94-1791. Labeling of Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page ]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-1791]
    
    
    [Federal Register: January 28, 1994]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
    21 CFR Part 330
    
    [Docket No. 92N-0454]
    RIN 0905-AA06
    
    
    Labeling of Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use
    
    AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its general 
    labeling policy for over-the-counter (OTC) drug products to allow for 
    the interchangeable use of certain words in labeling required by an OTC 
    drug monograph. Examples of these words include: ``doctor'' and 
    ``physician,'' ``consult'' and ``ask,'' and ``indications'' and 
    ``uses.'' This final rule provides alternate terminology in the 
    labeling of OTC drug products for words that have the same meaning.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1994.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William E. Gilbertson, Center for Drug 
    Evaluation and Research (HFD-810), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
    Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-5000.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 5, 1993 (58 
    FR 17553), the agency proposed to amend its general labeling policy for 
    over-the-counter (OTC) drug products to allow for the interchangeable 
    use of certain words in the labeling required by an OTC drug monograph. 
    The agency had previously proposed in a number of tentative final 
    monographs and included in a number of final monographs a provision 
    that the words ``doctor'' and ``physician'' may be used interchangeably 
    in the labeling of OTC drug products. (See, e.g., Secs. 333.150(e), 
    333.350(e), and 336.50(e) (21 CFR 333.150(e), 333.350(e), and 
    336.50(e)).) Instead of including this provision in each OTC drug 
    monograph, the agency proposed to include such a provision in 
    Sec. 330.1 (21 CFR 330.1) as part of the general conditions under which 
    an OTC drug is generally recognized as safe, effective, and not 
    misbranded. The agency also proposed that, at manufacturers' 
    discretion, the word ``ask'' could be substituted for the word 
    ``consult,'' which appears in the directions for many OTC drug 
    monograph ingredients. (See, e.g., Secs. 333.150(c)(1), 333.350(c)(2), 
    and 340.50(c)(2) (21 CFR 340.50(c)(2)).) Thus, the agency proposed that 
    the phrases ``consult a physician,'' ``consult a doctor,'' ``ask a 
    physician,'' and ``ask a doctor'' could be used interchangeably. The 
    agency invited comments and suggestions as to such other terms that 
    could be used interchangeably, i.e., terms general in nature that 
    appear in more than one OTC drug monograph.
        One trade association, representing OTC drug manufacturers, and one 
    drug manufacturer submitted comments in response to the agency's 
    proposal. Copies of the comments are on display in the Dockets 
    Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 
    12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857, and may be seen by interested 
    persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    
    I. Summary of the Comments Received
    
        The comment from the trade association agreed with the agency's 
    proposal to allow for the interchangeable use of the words ``doctor'' 
    and ``physician,'' and the words ``consult'' and ``ask.'' The comment 
    suggested the following additional sets of alternative terms and gave 
    the following citations, showing inclusion in several OTC drug 
    monographs, as support: (1) ``Clean'' or ``cleanse'' (Secs. 333.150(d), 
    333.350(d)(1), and 346.50(d)(1) (21 CFR 346.50(d)(1))); (2) ``persist'' 
    or ``continue'' (Secs. 341.76(c)(5)(ii), 346.50(c)(7)(iii), 
    357.150(c)(1), and 357.850(c)(1)(i) (21 CFR 341.76(c)(5)(ii), 
    346.50(c)(7)(iii), 357.150(c)(1), and 357.850(c)(1)(i))); (3) 
    ``chronic'' or ``persistent'' (Secs. 336.50(c)(1), 338.50(c)(3), 
    341.74(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4)(ii) through (c)(4)(iv), and 
    341.78(c)(1) (21 CFR 338.50(c)(3), 341.74(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4)(ii) 
    through (c)(4)(iv), and 341.78(c)(1))); (4) ``assistance'' or ``help'' 
    (Secs. 331.30(g), 332.30(c), 341.74(f), and 342.76(c)(5)(i) and 
    (c)(6)(ii) (21 CFR 331.30(g), 332.30(c), 341.74(f), and 342.76(c)(5)(i) 
    and (c)(6)(ii))); and (5) ``pulmonary'' or ``lung'' (Secs. 336.50(c)(1) 
    and 338.50(c)(3)). The comment stated that, in some instances, the 
    paired terms already appear in the cited regulations and, in other 
    cases, the alternative terms may be better understood by consumers. The 
    comment mentioned the following examples: ``Lung'' disease may be 
    better understood than the more technical ``pulmonary'' disease, and 
    ``persistent'' may be better understood than ``chronic.'' The comment 
    stated its understanding that the rule is intended only to provide a 
    glossary of comparable terms that may be used interchangeably, not to 
    make substantive changes in the underlying required label statements. 
    For example, the comment mentioned that the rule would not permit the 
    term ``health professional'' as an alternative to the terms ``doctor'' 
    or ``physician,'' because a ``health professional'' may include 
    pharmacists, nurses, midwives, and others who are not licensed to 
    practice medicine. The comment requested that the agency clarify that 
    this rule applies only to OTC drug monograph language otherwise 
    required to be declared verbatim in OTC drug product labeling. The 
    comment added that the rule would not apply to or otherwise affect the 
    use of truthful and nonmisleading alternative terms that can be used 
    for monograph indications.
        The other comment also proposed that the terms ``assistance'' and 
    ``help'' be allowed interchangeably in the general overdose warning, 
    which states: ``In case of accidental ingestion, seek professional 
    assistance or contact a Poison Control Center immediately.''
    
    II. The Agency's Final Conclusions
    
        The agency has carefully evaluated the comments' proposals for the 
    interchangeable use of certain terms and concludes that the 
    interchangeable terms suggested by the comments (``clean'' or 
    ``cleanse,'' ``persist(s)'' or ``continue(s),'' ``assistance'' or 
    ``help,'' and ``pulmonary'' or ``lung'') are acceptable and will help 
    promote better label readability.
        In addition, the agency has determined that the terms 
    ``indication(s)'' or ``use(s)'' should be allowed to be used 
    interchangeably. The agency considers the term ``use(s)'' to be simpler 
    and better understood by consumers than the term ``indication(s).'' The 
    agency is including this option in Sec. 330.1(i).
        The agency disagrees with the interchangeable use of the words 
    ``chronic'' and ``persistent.'' ``Chronic,'' by definition, is of long 
    duration, or may be subject to habit or disease for a lengthy period 
    (Ref. 1). On the other hand, ``persistent,'' by definition, is refusing 
    to let go, insistently repetitive or continuous, or enduring (Ref. 2). 
    While ``chronic'' is also ``persistent,'' ``persistent'' is not 
    necessarily ``chronic.'' For instance, a chronic cough denotes one that 
    has gone on for a lengthy period of time, while a persistent cough 
    could be one of recent onset that does not respond to treatment. Thus, 
    a chronic cough and a persistent cough may be the same, or they could 
    be two separate entities. Therefore, interchangeable use of the terms 
    ``chronic'' and ``persistent'' is not included in the final rule.
    
    References
    
        (1) ``Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary,'' 
    Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1984, s.v. ``chronic.''
        (2) ``Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary,'' 
    Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1984, s.v. ``persistent.''
        This final rule does not make substantive changes in the language 
    required in OTC drug monographs. The rule allows for alternative 
    terminology for certain terms that are sufficiently comparable to be 
    used interchangeably. The rule does not affect the use of truthful and 
    nonmisleading terminology as an alternative to monograph indications in 
    accord with Sec. 330.1(c)(2)(ii) and (c)(2)(iii).
        The agency has examined the economic consequences of this final 
    rule and determined that it does not require either a regulatory impact 
    analysis, as specified in Executive Order 12866, or a regulatory 
    flexibility analysis, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
    (Pub. L. 96-354). This final rule provides alternative labeling options 
    that can be implemented at very little cost by manufacturers at the 
    next printing of labels, for those products for which the manufacturer 
    chooses to make a change. Thus, the rule will have no significant 
    economic impact. The agency concludes that the final rule is not a 
    major rule as defined in Executive Order 12866. Further, the agency 
    certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
    a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory 
    Flexibility Act.
        The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(c)(6) 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.
    
    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 330
    
        Over-the-counter drugs.
        Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
    authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 
    330 is amended as follows:
    
    PART 330--OVER-THE-COUNTER (OTC) HUMAN DRUGS WHICH ARE GENERALLY 
    RECOGNIZED AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE AND NOT MISBRANDED
    
        1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 330 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 201, 501, 502, 503, 505, 510, 701 of the 
    Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 
    355, 360, 371).
    
        2. Section 330.1 is amended by adding new paragraph (i) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 330.1  General conditions for general recognition as safe, 
    effective and not misbranded.
    
    * * * * *
        (i) The following terms may be used interchangeably in any of the 
    labeling established in parts 331 through 358 of this chapter:
        (1) ``Ask'' or ``consult''.
        (2) ``Assistance'' or ``help''.
        (3) ``Clean'' or ``cleanse''.
        (4) ``Continue'' or ``persist''.
        (5) ``Continues'' or ``persists''.
        (6) ``Doctor'' or ``physician''.
        (7) ``Indication'' or ``use''.
        (8) ``Indications'' or ``uses''.
        (9) ``Lung'' or ``pulmonary''.
    * * * * *
    
        Dated: October 15, 1993.
    Michael R. Taylor,
    Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 94-1791 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
01/28/1994
Department:
Health and Human Services Department
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
94-1791
Dates:
February 28, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (None pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: January 28, 1994, Docket No. 92N-0454
RINs:
0905-AA06
CFR: (1)
21 CFR 330.1