasma to
provide flexibility for accommodating
new and evolving technology and
capabilities without diminishing public
health protections. Removal of this
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
regulation allows manufacturers of live
virus vaccines produced from in vitro
living cell cultures and inactivated virus
vaccines produced from such living cell
cultures to select the most scientifically
appropriate Mycoplasma testing method
to assure the safety, purity, and potency
of their vaccines.
These newer technologies can result
in higher sensitivity and specificity of
Mycoplasma detection and could reduce
the time required to complete testing for
Mycoplasma. Removal of this regulation
does not remove Mycoplasma testing
requirements specified in individual
BLAs. A manufacturer of a live virus
vaccine produced from in vitro living
cell cultures and inactivated virus
vaccines produced from such living cell
cultures will continue to be required to
follow the Mycoplasma test
requirements specified in its BLA,
unless the BLA was revised to modify
or replace the test through a supplement
in accordance with § 601.12(c) (21 CFR
601.12(c)). FDA would review proposed
changes to a manufacturer’s approved
biologics license in the context of that
particular application to ensure that any
such action is appropriate.
Although the final rule removes the
regulation, a manufacturer continues to
be required to test for Mycoplasma as
specified in its BLA. This action
provides regulated industry with
flexibility, as appropriate, to employ
advances in science and technology as
they become available, without
diminishing public health protections.
As appropriate, the Agency will
describe the appropriate tests for
particular products in manufacturers’
BLAs.
C. Summary of Comments to the
Proposed Rule
We received comments on the
proposed rule from individuals and
industry submitters. The comments
were generally supportive, with some
comments suggesting new testing
procedures be proposed. These
comments are further summarized in
section IV.
III. Legal Authority
We are issuing this final rule under
the biological products provisions of the
PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a,
and 264) and the drugs and general
administrative provisions of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353,
355, 360, 360c, 360d, 360h, 360i, 371,
372, 374, and 381). Under these
provisions of the PHS Act and the FD&C
Act, we have the authority to issue and
enforce regulations designed to ensure
that biological products are safe, pure,
and potent, and prevent the
E:\FR\FM\21AUR1.SGM
21AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
introduction, transmission, and spread
of communicable disease.
IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule
and FDA Response
A. Introduction
We received comments on the
proposed rule from individuals and
industry submitters. We describe and
respond to the comments in section
IV.B. We have combined comments on
similar topics and have numbered each
comment to help distinguish between
different comments. The number
assigned to each comment or comment
topic is purely for organizational
purposes and does not signify the
comment’s value or importance or the
order in which comments were
received.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
B. Comments and FDA Response
(Comment 1) One comment requested
that FDA not finalize the rule, but
instead amend the proposal to revoke
the current test for Mycoplasma. The
commenter proposed that FDA include
methodologies on newer tests and how
they are distinguishable from the
present test; comparable data on the
accuracy of Mycoplasma detection
between the present and newer tests,
and any other additional information
that would support FDA’s argument that
the newer tests are more efficient.
(Response 1) FDA interprets this
comment to support the proposal to
remove the currently described
methodology and to amend the
regulation to specify alternative
acceptable tests. The purpose of this
rulemaking is to permit manufacturers
of live virus vaccines produced from in
vitro living cell cultures and inactivated
virus vaccines produced from such
living cell cultures to select the most
scientifically appropriate Mycoplasma
testing method to assure the safety,
purity, and potency of their vaccines.
Thus, FDA declines to amend the
regulation to specify alternative
acceptable tests because this would not
achieve the goal of allowing flexibility,
as appropriate, to employ advances in
science and technology as they become
available without diminishing public
health protections. However, FDA
acknowledges that guidance is helpful
to describe FDA’s current thinking on
alternative methods of testing for
Mycoplasma in manufacturing samples
of live virus vaccines and inactivated
virus vaccines produced from in vitro
living cell cultures. FDA notes that
recommended alternative methods for
Mycoplasma testing for viral vaccines
are described in ‘‘Guidance for Industry:
Characterization and Qualification of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:00 Aug 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
Cell Substrates and Other Biological
Materials Used in the Production of
Viral Vaccines for Infectious Disease
Indications’’ (February 2010) (https://
www.fda.gov/media/78428/download).
(Comment 2) One comment supported
the proposed rule.
(Response 2) We acknowledge and
appreciate the supportive comment.
(Comment 3) One comment did not
comment specifically on finalizing the
rule, but stated that with changes to
technology, it makes sense to update
testing procedures. The comment stated
that ‘‘a list of the new proposed test
methods would be beneficial to compare
the overall benefits and disadvantages.’’
Another comment suggested that if the
rule is finalized, FDA should provide
guidance for alternative methods of
testing for Mycoplasma.
(Response 3) While the comment
states that it would be helpful to have
a list of new proposed test methods,
FDA does not believe the regulation
should be amended to include such a
list because that list could become
outdated. License holders are welcome
to discuss with FDA proposals to
change their existing test methods and
to submit proposals to FDA to revise the
current test methods in use.
FDA also acknowledges that guidance
is helpful to describe FDA’s current
thinking on acceptable alternative
methods of testing for Mycoplasma in
manufacturing samples of live virus
vaccines and inactivated virus vaccines
produced from in vitro living cell
cultures. FDA notes that recommended
alternative methods for Mycoplasma
testing for viral vaccines are described
in ‘‘Guidance for Industry:
Characterization and Qualification of
Cell Substrates and Other Biological
Materials Used in the Production of
Viral Vaccines for Infectious Disease
Indications’’ (February 2010) (https://
www.fda.gov/media/78428/download).
(Comment 4) One comment strongly
supported removal of the regulation and
agreed that more sensitive test methods
exist; however, the commenter wanted
the scope of the impact to be expanded
to include all biological product
manufacturers.
(Response 4) We acknowledge and
appreciate the supportive comment. The
request to expand the revocation to
include all biological product
manufacturers is beyond the scope of
this rule making because § 610.30
pertains to manufacturers of live virus
vaccines and inactivated virus vaccines
produced from in vitro living cell
cultures.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51637
V. Effective Date
The final rule will become effective
30 days after the date of publication in
the Federal Register.
VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts
A. Introduction
We have examined the impacts of the
final rule under Executive Order 12866,
Executive Order 13563, Executive Order
13771, 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 us 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). Executive Order
13771 requires that the costs associated
with significant new regulations ‘‘shall,
to the extent permitted by law, be offset
by the elimination of existing costs
associated with at least two prior
regulations.’’ We believe that this final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
as defined by Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires us to analyze regulatory options
that would minimize any significant
impact of a rule on small entities.
Because this rule would increase
flexibility and does not add any new
regulatory responsibilities, we certify
that the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to
prepare a written statement, which
includes an assessment of anticipated
costs and benefits, before issuing ‘‘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 $154 million, using the
most current (2018) Implicit Price
Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.
This final rule would not result in an
expenditure in any year that meets or
exceeds this amount.
B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
This final rule will amend the
biologics regulations under § 610.30 by
removing the specified test for
Mycoplasma in the production of live
virus vaccines produced from in vitro
living cell cultures and inactivated virus
E:\FR\FM\21AUR1.SGM
21AUR1
51638
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
vaccines produced from such living cell
cultures.
Removing the § 610.30 Test for
Mycoplasma will provide manufacturers
with the flexibility to determine the
most appropriate and effective
Mycoplasma testing methods. FDA
guidance dated after § 610.30, codified
in 1973 (November 20, 1973, 38 FR
32056), outlines up-to-date scientific
practices to identify Mycoplasma in
production of live virus vaccines
produced from in vitro living cell
cultures and inactivated virus vaccines
produced from in vitro living cell
cultures. In practice, a vaccine
manufacturer can change its procedures
at any time with submission and prior
approval of a supplement to its BLA. As
a result, we do not expect the repeal of
the § 610.30 Test for Mycoplasma to
significantly influence the behavior or
procedures of vaccine manufacturers.
Because manufacturers already have
the ability to pursue alternative testing
procedures, we anticipate no
measurable change in industry or FDA
behavior from this final rulemaking. We
therefore expect the elimination of the
§ 610.30 Test for Mycoplasma to be cost
neutral. This final rule will therefore
produce no quantifiable savings, costs,
or transfers. We also expect no public
health benefits to be lost as a result of
this revocation. Finally, we note that
this final rulemaking may drive some
manufacturers to streamline their
procedures and search for more efficient
Mycoplasma testing methods. This
optimization may produce some
unquantifiable efficiencies.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS, COSTS AND DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF FINAL RULE
Units
Category
Benefits:
Annualized ..............................
Monetized $millions/year ........
Annualized ..............................
Quantified ...............................
Qualitative ...............................
Costs:
Annualized ..............................
Monetized $millions/year ........
Annualized ..............................
Quantified ...............................
Qualitative ...............................
Transfers:
Federal ....................................
Annualized ..............................
Monetized $millions/year ........
Primary
estimate
Low
estimate
High
estimate
Year dollars
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
7
3
7
3
Benefits to manufacturers from flexibility
to determine appropriate and effective
Mycoplasma testing methods.
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
7
3
7
3
Costs to manufacturers to change
Mycoplasma testing methods, if
voluntarily pursued.
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
7
3
....................
From/To ..................................
From:
Other .......................................
Annualized ..............................
Monetized $millions/year ........
....................
....................
....................
From/To ..................................
From:
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Discount
rate
(%)
Period
covered
Notes
To:
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
7
3
....................
To:
Effects:
State, Local or Tribal Government: None.
Small Business: None.
Wages: None.
Growth: None.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
In line with Executive Order 13771, in
table 2 we present annualized values of
costs and cost savings over an infinite
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:54 Aug 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
time horizon. There are no quantifiable
costs or cost savings from this rule. This
final rule would be considered a
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
deregulatory action under Executive
Order 13771.
E:\FR\FM\21AUR1.SGM
21AUR1
51639
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 163 / Friday, August 21, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—EXECUTIVE ORDER 13771 SUMMARY TABLE
[in $ Millions 2016 Dollars, Over an Infinite Time Horizon]
Item
Primary
estimate
(7%)
Lower
estimate
(7%)
Upper
estimate
(7%)
Present Value of Costs ................................................................................................................
Present Value of Cost Savings ...................................................................................................
Present Value of Net Costs .........................................................................................................
Annualized Costs .........................................................................................................................
Annualized Cost Savings .............................................................................................................
Annualized Net Costs ..................................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
We have developed a comprehensive
Economic Analysis of Impacts that
assesses the impacts of the final rule.
The full analysis of economic impacts is
available in the docket for this final rule
(Ref. 1) and at https://www.fda.gov/
about-fda/reports/economic-impactanalyses-fda-regulations.
VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact
We have determined under 21 CFR
25.31(h) that this action is of a type that
does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule contains no collection
of information. Therefore, clearance by
the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 is not required.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
IX. Federalism
We have analyzed this final rule in
accordance with the principles set forth
in Executive Order 13132. We have
determined that the rule does 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, we
conclude that the 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.
X. Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
We have analyzed this rule in
accordance with the principles set forth
in Executive Order 13175. We have
determined that the rule does not
contain policies that have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:00 Aug 20, 2020
Jkt 250001
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes.
Accordingly, we conclude that the rule
does not contain policies that have
tribal implications as defined in the
Executive Order and, consequently, a
tribal summary impact statement is not
required.
XI. Reference
The following reference is on display
at the Dockets Management Staff (see
ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing
by interested persons between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday; it is
also available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified
the website address, as of the date this
document publishes in the Federal
Register, but websites are subject to
change over time.
1. FDA/Economics Staff, ‘‘Elimination of the
21 CFR 610.30 Test for Mycoplasma
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act Analysis,’’ 2018. (Available at
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/
economic-impact-analyses-fdaregulations.)
List of Subjects in 21 CFR part 610
Biologics, Labeling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 610 is
amended as follows:
PART 610—GENERAL BIOLOGICAL
PRODUCTS STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 610
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 355, 360, 360c, 360d, 360h, 360i, 371,
372, 374, 381; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a,
264.
Subpart D—[Removed and Reserved]
2. Remove and reserve subpart D,
consisting of § 610.30.
■
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Dated: July 29, 2020.
Stephen M. Hahn,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2020–17085 Filed 8–20–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
21 CFR Parts 1308 and 1312
[Docket No. DEA–500]
RIN 1117–AB53
Implementation of the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2018
Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), Department of
Justice.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The purpose of this interim
final rule is to codify in the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA)
regulations the statutory amendments to
the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
made by the Agriculture Improvement
Act of 2018 (AIA), regarding the scope
of regulatory controls over marihuana,
tetrahydrocannabinols, and other
marihuana-related constituents. This
interim final rule merely conforms
DEA’s regulations to the statutory
amendments to the CSA that have
already taken effect, and it does not add
additional requirements to the
regulations.
DATES: Effective August 21, 2020.
Electronic comments must be
submitted, and written comments must
be postmarked, on or before October 20,
2020. Commenters should be aware that
the electronic Federal Docket
Management System will not accept
comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
on the last day of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling
of comments, please reference ‘‘RIN
1117–AB53/Docket No. DEA–500’’ on
all correspondence, including any
attachments.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21AUR1.SGM
21AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 163 (Friday, August 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51635-51639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17085]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 610
[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-4757]
RIN 0910-AH95
Revocation of the Test for Mycoplasma
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
issuing a final rule to remove the specified test for the presence of
Mycoplasma for live virus vaccines and inactivated virus vaccines
produced from in vitro living cell cultures. The rule is being
finalized because the existing test for Mycoplasma is overly
restrictive in that it identifies only one test method in detail to be
used even though other methods also may be appropriate. More sensitive
and specific methods exist and are currently being practiced, and
removal of the specific method to test for Mycoplasma provides
flexibility for accommodating new and evolving technology and
capabilities without diminishing public health protections. This action
is part of FDA's implementation of Executive Orders under which FDA is
comprehensively reviewing existing regulations to identify
opportunities for repeal, replacement, or modification that will result
in meaningful burden reduction, while allowing the Agency to achieve
our public health mission and fulfill statutory obligations.
DATES: This rule is effective September 21, 2020.
[[Page 51636]]
ADDRESSES: 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 final rule into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tami Belouin, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Final Rule
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule
C. Legal Authority
D. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
A. Introduction
B. Need for the Regulation
C. Summary of Comments to the Proposed Rule
III. Legal Authority
IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule and FDA Response
A. Introduction
B. Comments and FDA Response
V. Effective Date
VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
IX. Federalism
X. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
XI. References
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Final Rule
FDA is removing the regulation requiring a specified test for the
presence of Mycoplasma for live virus vaccines produced from in vitro
living cell cultures and inactivated virus vaccines produced from such
living cell cultures because the regulation is overly restrictive in
that it identifies only one test method in detail to be used even
though other methods also may be appropriate. More sensitive and
specific methods exist and are currently being practiced, and removal
of the required test for Mycoplasma provides flexibility for
accommodating new and evolving technology and capabilities without
diminishing public health protections.
B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule
The final rule removes Sec. 610.30 (21 CFR 610.30), which details
the method for Mycoplasma testing of samples of the virus harvest pool
and control fluid pool of live virus vaccines and inactivated virus
vaccines produced from in vitro living cell cultures.
C. Legal Authority
FDA is taking this action under the biological products provisions
of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act), and the drugs and
general administrative provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
D. Costs and Benefits
Because this final rule will not impose any additional regulatory
burdens, this regulation is not anticipated to result in any compliance
costs and the economic impact is expected to be minimal.
II. Background
A. Introduction
On February 24, 2017, Executive Order 13777, ``Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/01/2017-04107/enforcing-the-regulatory-reform-agenda; 82 FR
12285, March 1, 2017) was issued. One of the provisions in the
Executive Order requires Agencies to evaluate existing regulations and
make recommendations to the Agency head regarding their repeal,
replacement, or modification, consistent with applicable law. As part
of this initiative, FDA is revoking a regulation as specified in this
final rule.
B. Need for the Regulation
It has become increasingly clear that the requirement specifying a
test for Mycoplasma is too restrictive for live virus vaccines and
inactivated virus vaccines produced from in vitro living cell cultures
because they specify particular methodologies when alternatives may be
available that provide the same or greater level of assurance of
safety. Modifications to Mycoplasma testing described in Sec. 610.30
must meet the requirements of 21 CFR 610.9.
Thus, the Agency believes that the regulation may no longer reflect
the current testing procedures as a general matter and that it is more
appropriate, flexible, and efficient to identify appropriate testing
requirements for particular products in the biologics license
application (BLA).
This final rule removes the specified test for the presence of
Mycoplasma to provide flexibility for accommodating new and evolving
technology and capabilities without diminishing public health
protections. Removal of this regulation allows manufacturers of live
virus vaccines produced from in vitro living cell cultures and
inactivated virus vaccines produced from such living cell cultures to
select the most scientifically appropriate Mycoplasma testing method to
assure the safety, purity, and potency of their vaccines.
These newer technologies can result in higher sensitivity and
specificity of Mycoplasma detection and could reduce the time required
to complete testing for Mycoplasma. Removal of this regulation does not
remove Mycoplasma testing requirements specified in individual BLAs. A
manufacturer of a live virus vaccine produced from in vitro living cell
cultures and inactivated virus vaccines produced from such living cell
cultures will continue to be required to follow the Mycoplasma test
requirements specified in its BLA, unless the BLA was revised to modify
or replace the test through a supplement in accordance with Sec.
601.12(c) (21 CFR 601.12(c)). FDA would review proposed changes to a
manufacturer's approved biologics license in the context of that
particular application to ensure that any such action is appropriate.
Although the final rule removes the regulation, a manufacturer
continues to be required to test for Mycoplasma as specified in its
BLA. This action provides regulated industry with flexibility, as
appropriate, to employ advances in science and technology as they
become available, without diminishing public health protections. As
appropriate, the Agency will describe the appropriate tests for
particular products in manufacturers' BLAs.
C. Summary of Comments to the Proposed Rule
We received comments on the proposed rule from individuals and
industry submitters. The comments were generally supportive, with some
comments suggesting new testing procedures be proposed. These comments
are further summarized in section IV.
III. Legal Authority
We are issuing this final rule under the biological products
provisions of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a, and 264) and
the drugs and general administrative provisions of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 360c, 360d, 360h, 360i, 371,
372, 374, and 381). Under these provisions of the PHS Act and the FD&C
Act, we have the authority to issue and enforce regulations designed to
ensure that biological products are safe, pure, and potent, and prevent
the
[[Page 51637]]
introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease.
IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule and FDA Response
A. Introduction
We received comments on the proposed rule from individuals and
industry submitters. We describe and respond to the comments in section
IV.B. We have combined comments on similar topics and have numbered
each comment to help distinguish between different comments. The number
assigned to each comment or comment topic is purely for organizational
purposes and does not signify the comment's value or importance or the
order in which comments were received.
B. Comments and FDA Response
(Comment 1) One comment requested that FDA not finalize the rule,
but instead amend the proposal to revoke the current test for
Mycoplasma. The commenter proposed that FDA include methodologies on
newer tests and how they are distinguishable from the present test;
comparable data on the accuracy of Mycoplasma detection between the
present and newer tests, and any other additional information that
would support FDA's argument that the newer tests are more efficient.
(Response 1) FDA interprets this comment to support the proposal to
remove the currently described methodology and to amend the regulation
to specify alternative acceptable tests. The purpose of this rulemaking
is to permit manufacturers of live virus vaccines produced from in
vitro living cell cultures and inactivated virus vaccines produced from
such living cell cultures to select the most scientifically appropriate
Mycoplasma testing method to assure the safety, purity, and potency of
their vaccines. Thus, FDA declines to amend the regulation to specify
alternative acceptable tests because this would not achieve the goal of
allowing flexibility, as appropriate, to employ advances in science and
technology as they become available without diminishing public health
protections. However, FDA acknowledges that guidance is helpful to
describe FDA's current thinking on alternative methods of testing for
Mycoplasma in manufacturing samples of live virus vaccines and
inactivated virus vaccines produced from in vitro living cell cultures.
FDA notes that recommended alternative methods for Mycoplasma testing
for viral vaccines are described in ``Guidance for Industry:
Characterization and Qualification of Cell Substrates and Other
Biological Materials Used in the Production of Viral Vaccines for
Infectious Disease Indications'' (February 2010) (https://www.fda.gov/media/78428/download).
(Comment 2) One comment supported the proposed rule.
(Response 2) We acknowledge and appreciate the supportive comment.
(Comment 3) One comment did not comment specifically on finalizing
the rule, but stated that with changes to technology, it makes sense to
update testing procedures. The comment stated that ``a list of the new
proposed test methods would be beneficial to compare the overall
benefits and disadvantages.'' Another comment suggested that if the
rule is finalized, FDA should provide guidance for alternative methods
of testing for Mycoplasma.
(Response 3) While the comment states that it would be helpful to
have a list of new proposed test methods, FDA does not believe the
regulation should be amended to include such a list because that list
could become outdated. License holders are welcome to discuss with FDA
proposals to change their existing test methods and to submit proposals
to FDA to revise the current test methods in use.
FDA also acknowledges that guidance is helpful to describe FDA's
current thinking on acceptable alternative methods of testing for
Mycoplasma in manufacturing samples of live virus vaccines and
inactivated virus vaccines produced from in vitro living cell cultures.
FDA notes that recommended alternative methods for Mycoplasma testing
for viral vaccines are described in ``Guidance for Industry:
Characterization and Qualification of Cell Substrates and Other
Biological Materials Used in the Production of Viral Vaccines for
Infectious Disease Indications'' (February 2010) (https://www.fda.gov/media/78428/download).
(Comment 4) One comment strongly supported removal of the
regulation and agreed that more sensitive test methods exist; however,
the commenter wanted the scope of the impact to be expanded to include
all biological product manufacturers.
(Response 4) We acknowledge and appreciate the supportive comment.
The request to expand the revocation to include all biological product
manufacturers is beyond the scope of this rule making because Sec.
610.30 pertains to manufacturers of live virus vaccines and inactivated
virus vaccines produced from in vitro living cell cultures.
V. Effective Date
The final rule will become effective 30 days after the date of
publication in the Federal Register.
VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts
A. Introduction
We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, 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 us 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). Executive Order 13771
requires that the costs associated with significant new regulations
``shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination
of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.'' We
believe that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because this rule would increase flexibility and does not add
any new regulatory responsibilities, we certify that the final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires
us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing ``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 $154
million, using the most current (2018) Implicit Price Deflator for the
Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would not result in an
expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.
B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
This final rule will amend the biologics regulations under Sec.
610.30 by removing the specified test for Mycoplasma in the production
of live virus vaccines produced from in vitro living cell cultures and
inactivated virus
[[Page 51638]]
vaccines produced from such living cell cultures.
Removing the Sec. 610.30 Test for Mycoplasma will provide
manufacturers with the flexibility to determine the most appropriate
and effective Mycoplasma testing methods. FDA guidance dated after
Sec. 610.30, codified in 1973 (November 20, 1973, 38 FR 32056),
outlines up-to-date scientific practices to identify Mycoplasma in
production of live virus vaccines produced from in vitro living cell
cultures and inactivated virus vaccines produced from in vitro living
cell cultures. In practice, a vaccine manufacturer can change its
procedures at any time with submission and prior approval of a
supplement to its BLA. As a result, we do not expect the repeal of the
Sec. 610.30 Test for Mycoplasma to significantly influence the
behavior or procedures of vaccine manufacturers.
Because manufacturers already have the ability to pursue
alternative testing procedures, we anticipate no measurable change in
industry or FDA behavior from this final rulemaking. We therefore
expect the elimination of the Sec. 610.30 Test for Mycoplasma to be
cost neutral. This final rule will therefore produce no quantifiable
savings, costs, or transfers. We also expect no public health benefits
to be lost as a result of this revocation. Finally, we note that this
final rulemaking may drive some manufacturers to streamline their
procedures and search for more efficient Mycoplasma testing methods.
This optimization may produce some unquantifiable efficiencies.
Table 1--Summary of Benefits, Costs and Distributional Effects of Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units
Primary Low High ---------------------------------------
Category estimate estimate estimate Year Discount Period Notes
dollars rate (%) covered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
Annualized........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 7 ...............................
Monetized $millions/year............. ........... ........... ........... ........... 3 ...............................
Annualized........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 7 ...............................
Quantified........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3 ...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative.......................... Benefits to manufacturers from ........... ........... ...............................
flexibility to determine appropriate
and effective Mycoplasma testing
methods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
Annualized........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 7 ...............................
Monetized $millions/year............. ........... ........... ........... ........... 3 ...............................
Annualized........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 7 ...............................
Quantified........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3 ...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative.......................... Costs to manufacturers to change ........... ........... ...............................
Mycoplasma testing methods, if
voluntarily pursued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers:
Federal.............................. ........... ........... ........... ........... 7 ...............................
Annualized........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3 ...............................
Monetized $millions/year............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From/To.............................. From:
To:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other................................ ........... ........... ........... ........... 7 ...............................
Annualized........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3 ...............................
Monetized $millions/year............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From/To.............................. From:
To:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects:
State, Local or Tribal Government: None.
Small Business: None.
Wages: None.
Growth: None.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In line with Executive Order 13771, in table 2 we present
annualized values of costs and cost savings over an infinite time
horizon. There are no quantifiable costs or cost savings from this
rule. This final rule would be considered a deregulatory action under
Executive Order 13771.
[[Page 51639]]
Table 2--Executive Order 13771 Summary Table
[in $ Millions 2016 Dollars, Over an Infinite Time Horizon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Lower Upper
Item estimate (7%) estimate (7%) estimate (7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Costs.......................................... .............. .............. ..............
Present Value of Cost Savings................................... .............. .............. ..............
Present Value of Net Costs...................................... .............. .............. ..............
Annualized Costs................................................ .............. .............. ..............
Annualized Cost Savings......................................... .............. .............. ..............
Annualized Net Costs............................................ .............. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have developed a comprehensive Economic Analysis of Impacts that
assesses the impacts of the final rule. The full analysis of economic
impacts is available in the docket for this final rule (Ref. 1) and at
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/economic-impact-analyses-fda-regulations.
VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.31(h) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
IX. Federalism
We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that the rule
does 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, we conclude that the 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.
X. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13175. We have determined that the rule does
not contain policies that 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. Accordingly, we
conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have tribal
implications as defined in the Executive Order and, consequently, a
tribal summary impact statement is not required.
XI. Reference
The following reference is on display at the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday; it is also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website address, as of the date this document publishes in
the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.
1. FDA/Economics Staff, ``Elimination of the 21 CFR 610.30 Test for
Mycoplasma Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, Preliminary
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Analysis,'' 2018. (Available at https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/economic-impact-analyses-fda-regulations.)
List of Subjects in 21 CFR part 610
Biologics, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
610 is amended as follows:
PART 610--GENERAL BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 610 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 360c,
360d, 360h, 360i, 371, 372, 374, 381; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263, 263a,
264.
Subpart D--[Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Remove and reserve subpart D, consisting of Sec. 610.30.
Dated: July 29, 2020.
Stephen M. Hahn,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2020-17085 Filed 8-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P