Notices. Notice

862 words·~4 min read·/register/2004/08/19/04-18976

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4120-03-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. 2004N-0204] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Patent Term Restoration, Due Diligence Petitions, Filing, Format, and Content of Petitions AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: 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. DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 20, 2004. ADDRESSES: OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. 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: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Nelson, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482. SUPPLEMENTARY 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—21 CFR Part 60 (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 and the Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1988 (35 U.S.C. 156). New human drugs, animal drugs, human, biological, medical device, food additive, or color additive products regulated by 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 35 U.S.C. 156, 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 document in the **Federal Register** , which 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, seven requests for revision of the regulatory review period have been submitted under § 60.24. Three regulatory review periods have been altered. Two due diligence petitions have been submitted to FDA under § 60.30. There have been no requests for hearings under § 60.40 regarding the decisions on such petitions. In the **Federal Register** of May 19, 2004 (69 FR 28929), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. No comments were received. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: ** Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 ** 21 CFR Section No. of Respondents Annual Frequency per Response Total Annual Responses Hours per Response Total Hours 60.24(a) 7 1 7 100 700 60.30 2 0 2 50 100 60.40 0 0 0 0 0 Total 800 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. Dated: August 12, 2004. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 04-18976 Filed 8-18-04; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 5

Traces to 5 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

1 reference not yet in our index