      Supplemental Information for the Beryllium Health Effects Section

Table A.1 -- Summary of Beryllium Lung Cancer Epidemiological Studies

(%) Prevalence

Reference
Study type
Sensitization
CBD
Range of exposure
measurements
Exposure-response
relationship
Study limitations
Additional
comments
Studies Conducted Prior to BeLPT

Hardy and Tabershaw, 1946 (Document ID 1516)
Case-series
N/A
N/A
N/A

Selection bias
Small sample size.
Hardy, 1980 (Document ID 1514)
Case-series
N/A
N/A
N/A

Selection bias
Small sample size.
Machle et al., 1948 (Document ID 1461)
Case-series
N/A

Semi-quantitative
Yes
Selection bias
Small sample size; unreliable exposure data.
Eisenbud et al., 1949 (Document ID 1949)
Case-series
N/A

Average concentration: 350-750 ft from plant -- 0.05-0.15 μg/m[3]; <350 ft from plant -- 2.1 μg/m[3]

Non-occupational; ambient air sampling.
Lieben and Metzner, 1959 (Document ID 1343)

N/A
N/A
No quantitative exposure data

Family member contact with contaminated clothes.
Hardy et al., 1967 (Document ID 1515)
Case Registry Review
N/A
N/A
Incomplete exposure concentration data

Hasan and Kazemi, 1974 (Document ID 0451)

Eisenbud and Lisson, 1983 (Document ID 1296)

1-10

Stoeckle et al., 1969 (Document ID 0447)
Case-series (60 cases)

No
Selection bias
Provided information regarding progression and identifying sarcoidosis from CBD.
Studies Conducted Following the Development of the BeLPT

Beryllium Mining and Extraction

Deubner et al., 2001 (Document ID 1543)
Cross-sectional
(75 workers)
4.0 (3 cases)
1.3 (1 case)
Mining, milling -- range 0.05-0.8 μg/m[3]; Annual maximum 0.04-165.7 μg/m[3]
No
Small sample size
Personal sampling.

Beryllium Metal Processing and Alloy Production

Kreiss et al., 1997 Document ID 1360)

Cross-sectional study of 627 workers

6.9 (43 cases)
4.6 (29 cases)
Median -- 1.4 μg/m[3]
No
Inconsistent BeLPT results between labs
Short-term Breathing Zone sampling.

Schuler et al., 2012 (Document ID 0473)
Cross-sectional study of 264 workers

9.8 (26 cases)
2.3 (6 cases)
Mean annual 0.88 μg/m[3]; Mean cumulative 2.11 μg/m[3]; Mean'highest job' 1.66 μg/m[3]

Study was able to establish a significant increasing trend between CBD and cumulative exposure and able to establish a significant increasing trend between BeS and average TWA exposure as well as' highest job' exposure
Bailey et al., 2010 (Document ID 0610)
Longitudinal study of 290  program workers (206 partial program, 84 full program). Compari- son group of 258 pre-program workers
2.1 (6 cases)
Not reported

Study reported prevalence rates for pre enhanced control-program, partial enhanced control program, and full enhanced control program

Thomas et al., 2009 (Document ID 1061)
Longitud- inal study of 82 workers. Compari- son group of 43 legacy workers
3.8 (3 cases)
0.0
Used exposure profile from Schuler study

Authors noted workers may have been sensitized prior to available screening, underestimating sensitization rate in legacy workers
Instituted PPE to reduce dermal exposures.
Rosenman et al., 2005 (Document ID 1352)
Cross-sectional study of 577 workers
10.4 (60 cases)
7.6 (44 cases)
Mean average range -- 7.1-8.7 μg/m[3];Mean peak range -- 53-87 μg/m[3];Mean cumulative range -- 100-209 μg/m[3]
No

Daily weighted average:  High exposures compared to other studies.

Beryllium Machining Operations

Newman et al., 2001
(Document ID 1354)
Longitud- inal study of 235 workers
9.4 (22 cases)
6.4 (15 cases)

No

Engineering and administrative controls primarily used to control exposures.

Kelleher et al., 2001(Document ID 1363)
Case-control study of 20 cases and 206 controls
11.5 (machinists)2.9 (non-machinists)
11.5 (machinists)2.9 (non-machinists)
0.08-0.6 μg/m[3] -- lifetime weighted exposures
Yes

Identified 20 workers with Sensitization or CBD.

Madl et al., 2007 (Document ID 1056)
Longitud- inal study of 27 cases

Machining 1980-1995 median −0.33 μg/m[3]; 1996-1999 median -- 0.16 μg/m[3]; 2000-2005 median -- 0.09 μg/m[3]; Non-machining 1980-1995 median -- 0.12 μg/m[3]; 1996-1999 median -- 0.08 μg/m[3]; 2000-2005 median -- 0.06 μg/m[3]
Yes

Personal sampling: Required evidence of granulomas for CBD diagnosis.

Beryllium Oxide Ceramics

Kreiss et al., 1993 (Document ID 1478)
Cross-sectional survey of 505 workers
3.6 (18 cases)
1.8 (9 cases)

No

Kreiss et al., 1996 (Document ID 1477)
Cross-sectional survey of 136 workers
5.9 (8 cases)
4.4 (6 cases)
Machining median -- 0.6 μg/m[3]; Other Areas median -- <0.3 μg/m[3];
No
Small study population
Breathing Zone Sampling.
Henneberger et al., 2001 (Document ID 1313)
Cross-sectional survey of 151 workers
9.9 (15 cases)
5.3 (8 cases)
6.4% samples >2 μg/m[3]; 2.4% samples >5 μg/m[3];0.3% samples >25 μg/m[3]
Yes
Small study population
Breathing zone sampling.
Cummings et al., 2007 (Document ID 1369)
Longitud- inal study of 93 workers

1.1 (1 case)
Production 1994-1999 median -- 0.1μg/m[3]; 2000-2003 median -- 0.04μg/m[3]; Administrative 1994-1999 median <0.2 μg/m[3]; 2000-2003 median -- 0.02 μg/m[3]

Small sample size
Personal sampling was effective in reducing rates of new cases of sensitization.

Copper-Beryllium Alloy Processing and Distribution

Schuler et al., 2005 (Document ID 0919)
Cross-sectional survey of 153 workers
7.0 (10 cases)
4.0 (6 cases)
Rod and Wire Production median -- 0.12 μg/m[3]; Strip Metal Production median -- 0.02 μg/m[3]; Production Support median -- 0.02 μg/m[3]; Administration
median -- 0.02 μg/m[3]

Small study population
Personal sampling.

Stanton et al., 2006 (Document ID 1070)
Cross-sectional study of 88 workers
1.1 (1 case)
1.1 (1 case)
Bulk Products Production median 0.04 μg/m[3]; Strip Metal Production median -- 0.03 μg/m[3]; Production support median -- 0.01 μg/m[3]; Administration median 0.01 μg/m[3]

Study did not report use of PPE or respirators
Personal sampling.
Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and Cleanup of Former Facilities

Kreiss et al., 1989 (Document ID 1480)
Cross-sectional survey of 51 workers
11.8 (6 cases)
7.8 (4 cases)

No
Small study population

Kreiss et al., 1993 (Document ID 1479)
Cross-sectional survey of 895 workers
1.9 (18 cases)
1.7 (15 cases)

No
Study population includes some workers with no reported Be exposure

Stange et al., 1996 (0206)
Longitud- inal Study of 4,397 BHSP participants
2.4 (105 cases)
0.7 (29 cases)
Annual mean concentration 1970-1988 0.016 μg/m[3]; 1984-1987 1.04 μg/m[3]
No

Personal sampling.
Stange et al., 2001 (Document ID 1403)
Longitud- inal study of 5,173 workers
4.5 (235 cases)
1.6 (81 cases)
No quantitative information presented in study
No

Personal sampling.
Viet et al., 2000 (Document ID 1344)
Case-control
74 workers sensitized
50 workers CBD
Mean exposure range: 0.083-0.622 μg/m[3] Maximum exposures: 0.54-36.8 μg/m[3]
Yes
Likely underestimated exposures
Fixed airhead sampling away from breathing zone: Matched controls for age, sex, smoking.
Johnson et al (2001) (Document ID 1505)
194 workers
No screening for sensitization
1 case of CBD out of 194 workers
Authors estimated airborne beryllium concentrations did not exceed 2.0 ug/m[3]

Limited information on collection times limits the reliability of exposure data
No screening for sensitization
Arjomandi et al (2010) (Document ID 1275)
Cross sectional of 1875 workers
59 workers out of 1875 (3.1 percent)
5 workers out 1875 (0.3 percent)

10.2 percent CBD rate among sensitized workers (5/49)
Aluminum Smelting

Taiwo et al. (2010)
Cross sectional study of 1932 workers
2  of 1932 with CBD

0.01-13.0 ug/m3 TWA, mean of 0.25 ug/m[3]

Only 60 percent of workers participate in study
Nilsen et al. (2010)
Case control (362 workers)

0.1 ug/m[3]  -  0.31 ug/m[3]

Table A.2 -- Summary of Mechanistic Animal Studies for Sensitization and CBD
Reference
Species
Study length
Dose or exposure concentration
Type of beryllium
Study results
Other information
Intratracheal (intrabroncheal) or Nasal Instillation

Barna et al., 1981
(Document ID1500)
Guinea pig
3 month
10 mg-5μm particle size
beryllium oxide
Granulomas, interstitial infiltrate with fibrosis with thickening of alveolar septae

Barna et al., 1984
(Document ID 1301 and 1302))
Guinea pig
3 month
5 mg
beryllium oxide
Granulomatous lesions in strain 2 but not strain 13 indicating a genetic component

Benson et al., 2000 (Document ID 1498)
Mouse

0, 12.5, 25, 100μg; 0, 2, 8 μg
beryllium copper alloy; beryllium metal
Acute pulmonary toxicity associated with beryllium/copper alloy but not beryllium metal

Haley et al., 1994 (Document ID 1364)
Cynomolgus monkey
14, 60, 90 days
0, 1, 50, 150 μg0, 2.5, 12.5, 37.5 μg
Beryllium metal, beryllium oxide
Beryllium oxide particles were less toxic than the beryllium metal

Huang et al., 1992 (Document ID 1492)
Mouse

5 μg1-5 μg
Beryllium sulfate immunization; beryllium metal challenge
Granulomas produced in A/J strain but not BALB/c or C57BL/6

Votto et al., 1987 (Document ID 1305)
Rat
3 month
2.4 mg 8 mg/ml
Beryllium sulfate immunization; beryllium sulfate challenge
Granulomas, however, no correlation between T-cell subsets in lung and BAL fluid

Inhalation -- Single Exposure

Haley et al., 1989 and 1991 (Document ID 1366 and 1315)
Beagle dog
Chronic -- one dose
0, 6 μg/kg, 18 μg/kg
500 °C; 1000 °C beryllium oxide
Positive BeLPT results -- developed granulomas; low-calcined beryllium oxide more toxic than high-calcined
Granulomas resolved with time, no full-blown CBD.

Chronic -- one dose/2 year recovery
0, 17 μg/kg, 50 μg/kg
500 °C; 1000 °C beryllium oxide
Granulomas, sensitization, low-fired more toxic than high fired
Granulomas resolved over time.
Robinson et al., 1968 (1487)
Dog
Chronic
0. 115mg/m[3]
Beryllium oxide, beryllium fluoride, beryllium chloride
Foreign body reaction in lung

Sendelbach et al., 1989 (Document ID 1289)
Rat
2 week
0, 4.05 μg/L
Beryllium as beryllium sulfate
Interstitial pneumonitis

Sendelbach and Witschi, 1987 (Document ID 1307)
Rat
2 week
0, 3.3, 7 μg/L
Beryllium as beryllium sulfate
Enzyme changes in BAL fluid

Inhalation -- Repeat Exposure

Conradi et al., 1971 (Document ID 1319)
Beagle dog
Chronic -- 2 year
0. 3300 μg/m[3], 4380 μg/m[3] once/month for 3 months
1400 °C beryllium oxide
No changes detected
May have been due to short exposure time followed by long recovery.

Macaca irus Monkey
Chronic -- 2 year
0. 3300 μg/m[3], 4380 μg/m[3] once/month for 3 months
1400 °C beryllium oxide
No changes detected
May have been due to short exposure time followed by long recovery.
Haley et al., 1992 (Document ID 1234)
Beagle dog
Chronic -- repeat dose (2.5 year intervals)
17, 50 μg/kg
500 °C; 1000 °C beryllium oxide
Granulomatous pneumonitis

Harmsen et al., 1986 (Document ID 1257)
Beagle dog5 dogs per group
Chronic
0, 20 μg/kg, 50 μg/kg
500°C; 1000 °C beryllium oxide

Dermal or Intradermal

Kang et al., 1977 (Document ID 1502)
Rabbit

10mg
Beryllium sulfate
Skin sensitization and skin granulomas

Tinkle et al., 2003 (Document ID 1483)
Mouse
3 month
25 μL70 μg
Beryllium sulfate Beryllium oxide
Microgranulomas with some resolution over time of study

Intramuscular

Eskenasy, 1979 (Document ID 1496
Rabbit
35 days (injections at 7 day intervals)
10mg.ml
Beryllium sulfate
Sensitization, evidence of CBD

Intraperitoneal Injection

Marx and Burrell, 1973 Document ID 1450)
Guinea pig
24 weeks (biweekly injections)
2.6 mg + 10 μg dermal injections
Beryllium sulfate
Sensitization

Table A-3 -- Summary of Beryllium Lung Cancer Epidemiological Studies
Reference
Study type
Exposure range
Study number
Mortality ratio
Confounding factors
Study limitations
Additional comments
Beryllium Case Registry

Infante et al., 1980 (Document ID 1507)
Cohort
N/D
421 cases from the BCR
SMR 2.12, 7 lung cancer deaths
Not reported
Exposure concentration data or smoking habits not reported

Steenland and Ward, 1991 (Document ID 1400)
Cohort
N/D
689 cases from the BCR
SMR 2.00 (95% CI 1.33-2.89), 28 lung cancer deaths

Included women: 93% women diagnosed with CBD; 50% men diagnosed with CBD;SMR 157 for those with CBD and SMR 232 for those with ABD.
Beryllium Manufacturing and/or Processing Plants (Extraction, Fabrication, and Processing)

Ward et al., 1992 (Document ID 1378)
Retrospective Mortality Cohort
N/D
9,225 males
SMR 1.26 (95% CI 1.12-1.42), 280 lung cancer deaths

Lack of job history and air monitoring data
Employment period 1940-1969
Levy et al., 2002 (Document ID 1463)
Cohort
N/D
9,225 males
Statistically non-significant elevation in lung cancer deaths
Adjusted for smoking
Lack of job history and air monitoring data
Majority of workers studied employed for less than one year
Bayliss et al., 1971 (Document ID 1285)
Nested cohort

7,948 workers
SMR 1.06, 36 lung cancer deaths

Employed prior to 1947 for almost half lung cancer deaths
Mancuso, 1970, 1979 (Document ID 1453, 0529)
Cohort
411-43,300 μg/m[3] annual exposure (reported from Zielinsky, 1961)
1,222 workers at OH plant; 2,044 workers at PA plant
SMR 1.42 (95% CI 1.1-1.8), 80 lung cancer deaths

Partial smoking history; No job analysis by title or exposure category
Employment period from 1937-1948 with follow-up through 1967
Mancuso, 1980 (Document ID 1452)
Cohort
N/D
Same OH and PA plant analysis
SMR 1.40, 80 lung cancer deaths
No smoking adjustment
No adjustment by job title or exposure
Employment period from 1942-1948; Used workers at rayon plant for comparison
Mancuso and El Attar, 1969 (Document ID 1455)
Cohort
N/D
3,685 white males
SMR 1.49
Adjusted for age and locale
No job exposure data or smoking adjustment
Employment history from 1937-1944
Wagoner et al., 1980 (Document ID 1379)
Cohort
N/D
3,055 white males PA plant
SMR 1.25 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), 47 lung cancer deaths

Inadequately adjusted for smoking; Used national lung-cancer risk for cancer not PA
Use of 1965-1967 U.S. white male lung cancer mortality rates to generate expected numbers of lung cancers in the period 1968-1975 (which may underestimate the expected number of lung cancer deaths for the cohort)
Sanderson et al., 2001 (Document ID 1419)
Nested case-control
 --  Average exposure 22.8μg/m[3]  --  Maximum exposure 32.4 μg/m[3]
3,569 males PA plant
SMR 1.22 (95% CI 1.03-1.43), 142 lung cancer deaths
Smoking was found not to be a confounding factor
May not have adjusted properly for birth year or age at hire
Found association with 20-year latency
Levy et al., 2007 (Document ID 1462)
Nested case-control
Used log transformed exposure data
Reanalysis of Sanderson et al., 2001
SMR 1.04 (95% CI 0.92-1.17)
Different methodology for smoking adjustment

Found no association between beryllium exposure and increased risk of lung cancer
Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2008 (Document ID 1350)
Nested case-control
Used exposure data from Sanderson et al., 2001
Reanalysis of Sanderson et al., 2001
Used Odds ratio: 1.91 (95% CI 1.06-3.44) unadjusted; 1.29 (95% CI 0.61-2.71) birth-year adjusted; 1.24 (95% CI 0.58-2.65) age-hire adjusted
Adjusted for smoking, birth cohort, age

 --  Controlled for birth-year and age at hire; --  Found similar results to Sanderson et al., 2001; --  Found association with 10 year latency --  "0" = used minuscule value at start to eliminate the use of 0 in a logarithmic analysis
Schubauer-Berigan et al., 2011 (Document ID 1266)
Cohort
Described in Couch et al., 2011 (updated JEM from Sanderson et al., 2001 and Chen et al., 2001)
9199 workers from 7 processing plants
SMR 1.17 (95% CI 1.08-1.28), 545 deaths
Adjusted for smoking

Male workers employed at least 2 days between 1940 and 1970
Re-evaluation of Published Studies

EPA, 1998 (Document ID 0237)
Re-analysis of Ward et al., 1992 with supporting data from Eisenbud and Lisson (1983)(Document ID 1296)
Estimated exposure range to be 100  -  1000 μg/m[3]

Elevated rate of lung cancer in overall cohort (46 cases vs 41.9 expected cases). However, not statistically significant.
Used alternative adjustment for smoking

Characterized evidence of human carcinogenicity as "limited" but "suggestive"
Hollins et al., 2009 (Document ID 1512)
Review
Re-examination of weight-of-evidence from more than 50 publications

Found lung cancer excess risk was associated with higher levels of exposure not relevant in today's industrial settings
IARC, 2012 (Document ID 0650)
Multiple
Insufficient exposure concentration data

Sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity
of beryllium
IARC concluded beryllium lung cancer risk was not associated with smoking

 --  Greater lung cancer risk in the BCR cohort --  Correlation between highest lung cancer rates and highest amounts of ABD or other non-malignant lung diseases --  Increased risk with longer latency --  Greater excess lung cancers among those hired prior to 1950


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8597-8598]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03023]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-5585]

Bridging for Drug-Device and Biologic-Device Combination
Products; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability; Extension of
Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability, extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
extending the comment period for the notice of availability that
appeared in the Federal Register of December 19, 2019. In the notice of
availability, FDA requested comments on the draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Bridging for Drug-Device and Biologic-Device Combination
Products.'' The Agency is taking this action in response to requests
for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit
comments.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the notice of
availability published December 19, 2019 (84 FR 69749). Submit either
electronic or written comments by April 20, 2020.

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 April 20, 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 20, 2020. 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 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-2019-D-5585 for ``Bridging for Drug-Device and Biologic-Device
Combination Products.'' 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.govinfo.gov/content/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: Robert Berlin, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Office of New Drugs, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6373, Silver
Spring, MD, 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Irene Chan, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Office of New Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4420, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, 301-
796-3962; Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm.
7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Andrew Yeatts, Center
for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5452, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
301-796-4539; or Patricia Love, Office of Special Medical Programs,
Office of Combination Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5144, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-8933.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 19,
2019, FDA published a notice of availability with a 60-day comment
period to request comments on the draft guidance for industry entitled
``Bridging for Drug-Device and Biologic-Device Combination Products.''
    The Agency has received requests for an extension of the comment
period for the notice of availability. Each request conveyed concern
that the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time
to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the notice of
availability. FDA has considered the requests and is extending the
comment period for the notice of availability for 60 days, until April
20, 2020. The Agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate
time for interested persons to submit comments without compromising the
timely publication of the final version of the guidance.

    Dated: February 11, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-03023 Filed 2-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44459]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17158]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-336, OMB Control No. 3235-0379]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form F-X

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form F-X (17 CFR 239.42) is used to appoint an agent for service of
process by Canadian issuers registering securities on Forms F-7, F-8,
F-9 or F-10 under the Securities Act of 1933(15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.), or
filing periodic reports on Form 40-F under the Exchange Act of 1934(15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The information collected must be filed with the
Commission and is publicly available. We estimate that it takes
approximately 2 hours per response to prepare Form F-X and that the
information is filed by approximately 114 respondents for a total
annual reporting burden of 228 hours (2 hours per response x 114
responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 6, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17158 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


-----Original Message-----
From: James Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:02 PM
To: Murray, Brian C.
Cc: Depro, Brooks M.
Subject: RE: Environmental Management Article

Hi Brian,

I agree that aggregating by age class means that volumes should be very
narrowly distributed, and therefore no need for adjusting for scale.  We
don't adjust estimates for ATLAS files, which are also by age class.  Those
factors are more appropriate for summaries such as state-wide volumes.

Also, I don't know of a useful source for an estimate of carbon lost to
fire.  I emailed Linda to see if she had any suggestions.

-Jim

             "Murray, Brian
             C."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                                                        To
             08/11/2004 01:57          "'James Smith'"
             PM<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                                                        cc
                                       "Depro, Brooks M."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                                                   Subject
                                       RE: Environmental Management
                                       Article

Jim - The JoF article is of great help to us now as we are documenting the
methods we used for carbon accounting in FASOM and this provides a nice
summary of the methods that you use.  In principle, out methods should be
identical.  Brooks is looking over the article now to check for
consistency.

One issue that re-surfaced as I read the article is whether we should be
making the scale adjustment due to the fact that FASOM operates off of
aggregated, rather than plot, data.  According to the paper, perhaps we
should be applying the adjustment factors (0.94, 0.9,...) to our tree
carbon
calculations.  But I am wondering if this is AS necessary if we are
aggregating acres within an age class.  In other words, the distribution of
m3/ac should be narrower within an age class than across age classes.  Any
thoughts on that?

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: James Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:21 AM
To: Murray, Brian C.
Subject: Re: Environmental Management Article

Hello Brian,
Here's the Environmental Management paper and a second very general
overview
of FORCARB-like carbon estimates from the Journal of Forestry -jim

(See attached file: SmithJOF_July04.pdf)(See attached file: Smith04_EM.pdf)

==================================================
Jim Smith
USDA Forest Service
Northeastern Research Station
P.O. Box 640
Durham, NH  03824
---------------------------------
603-868-7663
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

             "Murray, Brian
             C."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                        To
             08/05/2004 03:43<EMAIL_ADDRESS>             PM<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                        cc

                                                                   Subject
                                       Environmental Management Article

Hi Jim - Hope you're well.  Can you please send me a reprint (electronic if
possible) of your paper on public lands carbon with Linda Heath? Carbon
Stocks and Projections on Public Forestlands in the United States,
1952-2040

Thanks, Brian

Brian C. Murray, Ph.D.
Director
Environmental and Natural Resource Economics Program
Research Triangle Institute
Hobbs 119
3040 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>