Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by February 11, 2011.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or e-mailed to email@example.com. All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0233. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792, Elizabeth.Berbakos@fda.hhs.gov.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. Patent Term Restoration, Due Diligence Petitions, Filing, Format, and Content of Petitions—(OMB Control Number 0910-0233)—Extension
FDA's patent extension activities are conducted under the authority of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) and the Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1988 (35 U.S.C. 156). New human drug, animal drug, human biological, medical device, food additive, or color additive products regulated by the FDA must undergo FDA safety, or safety and effectiveness, review before marketing is permitted. Where the product is covered by a patent, part of the patent's term may be consumed during this review, which diminishes the value of the patent. In enacting the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 and the Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1988, Congress sought to encourage development of new, safer, and more effective medical and food additive products. It did so by authorizing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to extend the patent term by a portion of the time during which FDA's safety and effectiveness review prevented marketing of the product. The length of the patent term extension is generally limited to a maximum of 5 years, and is calculated by PTO based on a statutory formula. When a patent holder submits an application for patent term extension to PTO, PTO requests information from FDA, including the length of the regulatory review period for the patented product. If PTO concludes that the product is eligible for patent term extension, FDA publishes a notice that describes the length of the regulatory review period and the dates used to calculate that period. Interested parties may request, under § 60.24 (21 CFR 60.24), revision of the length of the regulatory review period, or may petition under § 60.30 (21 CFR 60.30) to reduce the regulatory review period by any time where marketing approval was not pursued with “due diligence.”
The statute defines due diligence as “that degree of attention, continuous directed effort, and timeliness as may reasonably be expected from, and are ordinarily exercised by, a person during a regulatory review period.” As provided in § 60.30(c), a due diligence petition “shall set forth sufficient facts, including dates if possible, to merit an investigation by FDA of whether the applicant acted with due diligence.” Upon receipt of a due diligence petition, FDA reviews the petition and evaluates whether any change in the regulatory review period is necessary. If so, the corrected regulatory review period is published in the Federal Register. A due diligence petitioner not satisfied with FDA's decision regarding the petition may, under § 60.40 (21 CFR 60.40), request an informal hearing for reconsideration of the due diligence determination. Petitioners are likely to include persons or organizations having knowledge that FDA's marketing permission for that product was not actively pursued throughout the regulatory review period. The information collection for which an extension of approval is being sought is the use of the statutorily created due diligence petition.
Since 1992, 12 requests for revision of the regulatory review period have been submitted under § 60.24. For 2007, 2008, and 2009, a total of three, or one per year, have been submitted under § 60.24. Two regulatory review periods have been altered. During that same time period, two due diligence petitions were submitted to FDA under § 60.30, for an average of fewer than one per year. There have been no requests for hearings under § 60.40 regarding the decisions on such petitions; however, for purposes of this information collection approval, we are estimating that we may receive one submission annually.
In the Federal Register of October 5, 2010 (75 FR 61493), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received on the information collection.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:Start Printed Page 2128
|21 CFR section||Number of respondents||Annual frequency per response||Total annual responses||Hours per response||Total hours|
|1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.|
Dated: January 5, 2011.
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-459 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P