[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-1049] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: January 18, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 211 [Docket No. 92N-0314] Tamper-Evident Packaging Requirements for Over-The-Counter Human Drug Products AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend its tamper-resistant packaging requirements to require that all over- the-counter (OTC) human drug products marketed in two-piece, hard gelatin capsules be sealed. This proposal follows continuing tampering incidents involving two-piece, hard gelatin capsules. The agency is also proposing a change in terminology throughout its regulatory program from ``tamper-resistant`` to ``tamper-evident.`` In addition, FDA is soliciting comments on whether additional regulatory changes, such as packaging performance standards, may be necessary. These proposed amendments are part of the agency's continuing review of the potential public health threat posed by product tampering and are meant to address specific vulnerabilities in the OTC drug market and to improve consumer protection. DATES: Written comments by March 21, 1994. FDA proposes that any final rule that may issue based on this proposal have an initial effective date of 1 year after its date of publication in the Federal Register. All OTC drug products marketed in two-piece, hard gelatin capsules that are initially introduced or initially delivered for introduction into interstate commerce on or after this date must be sealed according to the requirements of the final rule. In addition, FDA proposes a retail level effective date of 2 years after the date of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. All two-piece, hard gelatin capsules subject to the final rule, including products held for sale at the retail level, must be sealed in compliance with these requirements by this date or be subject to regulatory action. FDA also proposes that any labeling changes necessary to reflect the adoption of ``tamper evident`` terminology be made effective 2 years after the date of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard P. Muller, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-362), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-295-8049. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background FDA is proposing to amend its tamper-resistant packaging regulation for OTC drug products in Sec. 211.132 (21 CFR 211.132). The regulation requires that all OTC drug products (except dermatologics, dentifrices, insulin, and throat lozenges) be in packaging designed to provide consumers with visible evidence of any tampering that has occurred. FDA first adopted these requirements in 1982 to respond to the public health emergency in which seven persons in the Chicago area died after taking cyanide-laced Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules (47 FR 50442, November 5, 1982). Investigations showed that the cyanide had been intentionally introduced into the capsules after they had reached the retail shelf. Although the product's packaging met all FDA requirements at the time, it was not designed so that tampering would leave visible evidence. The poisoning fatalities illustrated the risk that consumers of OTC drugs faced without such protective packaging. FDA met with industry experts to explore ways to reduce this risk and to develop specific recommendations for OTC drug packaging designs that would make malicious tampering more obvious. These recommendations formed the basis of the agency's initial regulatory approach. The 1982 regulation required that most OTC drug products be packaged in a tamper-resistant package, which was defined in Sec. 211.132(b) as packaging having an indicator or a barrier to entry that could reasonably be expected to provide visible evidence to consumers that tampering had occurred. In addition to meeting this general standard, Sec. 211.132(b) required that the tamper-resistant feature be distinctive by design or use a barrier to entry that employed an identifying characteristic such as a logo. The regulation further required that OTC product labeling alert consumers to the specific packaging feature being employed (Sec. 211.132(c)). All requirements of this regulation were in effect by February 6, 1984. FDA continued to monitor the effectiveness of its regulatory program and found that, while the program had resulted in significant improvements in protecting consumers from tampering harm, OTC products marketed in two-piece, hard gelatin capsules remained vulnerable to malicious tampering. In fact, all known fatalities from contaminated OTC drugs, including three deaths in 1986--4 years after the tamper- resistant packaging requirements were first imposed--were associated with this dosage form. Recognizing the persistent vulnerability of the hard capsule, the agency amended its tamper-resistant packaging regulation in the Federal Register of February 2, 1989 (54 FR 5227), to require that OTC products marketed in two-piece, hard gelatin capsules be packaged using at least two tamper-resistant features, unless the capsules were sealed using a tamper-resistant technology (Sec. 211.132(b)(1) and (b)(2)). FDA concluded that an additional packaging feature would reduce the dangers posed by OTC drug tampering by making it more likely that the consumer would see signs of tampering when it occurred. This requirement went into effect on February 2, 1990. Even with this extra level of regulatory protection, two-piece, hard gelatin capsules remain vulnerable to malicious tampering and have been implicated in the latest fatalities. In February 1991, two persons in the State of Washington died and another became gravely ill after ingesting counterfeit Sudafed capsules contaminated with cyanide. The capsules had been packaged using a number of tamper-resistant packaging features that met FDA requirements. The tampering was crudely done and left obvious signs: while both the counterfeit product and the Sudafed product were in two-piece, hard gelatin capsules, the counterfeit capsules were larger than the legitimate Sudafed capsules, lacked the company logo and ``Sudafed`` imprint, and lacked the blue gelatin band found on Sudafed capsules. In addition, the foil backing on the package's blister card had been cut, and lot numbers on the blister card did not match those on the carton. The contaminated capsules also contained a yellowish powder, rather than the white granules contained in Sudafed capsules. The Sudafed package and dosage form met FDA's tamper-resistant standard, providing visible signs of tampering that were both numerous and conspicuous. The fact that physical harm from the tampering nonetheless occurred was of concern, and illustrated the need for a renewed focus on consumer education and involvement in the effectiveness of tamper-resistant or tamper-evident packaging. In response to this most recent incident, the agency convened a task force to review existing regulatory strategies and to consider what further steps could be taken. The task force also considered information provided by outside experts, including packaging scientists and representatives of drug manufacturing trade associations. A number of options were discussed, including banning the use of two-piece, hard gelatin capsules for OTC drug products or restricting their availability by requiring that they be kept behind the pharmacy counter. These discussions balanced the value of the hard capsule dosage form to consumers against its continued vulnerability to malicious tampering. Memoranda from these discussions are on display in the Dockets Management Branch (address above) and are available for inspection between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. During these discussions, FDA gave serious consideration to banning the use of two-piece, hard gelatin capsules, but has tentatively concluded that such capsules should remain available for several reasons. First, FDA believes that banning hard gelatin capsules because they have been associated with tampering may give consumers a false sense of security that tampering with other dosage forms could no longer occur. Second, FDA believes that a ban would deprive the public of a useful dosage form. The Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association (NDMA)\1\ indicated that the two-piece, hard gelatin capsule can have certain features not provided by other dosage forms that are currently available. For example, many consumers prefer to take capsules, finding them easiest to swallow. In addition, some medications can only be formulated in the capsule dosage form, due to detrimental effects on active ingredients from tableting or other formulation processes. Hard gelatin capsules also may contain fewer inactive ingredients, which can cause allergic reactions in some individuals, than some tablet and oral liquid formulations. Moreover, the hard gelatin capsule dosage form is sometimes necessary to deliver timed-release medications. Given the potential benefits of capsules, FDA believes that, at this time, it is appropriate to seek to decrease the risks posed by product tampering through means other than banning two-piece, hard gelatin capsules. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\The NDMA position statement entitled ``The Sale of OTC Medicines in Capsule Form Should Not Be Banned or Restricted'' is on display in the Dockets Management Branch (address above) and is available for inspection between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This proposed rule is based on investigations and discussions surrounding the 1991 tampering fatalities, as well as FDA's ongoing review of the public health threat from OTC drug product tampering. The proposal suggests some specific regulatory measures for reducing the potential for tampering with the vulnerable hard capsule dosage form. It also presents additional ideas for improving the effectiveness of current policies directed against product tampering and invites public discussion and comment on these ideas. By proposing the regulatory changes and encouraging a dialogue on the subject of improving anti- tampering measures and involvement of the consumer, the agency hopes to increase protection of the public against malicious tampering. A. Description of the Proposed Rule FDA is proposing to amend its tamper-resistant packaging regulation to decrease the potential for harm from tampering involving two-piece, hard gelatin capsules. FDA also proposes to take certain steps to focus the attention of all parties on the need to make consumers aware of the special packaging features that indicate that tampering has occurred. The proposed changes complement a number of other actions that FDA is taking both to improve consumer awareness and to encourage the development of better packaging technologies. One proposed change would amend the current regulation that establishes specific requirements for OTC products marketed in two- piece, hard gelatin capsules. As noted, this dosage form has been subject to the most serious tampering incidents over the years. The regulation now requires that these products be packaged using a minimum of two tamper-resistant packaging features, unless the capsules are sealed by a tamper-resistant technology, in which case, one packaging feature is sufficient (Sec. 211.132(b)(1) and (b)(2)). Proposed revisions to Sec. 211.132(b)(2) would require that any OTC drug product marketed in a two-piece, hard gelatin capsule be sealed using a technology that would provide evidence that the capsule has been tampered with after filling. (Some capsule sealing technologies are described in FDA's Compliance Policy Guide 7132a.17.\2\) The proposed rule would no longer require that such products be packaged in a container with two tamper-resistant packaging features. The proposed rule would require that the sealed capsules be in packaging employing a minimum of one tamper-resistant feature, the requirement that applies to all other affected OTC dosage forms. The agency believes that requiring OTC capsules to be sealed may decrease the likelihood that successful product tampering will occur with this dosage form. This proposed change would not apply to one-piece, soft gelatin capsules, also known as soft gels. FDA specifically requests comments on whether the proposed requirement to seal all two-piece, hard gelatin capsules would adversely affect any patient population or specific drug entity or drug class. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\Compliance Policy Guide 7132a.17 is available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), United States Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161, 703-487-4650. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The agency is also proposing that the term used to describe the packaging requirements be changed from ``tamper-resistant'' to ``tamper-evident.'' FDA believes that the term ``tamper-evident'' more accurately describes the role of packaging in reducing the likelihood of harm from tampering, and emphasizes the necessity of consumer involvement in the effectiveness of any packaging system designed to meet the requirements of the regulation. The change in terminology is intended to underscore the view that no package design is tamper-proof. The packaging of the Sudafed capsules did not prevent the 1991 tampering incidents, although it met FDA requirements and the evidence of tampering was strikingly visible. The proposed adoption of ``tamper-evident'' terminology should remind all parties that the success of these regulatory initiatives depends significantly on consumer vigilance. The proposed rule would also revise Sec. 211.132(c) to clarify the requirements for the tamper- evident packaging labeling statement. By alerting consumers to the particular tamper-evident packaging features used, the labeling statement plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of any tamper- evident packaging system. Consumers who are alerted and aware of all packaging features used are in the best position to detect the evidence of tampering that the package has been designed to provide. Current Sec. 211.132(c) states that each retail package ``* * * is required to bear a statement that is prominently placed so that consumers are alerted to the specific tamper-resistant feature of the package.'' Some firms have interpreted this as requiring the labeling statement to refer only to tamper-evident features on the external package. Proposed Sec. 211.132(c) would clarify that, in order to alert consumers to the tamper-evident packaging features used, the labeling statement must identify all packaging features used to comply with proposed Sec. 211.132(b)(1), including those on the secondary package, those on the immediate container or closure, and any capsule sealing technologies that are employed to meet the requirements of proposed Sec. 211.132(b)(2). The proposed rule would also revise Sec. 211.132(b) and (c) to remove reference to OTC products in aerosol containers, which are inherently resistant to tampering, but not appropriately considered in a discussion of tamper-evident packaging. The proposed rule would also amend Sec. 211.132(a) and (b) to replace the term ``throat lozenge'' with ``lozenge.'' FDA is making this change because the tamper-evident packaging requirements should apply to all lozenges, not just throat lozenges. The agency also notes that the proposed change is consistent with earlier tamper-resistant packaging regulations (see 48 FR 16658 at 16664, April 19, 1983). B. Legal Authority This proposal is authorized in part by sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) concerning imposition of requirements necessary to assure that drugs meet the requirements of the act for identity, strength, quality, and purity. These requirements may be imposed as current good manufacturing practice under section 501(a)(2)(B) of the act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) and in aid of other statutory requirements relating to product safety and integrity. (See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. 351(b) and (c) and section 701 (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) of the act.) This statutory authorization permits promulgation of requirements for container and package design that provide protection against intentional product adulteration by means of tampering. Promulgating requirements for labeling statements alerting drug product consumers to tamper-evident features is authorized under the adulteration provisions in section 501 and under the provisions in sections 502 and 201(n) of the act (21 U.S.C. 352(c) and 321(n)). The labeling statements are necessary to assure the effectiveness of the tamper-evident features; without such statements the products would be adulterated. In addition, under section 502(c) of the act, products are misbranded if statements required under other authority in the act are omitted from the products' labeling. Moreover, under sections 201(n) and 502(a) of the act, products may be misbranded by reason of the omission of material facts about the products, such as the tamper- evident features. (See 47 FR 50442 at 50447, November 5, 1982, for additional discussion of the legal authority for requirements related to drug product tampering.) II. Other Consumer Protection Initiatives A. Consumer Education The 1991 tampering fatalities made clear that the OTC drug supply is still vulnerable to malicious tampering. As noted, FDA's deliberations following these fatalities focused on reevaluating current strategies to reduce the likelihood of harm from tampering and looking at the role that FDA, industry, and consumers play in their success or failure. While the agency will consider whether additional changes to the regulations may be needed to reduce the risks posed by product tampering, FDA believes that further initiatives will increasingly focus on consumer education and involvement. FDA has already taken steps to inform consumers about the need to be alert for drug product tampering. FDA has worked closely with NDMA to develop and disseminate public service announcements about tampering. These are being provided to general circulation magazines and other publications. In addition, the October 1991 issue of FDA Consumer contained an article entitled ``Look Twice,'' which explains the danger posed by drug product tampering and the need for consumer vigilance. Similar information appears in materials cosponsored by FDA and NDMA including a brochure called ``Buying Medicine?: Stop, Look, Look Again'' and a video and audio tape on product tampering entitled ``Take A Look,'' which has been distributed to the media. FDA is also considering sponsoring workshops around the country to inform the public about tamper-evident packaging and the safety of the OTC drug supply. FDA solicits comments and suggestions from the public on ways to improve this educational campaign. B. Research Into Consumer Behavior The regulatory strategies FDA has adopted have been based on certain assumptions about how consumers behave when buying and taking their OTC drug products. To choose the most effective measures to enable consumers to detect tampering, it is necessary to have more and better information about how consumers select, purchase, and use OTC drug products and how tamper-evident packaging and associated labeling affects their behavior. FDA is aware of some research in this area, including studies done at Michigan State University, Rutgers University, and other academic institutions. Although such research has provided useful starting points for discussions of tamper-evident packaging, FDA believes that further research is needed to permit the design of more effective packaging features and educational campaigns. FDA is interested in learning more about any current consumer research that is relevant to the concerns of this rulemaking. FDA is also willing to assist any industry group or other interested party in the design and development of research in this area. C. Private Initiatives As noted, the agency has taken several steps to encourage the use of safer packaging technologies. FDA believes that these steps can be complemented by actions of drug manufacturers and other interested persons. The agency initiatives in 1982 were taken with the knowledge that certain packaging technologies, including, for example, film wrappers, blister or strip packs, and heat shrink bands or wrappers, were available to drug manufacturers to reduce the risk of tampering. The agency notes that few new technologies have been added since 1982. The agency recognizes that no package is tamper-proof but believes that there are opportunities for innovations and for refinement of current designs to improve consumer protection. FDA encourages both individual and collective efforts in the OTC drug and packaging industry to devise better technologies. FDA would also like to discuss with the drug industry and other interested persons the possibility of establishing performance standards for tamper-evident packaging. Such standards might be based on the probability that a consumer could detect evidence of tampering with a given packaging design. Compliance with the standards might be measured by studying the likelihood that a consumer would recognize signs of tampering within a specified amount of time. Where a packaging feature is to be used on a product targeted to or frequently purchased by a particular group of consumers, such as the elderly, the level of recognition might be determined using a representative number of the particular group. Developing performance standards based, in part, on the behavior and reaction of consumers to product packaging would be challenging. FDA believes, however, that it is not an impossible task, and suggests that information from the research and development of package design from a marketing standpoint might be useful. Furthermore, the agency believes that any performance standards for tamper-evident packaging should be based on the latest behavioral and technological information available. Such state-of-the-art standards would give packaging engineers and manufacturers a benchmark for evaluating particular package designs, and would provide an incentive to improve the effectiveness of tamper-evident packaging to mirror technological progress in the field. The agency invites comments on the appropriateness of developing and requiring performance standards for tamper-evident packaging. III. Economic Impact FDA has carefully considered the economic impact of this proposed rule and has determined that it requires neither a regulatory impact analysis, as specified by Executive Order 12291, nor a regulatory flexibility analysis, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). The agency believes that the proposed rule, if finalized, would generate costs that are well below the thresholds that would signify a major rule, and so the proposed rule does not require a regulatory impact analysis. The agency also finds that the proposed rule would not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. Current FDA requirements for OTC drug packaging to protect the public from the threat of product tampering have been in place since 1982. This proposed rule would not change the scope or applicability of these requirements, but would only amend the requirements with regard to one OTC drug dosage form and impose a minor labeling change that would affect certain products. This proposed rule may impose additional costs on manufacturers who choose to market their OTC drug products in two-piece, hard gelatin capsules instead of switching to a different dosage form, such as a soft-gel or liquid-gel capsule, or a caplet. The proposed rule would delete the current requirement that two-piece, hard gelatin capsules be packaged using two tamper-evident features, and would require instead that all such capsules be sealed and packaged using at least one tamper-evident feature. FDA believes that capsule sealing would make it more difficult to tamper with this dosage form without leaving visible evidence, and that any costs resulting from the rule would be small compared to public health benefits from this added measure of consumer protection. The number of two-piece, hard gelatin capsule OTC products sold over the last few years has declined dramatically, with fewer than 50 such items currently listed with FDA. A review of those products indicates that from 75 percent to 90 percent are already sealed or ``banded.'' Thus, FDA is aware of only a small number of OTC products still marketed as unsealed two-piece, hard gelatin capsules. Under the proposed rule, the few firms producing these products would have to choose between incurring costs for reformulating the product to a different dosage form or installing machinery needed to seal the two- piece, hard gelatin capsules. The affected firms would not face substantial added costs for lost product inventory because the proposed rule allows manufacturers 1 year and retailers 2 years after the date of publication of a final rule to effect the changes. NDMA estimates that the approximate cost of a capsule sealing or banding machine ranges from $150,000 to $250,000. Assuming FDA's higher bound estimate that only 25 percent of the 50 listed, two-piece, hard gelatin capsule products are not currently sealed with an appropriate technology, then 12 products would need to be sealed or banded. If only one new capsule banding machine were needed per product, the total cost to the industry would range from $1.8 million to $3 million. An additional cost may occur if it is difficult for a company to integrate the sealing equipment into its capsule filling line. According to NDMA, some companies may find that this problem adds an extra cost of approximately 50 cents to 80 cents per 1,000 capsules. Nonetheless, for all but the smallest product lines, these costs would be a modest percentage of sales. The proposed rule would also change regulatory terminology from ``tamper-resistant'' packaging to ``tamper-evident'' packaging. This would affect a substantial number of firms because it would necessitate a labeling change under Sec. 211.132(c) for all OTC products that now have the words ``tamper-resistant'' on their package. A small survey conducted by FDA found that approximately 60 percent of OTC drug product labels include the words ``tamper-resistant.'' The remaining product labels include a description of tamper-resistant packaging features, but do not specifically use the words ``tamper- resistant.'' In 1986, NDMA estimated that about 70 percent of their members' 435 products, excluding private labelers, were affected by tamper- resistant packaging regulations. On the assumption that there were three shelf keeping units (SKU's) per product, this amounted to about 1,300 SKU's. Based on a 1986 survey of its members, NDMA had reported that the average labeling change cost per SKU was $3,000 to $4,000. The current proposal, however, would require a much simpler label change than was considered in that 1986 survey. Nonetheless, if the cost per SKU were assumed to be about $3,000, the total cost of changing 60 percent of these labels would be approximately $2.3 million (60 percent x 1,300 x $3,000). In addition, NDMA provided a preliminary estimate of $5 million for 15 larger private labeling companies. Sixty percent of this cost amounts to $3 million. Thus, the potential upper-bound cost imposed by the proposed labeling changes may amount to $5 to $6 million. The actual cost of the labeling change would be significantly lessened by FDA's proposed effective date for the labeling change, which would give manufacturers up to 2 years from the date of publication of a final rule to make the required changes. The agency chose this timeframe to minimize the burden to industry of converting to ``tamper-evident'' terminology, based on information from NDMA that most product labels are routinely reprinted within an 18- to 24-month period. Thus, although FDA does not know the precise number of OTC product labels that are normally reprinted within a 2-year period, the labeling costs attributable to the proposed regulation would be minimal for most firms in this industry. To summarize, the total one-time costs of this proposed rule would be the sum of the approximately $3 million to seal or band the remaining few two-piece, hard gelatin capsule products and the minimal costs needed to change the labeling on the products that currently read ``tamper-resistant.'' In addition to these regulatory changes, FDA has invited comments on other initiatives such as the development of better consumer education campaigns, research into consumer behavior with regard to OTC packaging and tamper-evident packaging, and the possibility of developing performance standards for tamper-evident packaging. Any of these programs, if adopted as regulatory requirements, could have significant economic importance. Before promulgating any final regulation, however, FDA intends to consider all relevant information on the economic consequences of these initiatives and reasonable alternatives. The agency solicits public comment on all aspects of both the costs and feasibility of all issues raised by this proposal, especially with respect to any impact on affected small businesses. IV. Executive Order 12612--Federalism Executive Order 12612 requires that Federal agencies carefully examine regulatory actions to determine if they would have significant federalism implications. FDA's tamper-resistant packaging regulations were issued with the intent that the regulations preempt State and local packaging requirements that are not identical to the Federal requirements in all respects (47 FR 50442 at 50447, November 5, 1992). The agency believes that the proposed changes would improve safeguards to protect consumers from tampering of all OTC drug products, particularly those marketed as two-piece, hard gelatin capsules, and that the amendments, therefore, should eliminate the need for additional action at the State or local level. FDA invites comments on the adequacy of the proposed amendments in this regard. V. Environmental Impact The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(a)(11) 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. VI. Request for Comments Interested persons may, on or before March 21, 1994, submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this proposal. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. VII. Proposed Effective Dates FDA proposes that any final rule based on the proposed requirement that all OTC drug products marketed as two-piece, hard gelatin capsules be sealed be made effective 1 year after its date of publication in the Federal Register. All OTC drug products marketed as two-piece, hard gelatin capsules that are initially introduced or initially delivered for introduction into interstate commerce on or after the effective date must be sealed according to the requirements of the final rule or be subject to regulatory action. FDA also proposes a retail level effective date for this requirement of 2 years after the date of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. After this date, all two-piece, hard gelatin capsule products held for sale (including stocks in retail stores) must be sealed according to the requirements of the final rule or be subject to regulatory action. FDA also proposes that any labeling changes necessary to reflect the adoption of ``tamper-evident'' terminology be made within 2 years after the date of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. Based on information from industry, FDA expects that most products subject to tamper-evident packaging requirements will have undergone routine labeling revisions within this timeframe. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 211 Drugs, Labeling, Laboratories, Packaging and containers, Prescription drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warehouses. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 211 be amended as follows: PART 211--CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE FOR FINISHED PHARMACEUTICALS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 211 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 201, 501, 502, 505, 506, 507, 512, 701, 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 355, 356, 357, 360b, 371, 374). 2. Section 211.132 is amended by revising the section heading, by removing in paragraph (a) the word ``throat'', by removing in paragraphs (a) and (d)(2) the words ``tamper-resistant'' and adding in their place the words ``tamper-evident'', and by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and the second sentence in the introductory text of paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 211.132 Tamper-evident packaging requirements for over-the- counter (OTC) human drug products. * * * * * (b) Requirements for tamper-evident package. (1) Each manufacturer and packer who packages an OTC drug product (except a dermatological, dentifrice, insulin, or lozenge product) for retail sale shall package the product in a tamper-evident package, if this product is accessible to the public while held for sale. A tamper-evident package is one having one or more indicators or barriers to entry which, if breached or missing, can reasonably be expected to provide visible evidence to consumers that tampering has occurred. To reduce the likelihood of successful tampering and to increase the likelihood that consumers will discover if a product has been tampered with, the package is required to be distinctive by design or by the use of one or more indicators or barriers to entry that employ an identifying characteristic (e.g., a pattern, name, registered trademark, logo, or picture). For purposes of this section, the term ``distinctive by design'' means the packaging cannot be duplicated with commonly available processes. A tamper- evident package may involve an immediate-container and closure system or secondary-container or carton system or any combination of systems intended to provide a visual indication of package integrity. The tamper-evident feature shall be designed to and shall remain intact when handled in a reasonable manner during manufacture, distribution, and retail display. (2) In addition to the tamper-evident packaging feature described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, any two-piece, hard gelatin capsule covered by this section must be sealed using an acceptable tamper-evident technology. (c) Labeling. (1) In order to alert consumers to the specific tamper-evident feature(s) used, each retail package of an OTC drug product covered by this section (except ammonia inhalant in crushable glass ampules or containers of compressed medical oxygen) is required to bear a statement that: (i) Identifies all tamper-evident feature(s) and any capsule sealing technologies used to comply with paragraph (b) of this section; (ii) Is prominently placed on the package; and (iii) Is so placed that it will be unaffected if the tamper-evident feature of the package is breached or missing. (2) If the tamper-evident feature chosen to meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section uses an identifying characteristic, that characteristic is required to be referred to in the labeling statement. For example, the labeling statement on a bottle with a shrink band could say ``For your protection, this bottle has an imprinted seal around the neck.'' (d) * * * A request for an exemption is required to be submitted in the form of a citizen petition under Sec. 10.30 of this chapter and should be clearly identified on the envelope as a ``Request for Exemption from the Tamper-Evident Packaging Rule.'' * * * * * * * * Dated: September 13, 1993. Michael R. Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 94-1049 Filed 1-14-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-F