Document ID: FDA-2016-N-1896-0001
Agency: fda
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Category Definitions
Posted Date: 2016-08-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57818-57822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 558

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1896]

New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Category Definitions

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, we) 
proposes to amend the animal drug regulations by revising the 
definitions of the two categories of new animal drugs used in medicated 
feeds to base category assignment only on approved uses in major animal 
species. The proposed revision will preserve the availability of 
medicated feeds intended for therapeutic use in minor animal species 
and prevent a significant disincentive for future development of 
additional minor species therapies.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by November 7, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted 
electronically, including attachments, to http://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 http://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): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of 
Dockets Management, 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-2016-N-1896 for ``Category Definitions for Minor Species.'' 
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those 
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management 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 http://www.regulations.gov. 
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. 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: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://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 Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers 
Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Edwards, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-220), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6205, email: david.edwards@fda.hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Proposed Rule
    C. Legal Authority
    D. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
III. Proposed Regulation
IV. Companion Document to Direct Final Rulemaking
V. Legal Authority
VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts
VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
IX. Federalism
X. References

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Proposed Rule

    FDA proposes to revise the definitions of the two categories of new 
animal drugs used in medicated feeds to base category assignment only 
on approved uses in major animal species. This revision is being 
proposed to address a potential consequence of animal drug sponsor 
cooperation in implementing a strategy initiated by the FDA Center for 
Veterinary Medicine (CVM) to address antimicrobial resistance by taking 
measures to ensure the judicious use of antimicrobial drugs in animal 
agriculture. Under this program, sponsors of antimicrobial new animal

[[Page 57819]]

drugs that also have importance in human medicine were requested to 
voluntarily withdraw approval of production (e.g., growth production, 
feed efficiency) indications for their drug products that are intended 
for use in the feed or water of food-producing animals. Based on the 
existing drug category definitions, the voluntary withdrawal of 
production indications by these drug sponsors would, in some cases, 
result in a change to a medicated feed drug's category, potentially 
leading to additional consequences not foreseen at the time the program 
was initiated.
    The category in which a new animal drug used in medicated feeds is 
placed is based on their likelihood of producing unsafe residues in the 
edible products of treated animals. Category I consists of those drugs 
that require no withdrawal period at the lowest use level in each 
species for which they are approved. Category II consists of those 
drugs that require a withdrawal period at the lowest use level for at 
least one species for which they are approved, or that are regulated on 
a ``no-residue'' basis or with a zero tolerance because of a 
carcinogenic concern, regardless of whether a withdrawal period is 
required.
    New animal drugs approved for use in medicated feeds are approved 
as Type A medicated articles, the most concentrated form of the drug 
product for use by feed mills. Category I Type A medicated articles can 
be handled by both licensed and unlicensed feed mills, whereas Category 
II Type A medicated articles can be handled only by licensed feed 
mills.
    Certain Category I Type A medicated articles would be recategorized 
to Category II when a production indication is voluntarily withdrawn by 
a sponsor as part of the judicious use initiative that is currently 
underway, based on the next lowest use level that remains once the 
production use is withdrawn having a withdrawal period such that the 
drug would then meet the definition for Category II. For Category I 
Type A medicated articles that include indications for minor species, 
FDA is concerned that if such a Type A medicated article is 
recategorized to Category II based on a withdrawal period for an 
approved therapeutic use in a minor species, sponsors may opt to 
request withdrawal of approval of these minor species indications in 
order to ensure the Type A medicated article can remain in Category I. 
Sponsors may also decline to pursue development of additional therapies 
for minor species if these uses would require a withdrawal period that 
would trigger a recategorization to Category II.
    The proposed revisions would revise the category definitions such 
that they would be based only on whether a withdrawal period is 
required for a major species.\1\ Under the proposed definition, a 
Category I Type A medicated article would not be recategorized to 
Category II based on the existence of a withdrawal period for an 
approved indication in a minor species, even if that minor species 
indication is the next lowest approved use level that remains after the 
production indication has been withdrawn. However, if the next lowest 
use level (apart from the minor species indication) is an indication 
approved for use in a major species that has a withdrawal period, under 
the new definition the drug would move to Category II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As a practical matter, categorization under the revised 
definitions in this direct final rule will be driven by approved 
indications for major food-producing species (cattle, poultry, 
swine, and turkeys). While the definition for major species includes 
horses, dogs, and cats, they are not regulated as food-producing 
major species and thus drugs approved for use in these species do 
not require an assessment of human food safety that may result in 
assignment of a withdrawal period. Minor species are defined as 
animals, other than humans, that are not major species. Minor 
species include animals such as sheep, goats, ducks, geese, and 
aquaculture species such as catfish, salmon, and trout.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed revision is to preserve the present 
availability of medicated feeds intended for therapeutic use in minor 
species and to prevent a significant disincentive for future 
development of additional therapies for minor species. We believe the 
proposed revision will not compromise public health due to the 
comparatively lower exposure by humans to potential drug residues in 
edible tissues of food-producing minor species inherent in their less 
frequent consumption.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Proposed Rule

    FDA proposes to amend 21 CFR 558.3 Definitions and general 
considerations applicable to this part (Sec.  558.3) to base the 
definition for each of the two categories (Category I and Category II) 
of new animal drugs used in medicated feeds only on approved uses in 
major species. Definitions for ``major species'' and ``minor species'' 
are also being added to this section.

C. Legal Authority

    We are proposing these regulations based on our authority under the 
new animal drug provisions in section 512 (21 U.S.C. 360b) and section 
701 (21 U.S.C. 371) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C 
Act) which gives the Agency general rulemaking authority to issue 
regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.

D. Costs and Benefits

    The revisions made by this proposed rule are intended to preserve 
the availability of medicated feeds intended for therapeutic use in 
minor animal species. In addition, these proposed revisions will 
prevent a significant disincentive for future development of additional 
therapies for minor species. No additional costs or benefits will 
accrue from this rulemaking.

II. Background

    FDA is proposing to revise the definitions of the two categories of 
new animal drugs used in medicated feeds to base category assignment 
only on approved uses in major animal species. To strengthen the 
Agency's medicated feed program, FDA issued a final rule in the Federal 
Register of March 3, 1986 (51 FR 7382), which, among other things, 
established two categories of new animal drugs used in medicated feeds. 
As discussed in the final rule, the Agency placed these drugs into 
categories based on their likelihood of producing unsafe residues in 
the edible products of treated animals (51 FR 7382). Category I 
consists of those drugs that require no withdrawal period at the lowest 
use level in each species for which they are approved. Category II 
consists of those drugs that require a withdrawal period at the lowest 
use level for at least one species for which they are approved, or that 
are regulated on a ``no-residue'' basis or with a zero tolerance 
because of a carcinogenic concern, regardless of whether a withdrawal 
period is required.
    New animal drugs approved for use in medicated feeds are approved 
as Type A medicated articles, the most concentrated form of the drug 
product for use by feed mills. Category I Type A medicated articles can 
be handled by both licensed and unlicensed feed mills, whereas Category 
II Type A medicated articles can be handled only by licensed feed 
mills.
    This action is being taken to address a potential consequence of 
animal drug sponsor cooperation in implementing a strategy initiated by 
CVM to address antimicrobial resistance by taking measures to ensure 
the judicious use of antimicrobials of importance to human medicine 
(i.e., medically important antimicrobials) in animal agriculture. 
Specifically, CVM's initiative to ensure the judicious use of medically 
important antimicrobial drugs in animal agriculture advocates two 
specific changes to the approved conditions of use of medically 
important

[[Page 57820]]

antimicrobials that are administered through the medicated feed or 
water of food-producing animals.
    These changes, which are described in Guidance for Industry (GFI) 
#213, ``New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products 
Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-
Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily 
Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209,'' published December 
2013 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM299624.pdf), are 
intended to reduce the development of antimicrobial resistance and 
thereby preserve the effectiveness of these important drugs for use in 
treating infections in humans. Following publication of GFI #213, all 
sponsors of these medically important antimicrobial new animal drug 
products approved for use in the feed or water of food-producing 
animals notified FDA in writing of their intent to voluntarily make 
changes to their affected products as outlined in the guidance.
    Under GFI #213, sponsors of medically important antimicrobial new 
animal drugs approved for over-the-counter use in the feed or water of 
food-producing animals were asked to change the marketing status of 
their products to veterinary prescription (Rx) marketing status in the 
case of new animal drugs administered in water, or to veterinary feed 
directive (VFD) marketing status for drugs administered in or on animal 
feed. New animal drugs with Rx or VFD marketing status can legally only 
be used with a veterinarian's oversight. Prescription animal drugs 
require a veterinarian's prescription, while use of VFD drugs requires 
a VFD; both types of orders must be issued by a licensed veterinarian 
in the course of the veterinarian's professional practice.
    In addition, under GFI #213 sponsors of medically important new 
animal drugs used in animal feed or water that have production 
indications were requested to voluntarily withdraw these indications; 
approved therapeutic indications for use of these drugs would remain.
    In some instances, once a sponsor withdraws the production 
indication from a drug approved for use in animal feed (which is 
generally the lowest use level of the drug), the remaining lowest 
therapeutic use level will require a withdrawal period. Based on the 
existing definitions of the feed drug categories, this results in a 
Category I new animal drug being recategorized as a Category II drug, 
the more restrictive of the two possible categories of drugs used in 
medicated feed. Category II drugs require that the manufacture of Type 
B and Type C medicated feeds from Type A medicated articles be done in 
facilities possessing a medicated feed mill license, which number 
roughly 900 in the United States. In contrast, there are tens of 
thousands of unlicensed feed mills in this country. Such a 
recategorization to Category II, thereby limiting the use of the Type A 
medicated article to a much smaller subset of feed mills, may disrupt 
the existing movement of these medicated feeds through distribution 
channels.
    FDA believes that sponsors may request voluntary withdrawal of 
those specific therapeutic indications as a way to keep their products 
in the less restrictive Category I when the recategorization of a drug 
to Category II is triggered by a therapeutic indication for a minor 
species. For certain drug products, the only therapeutic indications 
requiring a withdrawal period that would remain following the voluntary 
withdrawal of approval of production uses are those for minor species. 
The loss of therapeutic indications for minor species would adversely 
affect the availability of therapeutic medicated feeds necessary for 
the health of minor species, which is a matter of significant concern 
for the Agency.
    This foreseeable adverse effect on the health of minor species 
would directly undermine the intent of Congress in passing the Minor 
Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-282) as 
well as to our intent in establishing the implementing regulations 
under that statute. The Category I drugs likely to be affected have 
been safely used in this category for decades, and we have no reason to 
believe they would not continue to be safely used in this category 
moving forward.
    Under the current category definitions in Sec.  558.3 for feed use 
drugs, a drug will be included in Category II if the lowest use level 
of the drug in any approved species requires a withdrawal period. This 
approach equates the existence of a withdrawal period for a particular 
use with the potential risk that edible tissues from animals 
administered a medicated feed might contain a residue of concern.
    However, the toxicological analysis of animal drugs used to 
calculate a withdrawal period is based on lifetime exposure by humans 
to potential drug residues. This assessment of lifetime exposure does 
not consider the lower risk to the public health from the use of these 
same new animal drugs in food-producing minor species attributable to 
the lower human consumption over time of edible tissues from food-
producing minor species (Refs. 1 and 2). For this reason, FDA does not 
at this time believe this revision of the category definitions presents 
a risk to the public health.
    In a manner similar to its effect on drug indications that are 
already approved, CVM believes the existing categorization scheme would 
pose a significant disincentive for future development of additional 
minor species therapies for existing Category I drugs if those new uses 
would require a withdrawal period and thus trigger a change to Category 
II for that drug.
    Given the potential for implementation of GFI #213 to result in the 
foreseeable consequence of the withdrawal of approval of needed 
therapeutic indications for minor species, we propose to revise the 
definitions of the two categories of new animal drugs used in medicated 
feeds in Sec.  558.3 to base category assignment only on uses in major 
species. This proposed revision is expected to preserve the 
availability of drugs intended for therapeutic use in minor species and 
also prevent a significant disincentive for future development of 
additional therapies for minor species without compromising public 
health.

III. Proposed Regulation

    FDA proposes to amend paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
Agency's regulations at Sec.  558.3 (Definitions and general 
considerations applicable to this part) to base the definition for each 
of the two categories (Category I and Category II) of new animal drugs 
used in medicated feeds only on approved uses in major species. We 
further propose to amend Sec.  558.3(b) by adding definitions for 
``major species'' and ``minor species'' that are identical to the 
definitions of those terms found in FDA's regulations for new animal 
drugs for minor use and minor species (21 CFR 516.3). We are proposing 
to revise the feed drug category definitions in Sec.  558.3 to preserve 
the availability of medicated feeds intended for use in minor species 
and to prevent a likely disincentive for development of additional 
therapies for minor species.

IV. Companion Document to Direct Final Rulemaking

    This proposed rule is a companion to the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. FDA proposes 
to amend Sec.  558.3(b)(1) to revise the definitions of Category I and 
Category II new animal drugs administered in medicated feed. This 
proposed rule is intended to make

[[Page 57821]]

noncontroversial changes to existing regulations. The Agency does not 
anticipate receiving any significant adverse comment on this rule.
    Consistent with FDA's procedures on direct final rulemaking, we are 
publishing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register a companion 
direct final rule. The direct final rule and this companion proposed 
rule are substantively identical. This companion proposed rule provides 
the procedural framework within which the rule may be finalized in the 
event the direct final rule is withdrawn because of any significant 
adverse comment. The comment period for this proposed rule runs 
concurrently with the comment period of the companion direct final 
rule. Any comments received in response to the companion direct final 
rule will also be considered as comments regarding this proposed rule.
    FDA is providing a comment period for the proposed rule of 75 days 
after the date of publication in the Federal Register. If FDA receives 
a significant adverse comment, we intend to withdraw the direct final 
rule before its effective date by publication of a notice in the 
Federal Register within 30 days after the comment period ends. A 
significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be 
inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or 
approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In 
determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants 
withdrawing a direct final rule, the Agency will consider whether the 
comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive 
response in a notice-and-comment process in accordance with section 553 
of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
    Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of 
the proposed rule will not be considered significant or adverse under 
this procedure. For example, a comment recommending a regulation change 
in addition to those in the proposed rule would not be considered a 
significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the proposed 
rule would be ineffective without the additional change.
    If FDA does not receive significant adverse comment in response to 
the companion direct final rule, the Agency will publish, within 30 
days after the comment period ends, a document in the Federal Register 
confirming the effective date of the final rule. The Agency intends to 
make the direct final rule effective on December 1, 2016.
    A full description of FDA's policy on direct final rule procedures 
may be found in a guidance document announced in the Federal Register 
of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466). The guidance document may be 
accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125166.htm.

V. Legal Authority

    We are proposing these regulations under the legal authority 
provided by section 512 of the FD&C Act relating to new animal drugs 
and section 701(a) of the FD&C Act. Section 512 gives FDA the authority 
to approve new animal drug applications (NADAs). Such approval 
establishes conditions of use under which the drug can be used in a 
safe and effective manner. Categorization of new animal drugs used in 
medicated feeds is one such condition of use. In addition, section 
701(a) of the FD&C Act gives FDA general rulemaking authority to issue 
regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.

VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts

    We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive 
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 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). 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 proposed rule would not impose any compliance 
costs on the sponsors of animal drug products that are currently 
marketed or in development, we propose to certify that this 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 $146 million, using the most current (2015) 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.
    This proposed rule allows certain new animal drugs approved for use 
in animal feed that would otherwise be recategorized as Category II 
drugs under the current definitions in Sec.  558.3 following withdrawal 
of approval of production indications during GFI #213 implementation to 
remain in Category I if the change to Category II would have been 
triggered by a minor species indication.
    Based on the revised definitions of the two feed drug categories, 
there is one drug, sulfamerazine for control of furunculosis in trout 
(21 CFR 558.582), that would be recategorized from Category II to 
Category I as a result of this proposed rule, if finalized. No 
compliance costs would be incurred due to this recategorization because 
no changes to the approved application are required for continued 
marketing of the drug.

VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a 
type that will not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule contains no collection of information. 
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required.

IX. 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 have concluded that the proposed 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.

[[Page 57822]]

X. References

    The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets 
Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested 
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also 
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has 
verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes 
in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over 
time.)

    1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, ``Livestock & Meat Domestic 
Data,'' http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data (accessed on June 23, 2016).
    2. ``Food Fish Production and Sales by Species, by Size 
Category, by State and United States: 2005,'' http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/aquacen2005_08.pdf (accessed on June 23, 2016).

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558

    Animal drugs, animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and 
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, it is proposed that 
part 558 be amended as follows:

PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 558 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.

0
2. In Sec.  558.3, revise paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) and add 
paragraphs (b)(13) and (14) to read as follows:

Sec.  558.3  Definitions and general considerations applicable to this 
part.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Category I--These drugs require no withdrawal period at the 
lowest use level in each major species for which they are approved or 
are approved for use only in minor species.
    (ii) Category II--These drugs require a withdrawal period at the 
lowest use level for at least one major species for which they are 
approved, or are regulated on a ``no-residue'' basis or with a zero 
tolerance because of carcinogenic concern regardless of whether a 
withdrawal period is required in any species.
* * * * *
    (13) ``Major species'' means cattle, horses, swine, chickens, 
turkeys, dogs, and cats.
    (14) ``Minor species'' means animals, other than humans, that are 
not major species.

    Dated: August 18, 2016.
Jeremy Sharp,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2016-20149 Filed 8-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P