[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22428-22436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10321]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 3

[Docket No. FDA-2004-N-0191]


Product Jurisdiction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is proposing 
to amend its regulations concerning the classification of products as 
biological products, devices, drugs, or combination products, and their 
assignment to Agency components for premarket review and regulation. 
This proposed rule would update the regulations to clarify the scope of 
the regulations, streamline and clarify the appeals process, align the 
regulations with more recent legislative and regulatory measures, 
update advisory content, and otherwise clarify the regulations, 
including updates to reflect Agency practices and policies. These 
changes are intended to enhance regulatory clarity and efficiency.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed 
rule by July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, 
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments 
must be submitted on or before July 16, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until 
midnight Eastern Time at the end of July 16, 2018. Comments received by 
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be 
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service 
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted 
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov 
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be 
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment 
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party 
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone 
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, 
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your 
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in 
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential 
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, 
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner 
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper 
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets 
Management

[[Page 22429]]

Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except 
for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if 
submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. 
FDA-2004-N-0191 for ``Product Jurisdiction.'' Received comments, those 
filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket 
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' 
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov, or at the Dockets 
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with 
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly 
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You 
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information 
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states 
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will 
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in 
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the 
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be 
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. 
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish 
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you 
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of 
your comments and you must identify this information as 
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not 
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other 
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of 
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or 
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in 
the heading of this document, 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: John Barlow Weiner, Associate Director 
for Policy, Office of Combination Products, Food and Drug 
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5129, Silver 
Spring, MD 20933, 301-796-8930, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
I. Description of the Proposed Rule
    A. Clarify the Scope of the Regulation
    B. Streamline and Clarify the Appeals Process for Product 
Classifications and Assignments
    C. Aligning Part 3 with More Recent Legislative and Regulatory 
Measures
    D. Update Advisory Content
    E. Other Clarifications to the Rule
II. Legal Authority
III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact
V. Federalism
VI. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts
    A. Introduction
    B. Summary of Costs and Benefits
VIII. Proposed Effective Date
IX. Reference

Executive Summary

    FDA promulgated its product jurisdiction regulations, codified at 
part 3 (21 CFR part 3), in 1991 (see 56 FR 58754, November 21, 1991). 
Although FDA amended these regulations most recently in 2005, to 
clarify the meaning of the statutory term ``primary mode of action'' 
for assignment of combination products to Agency components (see 70 FR 
49848, August 25, 2005), the regulations remain largely as published in 
1991. However, relevant statutory provisions have changed; FDA has 
published additional policies so that the advisory content included in 
the regulations requires updating; and in other respects the rule 
warrants revisions to enhance clarity and efficiency. Accordingly, FDA 
is proposing to amend part 3 to: (1) Clarify the scope of the 
regulations; (2) streamline and clarify the appeals process; (3) align 
the regulations with more recent legislative and regulatory measures; 
(4) update advisory content; and (5) otherwise clarify the rule, 
including updating it to reflect Agency policies and practices.
    The incremental quantified cost savings of the proposed rule accrue 
to both the Agency and industry from resources, such as time and paper, 
saved through eliminating the part 3 appeal to the Office of 
Combination Products (OCP). These annual social cost savings are 
estimated to be $28,000. Sponsors are expected to incur one-time costs 
to read and understand the regulation. Our primary estimate of the 
total cost to industry in the first year is approximately $131,000.
    The Agency estimates the quantifiable net social effect of the 
proposed rule to be a cost of approximately $103,000 in the first year 
and a cost savings of approximately $28,000 each year starting in the 
second year. The net present discounted value of the quantifiable net 
effect over 10 years is approximately $114,000 at a 3 percent discount 
rate and $76,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. The total annualized net 
effect of the proposed rule is estimated to produce an average net cost 
savings ranging from $13,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $11,000 
at a 7 percent discount rate.

I. Description of the Proposed Rule

    For the reasons presented in the following subsections, FDA 
proposes to amend its regulations on Product Jurisdiction codified at 
part 3 to: (1) Clarify the scope of the regulation; (2) streamline and 
clarify the appeals process; (3) align the regulations with more recent 
legislative and regulatory measures; (4) update advisory content; and 
(5) otherwise clarify the rule, including updating it to reflect Agency 
policies and practices.

A. Clarify the Scope of the Regulation

    This proposed rule, if finalized, would amend Sec.  3.3--Scope, to 
clarify that the part 3 procedures apply to sponsors (also referred to 
as applicants, see Sec.  3.2--Definitions) for products for which the 
classification as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination 
products, or the Agency component with primary jurisdiction, is unclear 
or in dispute. It would also make conforming revisions to other 
sections in part 3, including the definitions in Sec.  3.2.
    FDA published its product jurisdiction regulations codified at part 
3 in 1991, in part to implement section 503(g) of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 353(g)), which calls upon 
the Agency to assign products that are comprised of any combination of 
a drug and a device, a device and a biological product, a biological 
product and a drug, or a drug, a device and a biological product 
(``combination products'') to Agency components based on the primary 
mode of action (PMOA) of the combination product. The rulemaking also 
established that the same procedures would be used to assign biological 
products, devices, and drugs to Agency components when their assignment 
was unclear or in dispute.
    Although part 3 did not expressly refer to classification of 
products as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination 
products, such

[[Page 22430]]

determinations are generally necessary to make an assignment 
determination. Non-combination products (biological products, devices, 
and drugs) are assigned to Agency components based on their 
classification. Accordingly, the Agency needs to determine, for 
example, whether a product is a biological product to be able to 
determine whether it should be assigned to a component that regulates 
biological products. Similarly, assignment of combination products is 
based on determining whether the product is a combination product and 
if so, which constituent part of the combination product (biological 
product, device, or drug) provides the PMOA (or applying the algorithm 
specified in Sec.  3.4(b) if the PMOA cannot be determined with 
reasonable certainty).
    Therefore, the Agency has been accepting under part 3 sponsor 
requests for the Agency to make product classification as well as 
assignment determinations (see, e.g., ``How to Write a Request for 
Designation (RFD)'', at https://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm126053.htm). FDA's longstanding acceptance and review of 
sponsors' requests for product classification under part 3 is 
consistent with the obligations to which FDA became subject in 1998 
under section 416 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act 
of 1997 (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105-115), which added section 563 to the FD&C 
Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-2). Section 563 of the FD&C Act requires FDA to 
classify products as biological products, devices, drugs, or 
combination products and to assign products to an Agency component for 
regulation, in response to requests for designations submitted by 
product sponsors. The procedures at part 3 are appropriate for 
implementation of section 563 as well as section 503(g) of the FD&C 
Act, and FDA has used these procedures for both purposes to date.
    This proposed rule would revise Sec.  3.3 to clarify that FDA's 
procedures in part 3 apply to classification of products as biological 
products, devices, drugs, or combination products as well as to 
assignment of these products to Agency components, and would make 
corresponding amendments to other sections in part 3, including 
Sec. Sec.  3.1, 3.7(c)(3) (see proposed 3.5(b)), 3.8(b) (see proposed 
3.6(b)), 3.9(b) (see proposed 3.7(b)), and the definitions in Sec.  3.2 
for ``letter of designation,'' ``letter of request,'' and ``product 
jurisdiction officer,'' to be consistent with this clarified statement 
of scope.
    In addition, Agency experience over the 26 years since part 3 was 
codified has shown that sponsors sometimes are confused as to whether 
they must request a classification or assignment determination under 
part 3 as a prerequisite to making a premarket submission for their 
product, regardless of whether the classification or assignment for 
their product is unclear or in dispute. In addition, some entities who 
are not the sponsor for the product have attempted to obtain a product 
classification or assignment determination. To eliminate this 
confusion, this proposed rule would also revise Sec.  3.3 to state that 
the part 3 procedures apply to sponsors if classification or assignment 
is unclear or in dispute for their product. If no such uncertainty 
exists, use of the procedures is unnecessary, and sponsors can engage 
directly with the appropriate Agency component. Further, clarifying 
that part 3 applies to sponsors is consistent with section 503(g) of 
the FD&C Act, as amended by the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) 
(Pub. L. 114-255), and with section 563 of the FD&C Act.

B. Streamline and Clarify the Appeals Process for Product 
Classifications and Assignments

    Section 3.8(c)--Requests for reconsideration. The proposed rule 
would remove, as confusing and inefficient, the process codified at 
Sec.  3.8(c) for sponsors to request that the product jurisdiction 
officer reconsider determinations made under part 3.
    Currently, a sponsor may make a request for reconsideration and if 
the sponsor disagrees with the decision upon reconsideration, the 
sponsor may make an additional, supervisory appeal in accordance with 
Sec.  10.75 (21 CFR 10.75). Alternatively, the sponsor may directly 
submit such a supervisory appeal without first requesting 
reconsideration under Sec.  3.8(c).
    This current approach has proven confusing to sponsors and 
inefficient for sponsors and Agency staff. Determinations under part 3 
are made through a robust process involving OCP's review of 
information, either provided by the sponsor or otherwise available to 
the Agency, in consultation with regulatory, legal, and scientific 
staff from other Agency components, as appropriate. Consistent with 
appeals under Sec.  10.75, no new information may be presented in a 
request for reconsideration under Sec.  3.8(c). Because determinations 
under part 3 are made through a robust process, further evaluation of 
the same data and information by OCP is unlikely to result in a change 
of decision. Requests for reconsideration have been inefficient for 
sponsors who have opted to utilize this mechanism, and inclusion of the 
request for reconsideration mechanism has led to confusion, with 
sponsors sometimes believing they must make a request for 
reconsideration before they may submit a Sec.  10.75 supervisory 
appeal.
    Accordingly, FDA has determined that the request for 
reconsideration process is unhelpful to retain.

C. Aligning Part 3 With More Recent Legislative and Regulatory Measures

    In addition to the amendments made by section 416 of FDAMA 
regarding classification and assignment discussed in section I.A, two 
other statutory changes have been made relating to issues addressed in 
part 3 since FDA promulgated the part 3 regulations in 1991, and this 
rule proposes to amend part 3 to comport with these statutory changes 
as well.
    FDA amended part 3 in 2005 to clarify the meaning of PMOA for 
assignment of combination products, and to codify at Sec.  3.2 
definitions for biological product, device, and drug ``modes of 
action'' based upon the statutory definitions of biological product, 
device, and drug. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 
2009 (Subtitle A of Title VII of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148)) amended the definition for biological 
product at section 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) 
(42 U.S.C. 262(i)) to address expressly and more precisely the 
classification of proteins as biological products. This proposed rule 
would amend the definition for ``biological product mode of action'' at 
Sec.  3.2 to align with the current statutory definition for biological 
product.
    In 2016, section 3038 of the Cures Act amended section 503(g) of 
the FD&C Act, to include additional provisions relating to intercenter 
consultation and coordination (see 21 U.S.C. 353(g)(8)(C)), reinforcing 
expectations that intercenter consultation and coordination occur as 
appropriate. Currently, Sec.  3.4(c) states in part that the 
designation of a center (an ``agency component'' as defined in Sec.  
3.2) as having primary jurisdiction for a combination product does not 
preclude consultations by that component with other components. In 
keeping with section 503(g) of the FD&C Act as amended and Agency 
practice, the Agency is revising Sec.  3.4(c) to make clear that 
consultations with other Agency components will occur as FDA deems 
appropriate. Agency practice is to conduct intercenter consultation and 
coordination routinely to ensure appropriate expertise is brought to 
bear

[[Page 22431]]

to enable fully informed reviews and consistent regulation of products.
    In addition, section 503(g) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 
3038 of the Cures Act, states that combination products shall be 
reviewed under a single application whenever appropriate, and that 
sponsors may submit separate applications for the constituent parts of 
a combination product unless FDA determines a single application is 
necessary (see 21 U.S.C. 353(g)(1)(B) and (6)). Currently, Sec.  3.4(c) 
states in part that the Agency can require in appropriate cases that 
constituent parts of a combination product be reviewed under separate 
applications. Accordingly, to avoid confusion that might arise from 
maintaining this different articulation of Agency authority on this 
topic, the proposed rule would remove this language at Sec.  3.4(c). 
FDA intends to issue guidance regarding implementation of the new 
statutory provisions as needed given Agency experience with 
implementing them.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 3038 of the Cures Act also amended section 503(g) of 
the FD&C Act in other respects relating to combination product 
assignment, including to: Incorporate a definition for PMOA, which 
is consistent with the regulatory definition of PMOA at Sec.  3.2, 
promulgated by FDA in its 2005 amendments to part 3 (see 21 U.S.C. 
353(g)(1)(C)); provide that drug or biological product PMOA cannot 
be based solely upon the product having any chemical action within 
or on the human body (see 21 U.S.C. 353(g)(1)(E)); provide that 
sponsors who disagree with FDA's PMOA determination may request a 
substantive rationale of the determination (see 21 U.S.C. 
353(g)(1)(F)(i)); and provide a mechanism for sponsors and FDA to 
collaborate and seek agreement on studies to establish the relevance 
of the chemical action in achieving the PMOA of their products if 
they do not agree with the Agency's PMOA determination (see 21 
U.S.C. 353(g)(1)(F)(ii)). These amendments serve to codify 
longstanding Agency regulatory interpretations and practices. 
Accordingly, FDA has determined that revision of part 3 with respect 
to these statutory amendments is not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule uses the term ``application,'' and lists types of 
applications within the definition for ``premarket review'' at Sec.  
3.2. However, the types of premarket submissions for medical products 
have changed since publication of part 3, and this listing is now 
incomplete. To enhance clarity and completeness, the proposed rule 
would add a current, complete definition for ``application,'' and 
remove the existing, related language currently included in the 
definition for ``premarket review'' in Sec.  3.2. In addition, for 
clarity and alignment with Agency practice, the proposed rule would 
revise Sec.  3.2 to define premarket review to include examination of 
data and information ``submitted by an applicant,'' rather than ``in an 
application,'' since premarket review can include Agency review of 
information provided as part of ``pre-submission'' engagement with 
applicants.
    In addition, the proposed rule would amend Sec.  3.2--Definitions 
to include a cross-reference to the definition for ``constituent 
part,'' codified at 21 CFR 4.2 in the 2013 rulemaking regarding current 
good manufacturing practices for combination products, and which has 
also been referenced at 21 CFR 4.101 as part of the 2016 rule on 
postmarketing safety reporting for combination products (81 FR 92603). 
The meaning of the term is the same for purposes of part 3 as for 
purposes of part 4. Accordingly, cross-referencing the definition into 
part 3 would serve to ensure clarity and consistency.

D. Update Advisory Content

    Part 3 includes advisory language and addresses associated with 
Agency guidance in various locations. As a general matter, 
recommendations from FDA are provided in guidance documents published 
in accordance with good guidance practices (see 21 CFR 10.115). This 
approach not only enables the public to comment on proposed guidance, 
but also enables FDA to update guidance in a timely manner given 
stakeholder and Agency experience with the policy topic. FDA included 
advisory content in part 3 in light of the novelty of the regulatory 
topic at the time, to facilitate stakeholder understanding and indicate 
Agency thinking. However, Agency thinking has evolved since 
promulgation of part 3 and more complete, current guidance documents 
and other policy statements are now available. Accordingly, the 
proposed rule, if finalized, would remove the advisory content and 
discussion of guidance from part 3. Specifically, this proposed rule 
would remove the provisions at Sec. Sec.  3.2, 3.5, and 3.7, as 
explained below.
    Section 3.2 includes in the definition for ``mode of action'' a 
reference to constituent parts of combination products each providing 
one type of mode of action and notes that the mode of action of each 
constituent part is typically identifiable. The proposed rule would 
replace this potentially confusing language, with a simple statement 
that each constituent part contributes one mode of action (device, 
drug, or biological product). Modes of action of a combination product 
and how to address them in requests for assignment are more fully 
addressed in Agency guidance, including in ``How to Write a Request for 
Designation (RFD).''
    Section 3.5 addresses the relationship between part 3 and 
intercenter agreements on product assignment. The proposed rule would 
remove this section. These non-binding intercenter agreements adopted 
in 1991 address the assignment of biological products, devices, and 
drugs, as well as combination products. The Medical Device User Fee and 
Modernization Act (MDUFMA) (Pub. L. 107-250) enacted in 2002 amended 
section 503(g) of the FD&C Act to require FDA to review each agreement, 
guidance, or practice addressing the assignment of combination products 
to Agency centers, for consistency with section 503(g) (see 21 U.S.C. 
353(g)(8)(F)). In accordance with this mandate, FDA conducted a review, 
including of the intercenter agreements addressed in Sec.  3.5, and 
published its assessment in 2006 (see ``Jurisdictional Update: 
Intercenter Agreements'', at https://www.fda.gov/CombinationProducts/JurisdictionalInformation/JurisdictionalUpdates/ucm106506.htm). The 
Agency concluded that: (1) The usefulness of these agreements was 
becoming increasingly limited; (2) that they should not be relied upon 
independently as the most current, accurate jurisdictional statements; 
and (3) that issuance of new guidance and other efforts should be 
pursued to enhance transparency and more clearly articulate the 
principles upon which jurisdictional determinations are based. 
Consistent with that assessment, FDA has since published various policy 
statements relating to product classification and assignment and posted 
various other relevant materials on its website (see https://www.fda.gov/CombinationProducts/default.htm), most recently, a final 
guidance on ``Classification of Products as Drugs and Devices and 
Additional Product Classification Issues'' (September 2017) (https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm258946.htm). The Agency 
is currently reviewing these intercenter agreements to determine what 
action, if any, to take with respect to them.
    Sections 3.7(a) and (b) include recommendations regarding who 
should file an RFD and when they should file them, respectively. The 
proposed rule, if finalized, would remove these provisions. These 
questions are addressed by the proposed amendments to Sec.  3.3 
discussed in section I.A, and current Agency guidance, including in 
``How to Write a Request for Designation (RFD)'', which provides more 
clear and complete recommendations regarding timing and other process 
considerations.

[[Page 22432]]

E. Other Clarifications to the Rule

    Section 3.2 defines mode of action, and what constitutes a 
biological product, device, and drug mode of action, for purposes of 
making combination product assignment determinations. To enhance 
clarity, the proposed rule would add an express statement that the mode 
of action definitions apply for purposes of making combination product 
assignment determinations, and would simplify the definition for device 
mode of action at Sec.  3.2 by referring to the statutory definition of 
device provided in section 201(h) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)) 
and removing redundant language.
    Section 3.4(a)--Designated Agency component. The proposed rule 
would amend Sec.  3.4(a) to clarify that the Agency component to which 
a combination product is assigned based on PMOA is the component that 
regulates the constituent part providing the PMOA. For example, some 
biological products are assigned to the Center for Biologics Evaluation 
and Research (CBER) and others are assigned to the Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (CDER). If a combination product has a 
biological product PMOA, it is assigned to either CBER or CDER based 
upon which of these two Centers regulate that type of biological 
product. This interpretation of the statutory provisions governing PMOA 
and combination product assignments is consistent with Agency practice 
and ensures that combination products are assigned to the Agency 
component most familiar with the constituent part that provides the 
PMOA.
    Sections 3.2 and 3.6--Product jurisdiction officer. Section 3.2 
includes a definition of ``product jurisdiction officer'' and section 
3.6 specifies that OCP is the designated product jurisdiction officer. 
The proposed rule would revise the definition for ``product 
jurisdiction officer'' at Sec.  3.2 to include information currently 
provided in Sec.  3.6, and remove Sec.  3.6, simplifying the rule by 
consolidating this related information. Specifically, the definition of 
``product jurisdiction officer'' at Sec.  3.2 would be revised to refer 
to OCP as the office responsible for classification and assignment of 
medical products. MDUFMA required FDA to establish an office to perform 
various regulatory functions relating to combination products, 
including their assignment to Agency components. Consistent with that 
mandate, FDA created OCP and delegated to specified staff within OCP 
the authority to classify products as biological products, devices, 
drugs, or combination products as well as to assign these products to 
an Agency component with primary jurisdiction for their premarket 
review and regulation.
    Existing section 3.7(d) addresses where to file RFD communications 
and currently requires submission in hard copy with the option to 
submit electronically as well. FDA sees no reason to continue to 
require a hard copy submission and proposes to revise the provision 
(see proposed Sec.  3.5(b)) and make corresponding revisions to the 
content of Sec.  3.7(c) (see proposed 3.5(b)) to give sponsors the 
alternative of submitting solely electronically. In addition, to avoid 
the need to revise the rule given changes to OCP's mailing address or 
email address, this rule would amend Sec.  3.7(d) (see proposed 3.5(b)) 
to direct sponsors to submit RFDs to the current mailing address or 
email address for OCP as published by FDA, currently on the Office of 
Combination Products web page (https://www.fda.gov/CombinationProducts/default.htm).
    Section 3.9(b) addresses grounds for changing a classification or 
assignment designation, including circumstances under which the Agency 
can do so without the consent of the sponsor. It currently provides 
that sponsors shall be given 30 days written notice (which can be via 
email) of proposed changes and that such changes require the 
concurrence of the Principal Associate Commissioner. Because positions 
and titles in the Agency change from time to time, to avoid the need to 
revise part 3 when such changes occur, this rule would revise Sec.  
3.9(b) (see proposed Sec.  3.7(b)) to state that such changes of 
classification or assignment require the concurrence of the official in 
the Agency responsible for the oversight of OCP.
    Other clarifying changes to part 3 include in Sec.  3.2: In the 
definitions of ``combination product'' and ``product,'' changing 
``biologic'' to ``biological product'' to provide for consistency in 
part 3 and with the term used in section 351 of the PHS Act; and in the 
definitions of ``biological product'' and ``product,'' changing 
``351(a)'' to ``351(i)'' and ``262(a)'' to ``262(i)'' so that the 
correct provision in the PHS Act and the U.S. Code is cited (i.e., the 
provision that defines ``biological product'').

II. Legal Authority

    The Agency derives its authority to issue the regulations found in 
part 3 from 21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 360c-360f, 360h-
360j, 360gg-360ss, 360bbb-2, 371(a), 379e, 381, 394; 42 U.S.C. 216, 
262, and 264. Congress expressly directed FDA to assign combination 
products to the appropriate Agency component for regulation based on 
the Agency's assessment of PMOA as set forth in section 503(g) of the 
FD&C Act. Congress also expressly directed FDA to determine the 
classification of a product as a drug, biological product, device, or 
combination product, or the component of the Agency that will regulate 
the product, as applicable, in response to a request submitted under 
section 563 of the FD&C Act. Under section 701 of the FD&C Act (21 
U.S.C. 371) and for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act, FDA has 
the authority to issue and amend the regulations found in part 3.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no new 
collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
is not required. Information collection under part 3 has already been 
approved under OMB control number 0910-0523.

IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(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.

V. Federalism

    We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that 
the proposed 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.

VI. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles set forth in Executive Order 13175. We have tentatively 
determined that the rule does not contain policies that would have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on

[[Page 22433]]

the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes. The Agency solicits comments from tribal 
officials on any potential impact on Indian Tribes from this proposed 
action.

VII. Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts

A. Introduction

    We have examined the impacts of the proposed 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 proposed 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 imposes no new burdens, we propose to 
certify that the proposed 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 proposing ``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 $148 million, using the most current (2016) Implicit 
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would 
not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this 
amount.

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits

    The objective of this proposed rule is to amend the regulations 
concerning RFDs of the classification of products as biological 
products, devices, drugs, or combination products, or their assignment 
to Agency components for premarket review and regulation. The proposed 
rule is intended to clarify the scope of the regulations, streamline 
and clarify the appeals process, align the regulations with more recent 
legislative and regulatory measures, update advisory content, and 
otherwise to clarify part 3.
    Many provisions of this proposed rule codify current practices and 
may not result in estimated costs, benefits, or savings. However, we 
expect a few provisions to lead to changes that may generate additional 
public health benefits and cost savings to society. A summary of the 
quantified costs and cost savings of the proposed rule are presented in 
table 1. The lower and upper estimates given in table 1 are at the 5 
and 95 percent interval, respectively.

                          Table 1--Summary of Net Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                          Primary estimate           Low estimate      High estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs......................................  Annualized Monetized $/year..            $17,000            $12,000
                                             Annualized Quantified........
                                             Qualitative..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We use a 10-year time horizon for this rule with payments occurring at the end of each period.
\2\ All dollar values are rounded to the nearest $1,000.

    The estimated primary costs of the proposed rule include the 
additional one-time costs incurred by industry to read and understand 
the regulation. We expect only a subset of firms currently producing 
medical products will incur this cost. Our primary estimate of the 
total up-front cost to industry is approximately $131,000. Annualizing 
these costs over a 10-year period, we estimate total annualized costs 
to be $15,000 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $17,000 at a 7 percent 
discount rate. The present value of these costs over 10 years is 
$127,000 at a 3 percent discount rate, and $122,000 at a 7 percent 
discount rate.
    The primary public health benefit from adoption of the proposed 
rule would be the value of the illnesses and deaths avoided as a result 
of finalizing the proposed rule. Current regulatory requirements may 
cause applicants to unnecessarily submit RFDs, or to make misguided 
judgments regarding the need to confirm product classification or 
assignment. The reduction in uncertainty about the RFD process will, 
thereby, potentially allow sponsors to make more informed decisions 
regarding product development and seeking marketing authorization, and 
potentially allow sponsors and FDA personnel to divert resources used 
under current regulations to other areas, such as to product 
development and marketing applications. We are not able to quantify or 
to identify specific ways by which the proposed rule would lead to 
avoided illnesses or deaths and therefore do not include public health 
benefits in our net estimates.
    FDA is able to quantify the resource savings to both the Agency and 
industry from the proposed rule associated with streamlining and 
clarifying the appeals process for product classification and 
assignments. Our primary estimate of total cost savings to industry and 
FDA is approximately $28,000 annually. The present value of these 
savings over 10 years is $241,000 at a 3 percent discount rate, and 
$198,000 at a 7 percent discount rate. Potential resource savings to 
FDA and industry from the optional electronic submission of RFDs are 
not included in this estimate because of the uncertainty in the number 
of sponsors who would choose to submit electronically.
    Our best estimate of the quantifiable net social effect of the 
proposed rule, using a 10-year time horizon, is a cost of approximately 
$103,000 in the first year and a cost savings of approximately $28,000 
each year starting in the second year. The net present discounted value 
of the quantifiable cost savings over 10 years is approximately 
$114,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and approximately $76,000 at a 7 
percent discount rate. The total annualized net effect of the proposed 
rule is estimated to produce an average net cost savings ranging from 
$13,000 at a 3 percent discount rate and $11,000 at a 7 percent 
discount rate.
    Executive Order 13771 requires that the costs associated with 
significant

[[Page 22434]]

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 the proposed rule, if finalized, is not 
significant under Executive Order 12666 and is deregulatory under 
Executive Order 13771.
    The present value of our primary net cost savings estimate of the 
proposed rule, using an infinite time horizon, is approximately 
$281,000, discounted at 7 percent, with a lower bound of approximately 
$165,000 and an upper bound of approximately $1.2 million. The 
annualized net cost savings of the proposed rule are approximately 
$20,000, discounted at 7 percent on an infinite time horizon, with a 
lower bound of approximately $12,000 and an upper bound of 
approximately $83,000. Discounted at 3 percent, the present value of 
our primary net cost savings of the proposed rule is approximately 
$814,000, with a lower bound of approximately $634,000 and an upper 
bound of approximately $2.9 million. The annualized net cost of the 
proposed rule is approximately -$20,000, discounted at 3 percent on an 
infinite time horizon, with a lower bound of approximately -$12,000 and 
an upper bound of approximately -$83,000. The estimated net costs using 
a 7 percent discount rate under Executive Order 13771 are summarized in 
table 2.

                 Table 2--Summary of Executive Order 13771 Net Costs of the Proposed Rule 1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Lower bound     Upper bound
                                                                   Primary (7%)        (7%)            (7%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Costs..........................................        $122,000         $81,000        $192,000
Present Value of Savings........................................         403,000         357,000       1,266,000
Present Value of Net Costs......................................         281,000         165,000       1,184,000
Annualized Costs................................................           9,000           6,000          13,000
Annualized Savings..............................................          28,000          25,000          89,000
Annualized Net Costs............................................         -20,000         -12,000         -83,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We use an infinite time horizon for this rule with payments occurring at the end of each period.
\2\ All dollar values are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
\3\ A negative net cost implies a net cost savings.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to prepare an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis if a proposed rule would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
(including small businesses, small non-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions). FDA has examined the economic implications 
of the proposed rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
This rule, if finalized, will not impose any new burdens on small 
entities, and thus will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The full preliminary analysis of economic impacts is available in 
the docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 1) and at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.

VIII. Proposed Effective Date

    FDA is proposing that any final rule based on this proposed rule 
become effective 30 days after the date of its publication in the 
Federal Register.

IX. Reference

    The following reference is on display in 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 or https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.

1. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Rule, 
Amendments to 21 CFR Part 3--Product Jurisdiction, Docket No. FDA-
2004-N-0191.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure, Biological products, 
Combination products, Drugs, Medical devices, Authority delegations.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the 
Public Health Service Act, and authority delegated to the Commissioner 
of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 3 be amended as 
follows:

0
1. The authority citation for part 3 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 360c-360f, 
360h-360j, 360gg-360ss, 360bbb-2, 371(a), 379e, 381, 394; 42 U.S.C. 
216, 262, 264.

0
2. Revise part 3 to read as follows:

PART 3--PRODUCT JURISDICTION

Subpart A--Product Classification and Assignment of Agency 
Component for Review of Premarket Applications

Sec.
3.1 Purpose.
3.2 Definitions.
3.3 Scope.
3.4 Designated agency component.
3.5 Request for designation.
3.6 Letter of designation.
3.7 Effect of letter of designation.
3.8 Stay of review time.
Subpart B [Reserved]


Sec.  3.1  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to provide procedures for 
determining whether a product is a biological product, device, drug, or 
combination product, and which component within FDA will have primary 
jurisdiction for a biological product, device, drug, or combination 
product, where product classification or assignment is unclear or in 
dispute. By doing so, this subpart implements section 503(g) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Nothing in this subpart prevents 
FDA from using any agency resources it deems necessary to ensure 
adequate review of the safety and effectiveness of any product, or the 
substantial equivalence of any device to a predicate device.


Sec.  3.2  Definitions.

    For the purpose of this part:
    Agency means the Food and Drug Administration.
    Agency component means the Center for Biologics Evaluation and 
Research, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the Center 
for Drug Evaluation and Research, or alternative organizational 
component of the agency.
    Applicant means any person who submits or plans to submit an 
application to the Food and Drug Administration for premarket review. 
For purposes of this section, the terms ``sponsor'' and ``applicant'' 
have the same meaning.

[[Page 22435]]

    Application means any investigational new drug application, 
investigational device exemption application, new drug application, 
abbreviated new drug application, biologics license application, 
premarket notification submission, De Novo classification request, 
premarket approval application, product development protocol, or 
humanitarian device exemption application, including all amendments and 
supplements.
    Biological product has the meaning given the term in section 351(i) 
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i)).
    Combination product includes:
    (1) A product comprised of two or more regulated components, i.e., 
drug/device, biological product/device, drug/biological product, or 
drug/device/biological product, that are physically, chemically, or 
otherwise combined or mixed and produced as a single entity;
    (2) Two or more separate products packaged together in a single 
package or as a unit and comprised of drug and device products, device 
and biological products, or biological and drug products;
    (3) A drug, device, or biological product packaged separately that 
according to its investigational plan or proposed labeling is intended 
for use only with an approved individually specified drug, device, or 
biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, 
indication, or effect and where upon approval of the proposed product 
the labeling of the approved product would need to be changed, e.g., to 
reflect a change in intended use, dosage form, strength, route of 
administration, or significant change in dose; or
    (4) Any investigational drug, device, or biological product 
packaged separately that according to its proposed labeling is for use 
only with another individually specified investigational drug, device, 
or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended 
use, indication, or effect.
    Constituent part has the meaning given the term in Sec.  4.2 of 
this chapter.
    Device has the meaning given the term in section 201(h) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
    Drug has the meaning given the term in section 201(g)(1) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
    FDA means Food and Drug Administration.
    Letter of designation means the written notice issued by the 
product jurisdiction officer classifying the product, specifying the 
agency component with primary jurisdiction, or both.
    Letter of request means an applicant's written submission to the 
product jurisdiction officer seeking product classification, the 
designation of the agency component with primary jurisdiction, or both.
    Mode of action is the means by which a product achieves an intended 
therapeutic effect or action. For purposes of this definition, 
``therapeutic'' action or effect includes any effect or action of the 
combination product intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or 
prevent disease, or affect the structure or any function of the body. 
When making assignments of combination products under this part, the 
agency will consider three types of mode of action: The actions 
provided by a biological product, a device, and a drug. Each 
constituent part of a combination product has one such type of mode of 
action. For purposes of combination product assignment:
    (1) A constituent part has a biological product mode of action if 
it acts by means of a virus, therapeutic serum, toxin, antitoxin, 
vaccine, blood, blood component or derivative, allergenic product, 
protein (except any chemically synthesized polypeptide), or analogous 
product, or arsphenamine or derivate of arsphenamine (or any other 
trivalent organic arsenic compound), applicable to the prevention, 
treatment, or cure of a disease or condition of human beings, as 
described in section 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act.
    (2) A constituent part has a device mode of action if it meets the 
definition of device contained in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and it does not have a biological product mode 
of action.
    (3) A constituent part has a drug mode of action if it meets the 
definition of drug contained in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and it does not have a biological product or 
device mode of action.
    Premarket review includes the examination of data and information 
submitted by an applicant.
    Primary mode of action is the single mode of action of a 
combination product that provides the most important therapeutic action 
of the combination product. The most important therapeutic action is 
the mode of action expected to make the greatest contribution to the 
overall intended therapeutic effects of the combination product.
    Product means any article that contains any drug as defined in 
section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; any 
device as defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act; or any biological product as defined in section 351(i) of 
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(i)).
    Product jurisdiction officer is the person or persons in the Office 
of Combination Products responsible for classification of products as 
biological products, devices, drugs, and combination products and for 
designating the component of FDA with primary jurisdiction for the 
premarket review and regulation of such products.
    Sponsor means ``applicant'' as defined in this section.


Sec.  3.3  Scope.

    This subpart applies to sponsors for products for which 
classification as a drug, device, biological product, or combination 
product, or the agency component with primary jurisdiction, is unclear 
or in dispute.


Sec.  3.4  Designated agency component.

    (a) To designate the agency component with primary jurisdiction for 
the premarket review and regulation of a combination product, the 
agency shall determine the primary mode of action of the product. Where 
the primary mode of action is that of:
    (1) A drug (other than a biological product), the agency component 
charged with premarket review of such drugs shall have primary 
jurisdiction;
    (2) A device, the agency component charged with premarket review of 
such devices shall have primary jurisdiction;
    (3) A biological product, the agency component charged with 
premarket review of such biological products shall have primary 
jurisdiction.
    (b) In some situations, it is not possible to determine, with 
reasonable certainty, which one mode of action will provide a greater 
contribution than any other mode of action to the overall therapeutic 
effects of the combination product. In such a case, the agency will 
assign the combination product to the agency component that regulates 
other combination products that present similar questions of safety and 
effectiveness with regard to the combination product as a whole. When 
there are no other combination products that present similar questions 
of safety and effectiveness with regard to the combination product as a 
whole, the agency will assign the combination product to the agency 
component with the most expertise related to the most significant 
safety and effectiveness questions presented by the combination 
product.
    (c) The agency component with primary jurisdiction for the 
premarket review and regulation of a product will

[[Page 22436]]

consult with other agency components, as FDA deems appropriate.


Sec.  3.5  Request for designation.

    (a) What to file: A request for designation may be submitted only 
by the sponsor and must be filed in accordance with this section. The 
request for designation must not exceed 15 pages, including 
attachments, and must set forth:
    (1) The identity of the sponsor, including company name and 
address, establishment registration number, company contact person, 
email address, and telephone number.
    (2) A description of the product, including:
    (i) Classification, name of the product and all component products, 
if applicable;
    (ii) Common, generic, or usual name of the product and all 
component products;
    (iii) Proprietary name of the product;
    (iv) Identification of any component of the product that already 
has received premarket approval, is marketed as not being subject to 
premarket approval, or has received an investigational exemption, the 
identity of the sponsors, and the status of any discussions or 
agreements between the sponsors regarding the use of this product as a 
component of a new combination product.
    (v) Chemical, physical, or biological composition;
    (vi) Status and brief reports of the results of developmental work, 
including animal testing;
    (vii) Description of the manufacturing processes, including the 
sources of all components;
    (viii) Proposed use or indications;
    (ix) Description of all known modes of action, the sponsor's 
identification of the single mode of action that provides the most 
important therapeutic action of the product, and the basis for that 
determination;
    (x) Schedule and duration of use;
    (xi) Dose and route of administration of drug or biological 
product;
    (xii) Description of related products, including the regulatory 
status of those related products; and
    (xiii) Any other relevant information.
    (3) The sponsor's recommendation as to the classification of the 
product as a drug, device, biological product, or combination product, 
or as to which agency component should have primary jurisdiction. For 
combination products, the recommendation for primary jurisdiction must 
be based on the primary mode of action unless the sponsor cannot 
determine with reasonable certainty which mode of action provides the 
most important therapeutic action of the combination product, in which 
case the sponsor's recommendation must be based on the assignment 
algorithm set forth in Sec.  3.4(b) and an assessment of the assignment 
of other combination products the sponsor wishes FDA to consider during 
the assignment of its combination product.
    (b) How and where to file: All communications pursuant to this 
subpart shall be addressed to the attention of the product jurisdiction 
officer and plainly marked ``Request for Designation.'' Such 
communications shall be submitted either in hard copy (an original and 
two copies) or in an electronic format that FDA can process, review, 
and archive, to the current mailing address or email address, 
respectively, for the Office of Combination Products as published by 
FDA.


Sec.  3.6  Letter of designation.

    (a) Each request for designation will be reviewed for completeness 
within 5 working days of receipt. Any request for designation 
determined to be incomplete will be returned to the applicant with a 
request for the missing information. The sponsor of an accepted request 
for designation will be notified of the filing date.
    (b) Within 60 days of the filing date of a request for designation, 
the product jurisdiction officer will issue a letter of designation to 
the sponsor, with copies to the agency components, specifying the 
classification of the product at issue or the agency component 
designated to have primary jurisdiction for the premarket review and 
regulation of the product at issue, and any consulting agency 
components. The product jurisdiction officer may request a meeting with 
the sponsor during the review period to discuss the request for 
designation. If the product jurisdiction officer has not issued a 
letter of designation within 60 days of the filing date of a request 
for designation, the sponsor's recommendation of the classification of 
the product or the center with primary jurisdiction, in accordance with 
Sec.  3.5(a)(3), shall become the designated product classification or 
agency component.


Sec.  3.7  Effect of letter of designation.

    (a) The letter of designation constitutes an agency determination 
that is subject to change only as provided in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (b) The product jurisdiction officer may change the designated 
product classification or agency component with the written consent of 
the sponsor, or without its consent to protect the public health or for 
other compelling reasons. A sponsor shall be given 30 days written 
notice of any proposed such change in designated product classification 
or agency component. The sponsor may request an additional 30 days to 
submit written objections, not to exceed 15 pages, to the proposed 
change, and shall be granted, upon request, a timely meeting with the 
product jurisdiction officer and appropriate center officials. Within 
30 days of receipt of the sponsor's written objections, the product 
jurisdiction officer shall issue to the sponsor, with copies to 
appropriate agency component officials, a written determination setting 
forth a statement of reasons for the proposed change in designated 
product classification or agency component. Such a change in the 
designated product classification or agency component requires the 
concurrence of the official in the agency responsible for overseeing 
the Office of Combination Products.


Sec.  3.8  Stay of review time.

    Any filing with or review by the product jurisdiction officer stays 
the review clock or other established time periods for agency action 
for an application during the pendency of the review by the product 
jurisdiction officer.

Subpart B [Reserved]

    Dated: May 10, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-10321 Filed 5-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P