Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Herpes Simplex Virus Types 1 and 2 Serological Assays, 15828-15830 [E7-6167]
Download as PDF
15828
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 2, Orig
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 8, Orig
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 20, Orig
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 26, Orig
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, NDB RWY 2, Orig
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, NDB RWY 20,
Orig
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, LOC RWY 26,
Amdt 1
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, GPS RWY 20,
Orig, CANCELLED
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, NDB RWY 2,
Amdt 10A, CANCELLED
Juneau, WI, Dodge County, NDB RWY 20,
Amdt 8A, CANCELLED
Lone Rock, WI, Tri-County Regional, VOR/
DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 27, Amdt 6,
CANCELLED
[FR Doc. E7–5952 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. 2005N–0471]
Microbiology Devices; Reclassification
of Herpes Simplex Virus Types 1 and
2 Serological Assays
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is reclassifying
herpes simplex virus (HSV) types 1 and/
or 2 (HSV 1 and 2) serological assays
from class III (premarket approval) to
class II (special controls). FDA had
earlier proposed this reclassification on
its own initiative based on new
information. Elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register, FDA is
announcing the availability of a class II
special controls guidance entitled
‘‘Class II Special Controls Guidance
Document: Herpes Simplex Virus Types
1 and 2 Serological Assays.’’
DATES:
This rule is effective May 3,
2007.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sally Hojvat, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (HFZ–440), Food
and Drug Administration, 2098 Gaither
Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240–276–
0496.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:32 Apr 02, 2007
Jkt 211001
I. Background
A. Regulatory Authorities
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), as
amended by the Medical Device
Amendments of 1976 (the 1976
amendments) (Public Law 94–295), the
Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990
(SMDA) (Public Law 101–629), the Food
and Drug Administration Modernization
Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Public Law 105–
115), and the Medical Device User Fee
and Modernization Act (Public Law
107–250), established a comprehensive
system for the regulation of medical
devices intended for human use.
Section 513 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c)
established three categories (classes) of
devices, defined by the regulatory
controls needed to provide reasonable
assurance of their safety and
effectiveness. The three categories of
devices are class I (general controls),
class II (special controls), and class III
(premarket approval).
Under the 1976 amendments, class II
devices were defined as devices for
which there was insufficient
information to show that general
controls themselves would provide
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, but for which there was
sufficient information to establish
performance standards to provide such
assurance. SMDA broadened the
definition of class II devices to mean
those devices for which the general
controls by themselves are insufficient
to provide reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness, but for which
there is sufficient information to
establish special controls to provide
such assurance, including performance
standards, postmarket surveillance,
patient registries, development and
dissemination of guidelines,
recommendations, and any other
appropriate actions the agency deems
necessary (section 513(a)(1)(B) of the
act).
Under section 513 of the act, FDA
refers to devices that were in
commercial distribution before May 28,
1976 (the date of enactment of the 1976
amendments), as preamendments
devices. FDA classifies these devices
after it takes the following steps: (1)
Receives a recommendation from a
device classification panel (an FDA
advisory committee); (2) publishes the
panel’s recommendation for comment,
along with a proposed regulation
classifying the device; and (3) publishes
a final regulation classifying the device.
FDA has classified most
preamendments devices under these
procedures. A person may market a
preamendments device that has been
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
classified into class III through
premarket notification procedures,
without submission of a premarket
approval application (PMA), until FDA
issues a final regulation under section
515(b) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b))
requiring premarket approval.
Devices that were not in commercial
distribution before May 28, 1976,
generally referred to as postamendments
devices, are classified automatically by
statute (section 513(f) of the act) into
class III without any FDA rulemaking
process. Those devices remain in class
III and require premarket approval
unless and until FDA does the
following: (1) Reclassifies the device
into class I or II; (2) issues an order
classifying the device into class I or II
in accordance with section 513(f)(2) of
the act, as amended by FDAMA; or (3)
issues an order finding the device to be
substantially equivalent, under section
513(i) of the act, to a legally marketed
device that has been classified into class
I or class II. The agency determines
whether new devices are substantially
equivalent to a legally marketed device
by means of premarket notification
procedures in section 510(k) of the act
(21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807.
Section 513(e) of the act governs
reclassification of classified devices.
This section provides that FDA may, by
rulemaking, reclassify a device based
upon ‘‘new information.’’ FDA can
initiate a reclassification under section
513(e) of the act or an interested person
may petition FDA to reclassify a
preamendments device. The term ‘‘new
information,’’ as used in section 513(e)
of the act, includes information
developed as a result of a reevaluation
of the data before the agency when the
device was originally classified, as well
as information not presented, not
available, or not developed at that time
(see, e.g., Holland Rantos v. United
States Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 587 F.2d 1173, 1174 n.1
(D.C. Cir. 1978); Upjohn v. Finch, 422
F.2d 944 (6th Cir. 1970);Bell v. Goddard,
366 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1966)).
Reevaluation of the data previously
before the agency is an appropriate basis
for subsequent regulatory action where
the reevaluation is made in light of
newly available regulatory authority
(see Bell v. Goddard, supra, 366 F.2d at
181; Ethicon, Inc. v.FDA, 762 F.Supp.
382, 389–91 (D.D.C. 1991)), or in light
of changes in ‘‘medical science’’ (see
Upjohn v. Finch, supra, 422 F.2d at
951). Whether data before the agency are
past or new, the ‘‘new information’’ to
support reclassification under section
513(e) of the act must be ‘‘valid
scientific evidence,’’ as defined in
section 513(a)(3) of the act and 21 CFR
E:\FR\FM\03APR1.SGM
03APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
860.7(c)(2) (see, e.g., General Medical
Co. v. FDA, 770 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir.
1985); Contact Lens Assoc. v. FDA, 766
F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 474
U.S. 1062 (1985)).
FDA relies upon valid scientific
evidence in the classification process to
determine the level of regulation for
devices. To be considered in the
reclassification process, the valid
scientific evidence upon which the
agency relies must be publicly available.
Publicly available information excludes
trade secret and/or confidential
commercial information, e.g., the
contents of a pending PMA (see section
520(c) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)).
FDAMA added section 510(m) to the
act that provides that a class II device
may be exempted from the premarket
notification requirements under section
510(k) of the act if the agency
determines that premarket notification
is not necessary to assure the safety and
effectiveness of the device.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
B. Regulatory History of the Device
In the Federal Register of January 9,
2006 (71 FR 1399), FDA published a
proposed rule to reclassify HSV 1 and
2 serological assays into class II. These
assays are used as an aid in the clinical
laboratory diagnosis of diseases caused
by HSV 1 and 2. FDA identified the
draft guidance document entitled ‘‘Class
II Special Controls Guidance Document:
Herpes Simplex Virus Types 1 and 2
Serological Assays’’ as the special
control. Interested persons were invited
to comment on the proposed rule by
April 10, 2006 (the draft guidance was
announced in the Federal Register of
January 9, 2006 (71 FR 1432). A
proposed rule correcting the reference
section of the January 9, 2006, proposed
rule was published on March 13, 2006
(71 FR 12653). FDA received no
comments on the proposed
reclassification.
II. FDA’s Conclusions
Based on the information discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule (71
FR 1399), FDA concludes that special
controls, in conjunction with general
controls, provide reasonable assurance
of the safety and effectiveness of these
devices. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, FDA is announcing
the availability of the special controls
guidance document. Following the
effective date of this final classification
rule, any firm submitting a 510(k)
premarket notification for a HSV 1 and
2 serological assay will need to address
the issues covered in the special control
guidance. However, the firm need only
show that its device meets the
recommendations of the guidance or in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:32 Apr 02, 2007
Jkt 211001
some other way provides equivalent
assurances of safety and effectiveness.
FDA is now codifying the
classification and the special control
guidance document for HSV 1 and 2
serological assays by amending
§ 866.3305 (21 CFR 866.3305). As stated
in the proposed rule, FDA considered
HSV 1 and 2 serological assays in
accordance with section 510(m) of the
act and determined that the device does
need premarket notification to assure
the safety and effectiveness of HSV 1
and 2 serological assays.
As stated in the preamble to the
proposed rule (71 FR 1399), HSV
serological assays of types other than
type 1 and 2 will remain in class III.
HSV nucleic acid amplification assays
are not within the device type classified
in § 866.3305.
III. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.34(b) 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.
IV. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the
final rule under Executive Order 12866,
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Public Law 96–354) (as amended by
subtitle D of the Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104–121), and the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104–4)). Executive Order 12866
directs agencies 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). The agency
believes that this final rule is consistent
with the regulatory philosophy and
principles identified in the Executive
order. In addition, the final rule is not
a significant regulatory action as defined
by the Executive order and so is not
subject to review under the Executive
order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires agencies to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any
significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Reclassification of HSV 1 and 2
serological assays from class III to class
II will relieve manufacturers of the cost
of complying with the premarket
approval requirements in section 515 of
the act. Furthermore, the special
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15829
controls guidance document does not
impose any new burdens on
manufacturers; it advises manufacturers
about ways to comply with the special
controls that allow the agency to down
classify these devices. By eliminating
the need for premarket approval
applications, reclassification will reduce
regulatory costs with respect to these
devices, impose no significant economic
impact on any small entities, and may
permit small potential competitors to
enter the marketplace by lowering their
costs. The agency therefore certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies 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 $122
million, using the most current (2005)
Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross
Domestic Product. FDA does not expect
this final rule to result in any 1-year
expenditure that would meet or exceed
this amount.
V. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this final rule in
accordance with the principles set forth
in Executive Order 13132. FDA has
determined that the 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, the
agency has concluded 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. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
FDA concludes that this final rule
contains no new collections of
information. Therefore, clearance by the
Office of Management and Budget under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is
not required.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866
Medical devices.
I Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
E:\FR\FM\03APR1.SGM
03APR1
15830
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is
amended as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 126
PART 866—IMMUNOLOGY AND
MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES
[Public Notice: 5740]
I
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 866 continues to read as follows:
Amendment of the International Traffic
in Arms Regulations: Policy With
Respect to Vietnam
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 371.
AGENCY:
2. Section 866.3305 is revised to read
as follows:
I
§ 866.3305 Herpes simplex virus
serological assays.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
(a) Identification. Herpes simplex
virus serological assays are devices that
consist of antigens and antisera used in
various serological tests to identify
antibodies to herpes simplex virus in
serum. Additionally, some of the assays
consist of herpes simplex virus antisera
conjugated with a fluorescent dye
(immunofluorescent assays) used to
identify herpes simplex virus directly
from clinical specimens or tissue
culture isolates derived from clinical
specimens. The identification aids in
the diagnosis of diseases caused by
herpes simplex viruses and provides
epidemiological information on these
diseases. Herpes simplex viral
infections range from common and mild
lesions of the skin and mucous
membranes to a severe form of
encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).
Neonatal herpes virus infections range
from a mild infection to a severe
generalized disease with a fatal
outcome.
(b) Classification. (1) Class II (special
controls). The device is classified as
class II (special controls) if the herpes
simplex virus serological assay is type 1
and/or 2. The special control for the
device is FDA’s guidance document
entitled ‘‘Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document: Herpes Simplex
Virus Types 1 and 2 Serological
Assays.’’ For availability of the guidance
document, see § 866.1(e).
(2) Class III (premarket approval). The
device is classified as class III if the
herpes simplex virus serological assay is
a type other than type 1 and/or 2.
(c) Date PMA or notice of completion
of a PDP is required. No effective date
has been established for the requirement
for premarket approval for the devices
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section. See § 866.3.
Dated: March 23, 2007.
Linda S. Kahan,
Deputy Director, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. E7–6167 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:32 Apr 02, 2007
Jkt 211001
ACTION:
Department of State.
Final rule.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the Department of State is amending the
International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR) regarding Vietnam at
22 CFR 126.1 to make it United States
policy to consider on a case-by-case
basis licenses, other approvals, exports
or imports of non-lethal defense articles
and defense services destined for or
originating in Vietnam. The United
States will deny licenses, other
approvals, exports or imports of lethal
defense articles and services destined
for or originating in Vietnam. Under this
policy, the exports of lethal-end items,
components of lethal-end items (unless
those components are non-lethal, safetyof-use spare parts for lethal-end items),
non-lethal crowd control defense
articles and defense services, and night
vision devices to end-users with a role
in ground security will not be approved.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective April 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may
submit comments at any time by any of
the following methods:
• E-mail:
DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov with an
appropriate subject line.
• Mail: Department of State,
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls,
Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy,
ATTN: Regulatory Change, 12th Floor,
SA–1, Washington, DC 20522–0112.
• Fax: 202–261–8199.
• Hand Delivery or Courier (regular
work hours only): Department of State,
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls,
Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy,
ATTENTION: Regulatory Change, SA–1,
12th Floor, 2401 E Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20037.
Persons with access to the Internet
may also view this notice by going to
the regulations.gov Web site at: https://
www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann
K. Ganzer, Office of Defense Trade
Controls Policy, Department of State,
12th Floor, SA–1, Washington DC
20522–0112; Telephone 202–663–2792
or FAX 202–261–8199; e-mail:
DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. ATTN:
Regulatory Change.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 2, 2006, the Secretary of State
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
modified the U.S. arms transfer policy
toward Vietnam allowing the sale, lease,
export, or other transfer of non-lethal
defense articles and defense services to
the country. Subsequently, the President
issued a determination December 29,
2006 that the furnishing of defense
articles and services to Vietnam would
strengthen the security of the United
States and promote world peace.
The new policy will not permit the
export or other transfer to Vietnam of:
(a) Lethal end items, (b) components of
lethal end items, unless those
components are non-lethal, safety-of-use
spare parts for lethal end items, (c) nonlethal crowd control defense articles
and defense services, and (d) night
vision devices to end-users with a role
in ground security.
Regulatory Analysis and Notices
Administrative Procedure Act
This amendment involves a foreign
affairs function of the United States and,
therefore, is not subject to the
procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 553 and
554.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule does not require analysis
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This rule does not require analysis
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
This amendment has been found not
to be a major rule within the meaning
of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. It
will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, the relationship between
the national Government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Executive Orders 12372 and 13132
It is determined that this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant application of the
consultation provisions of Executive
Orders 12372 and 13132.
Executive Order 12866
This amendment is exempt from
review under Executive Order 12866,
but has been reviewed internally by the
Department of State to ensure
consistency with the purposes thereof.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any new
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
E:\FR\FM\03APR1.SGM
03APR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 3, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15828-15830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6167]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. 2005N-0471]
Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Herpes Simplex Virus
Types 1 and 2 Serological Assays
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reclassifying herpes
simplex virus (HSV) types 1 and/or 2 (HSV 1 and 2) serological assays
from class III (premarket approval) to class II (special controls). FDA
had earlier proposed this reclassification on its own initiative based
on new information. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
FDA is announcing the availability of a class II special controls
guidance entitled ``Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Herpes
Simplex Virus Types 1 and 2 Serological Assays.''
DATES: This rule is effective May 3, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hojvat, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (HFZ-440), Food and Drug Administration, 2098
Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-0496.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Regulatory Authorities
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 301
et seq.), as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976
amendments) (Public Law 94-295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990
(SMDA) (Public Law 101-629), the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Public Law 105-115), and the Medical
Device User Fee and Modernization Act (Public Law 107-250), established
a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended
for human use. Section 513 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established
three categories (classes) of devices, defined by the regulatory
controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and
effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general
controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket
approval).
Under the 1976 amendments, class II devices were defined as devices
for which there was insufficient information to show that general
controls themselves would provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, but for which there was sufficient information to
establish performance standards to provide such assurance. SMDA
broadened the definition of class II devices to mean those devices for
which the general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide
reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but for which there
is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide such
assurance, including performance standards, postmarket surveillance,
patient registries, development and dissemination of guidelines,
recommendations, and any other appropriate actions the agency deems
necessary (section 513(a)(1)(B) of the act).
Under section 513 of the act, FDA refers to devices that were in
commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of
the 1976 amendments), as preamendments devices. FDA classifies these
devices after it takes the following steps: (1) Receives a
recommendation from a device classification panel (an FDA advisory
committee); (2) publishes the panel's recommendation for comment, along
with a proposed regulation classifying the device; and (3) publishes a
final regulation classifying the device. FDA has classified most
preamendments devices under these procedures. A person may market a
preamendments device that has been classified into class III through
premarket notification procedures, without submission of a premarket
approval application (PMA), until FDA issues a final regulation under
section 515(b) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring premarket
approval.
Devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28,
1976, generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified
automatically by statute (section 513(f) of the act) into class III
without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III
and require premarket approval unless and until FDA does the following:
(1) Reclassifies the device into class I or II; (2) issues an order
classifying the device into class I or II in accordance with section
513(f)(2) of the act, as amended by FDAMA; or (3) issues an order
finding the device to be substantially equivalent, under section 513(i)
of the act, to a legally marketed device that has been classified into
class I or class II. The agency determines whether new devices are
substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device by means of
premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the act (21
U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807.
Section 513(e) of the act governs reclassification of classified
devices. This section provides that FDA may, by rulemaking, reclassify
a device based upon ``new information.'' FDA can initiate a
reclassification under section 513(e) of the act or an interested
person may petition FDA to reclassify a preamendments device. The term
``new information,'' as used in section 513(e) of the act, includes
information developed as a result of a reevaluation of the data before
the agency when the device was originally classified, as well as
information not presented, not available, or not developed at that time
(see, e.g., Holland Rantos v. United States Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 587 F.2d 1173, 1174 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1978);
Upjohn v. Finch, 422 F.2d 944 (6th Cir. 1970);Bell v. Goddard, 366 F.2d
177 (7th Cir. 1966)).
Reevaluation of the data previously before the agency is an
appropriate basis for subsequent regulatory action where the
reevaluation is made in light of newly available regulatory authority
(see Bell v. Goddard, supra, 366 F.2d at 181; Ethicon, Inc. v.FDA, 762
F.Supp. 382, 389-91 (D.D.C. 1991)), or in light of changes in ``medical
science'' (see Upjohn v. Finch, supra, 422 F.2d at 951). Whether data
before the agency are past or new, the ``new information'' to support
reclassification under section 513(e) of the act must be ``valid
scientific evidence,'' as defined in section 513(a)(3) of the act and
21 CFR
[[Page 15829]]
860.7(c)(2) (see, e.g., General Medical Co. v. FDA, 770 F.2d 214 (D.C.
Cir. 1985); Contact Lens Assoc. v. FDA, 766 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir.), cert.
denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1985)).
FDA relies upon valid scientific evidence in the classification
process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be
considered in the reclassification process, the valid scientific
evidence upon which the agency relies must be publicly available.
Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or
confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending
PMA (see section 520(c) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)).
FDAMA added section 510(m) to the act that provides that a class II
device may be exempted from the premarket notification requirements
under section 510(k) of the act if the agency determines that premarket
notification is not necessary to assure the safety and effectiveness of
the device.
B. Regulatory History of the Device
In the Federal Register of January 9, 2006 (71 FR 1399), FDA
published a proposed rule to reclassify HSV 1 and 2 serological assays
into class II. These assays are used as an aid in the clinical
laboratory diagnosis of diseases caused by HSV 1 and 2. FDA identified
the draft guidance document entitled ``Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document: Herpes Simplex Virus Types 1 and 2 Serological
Assays'' as the special control. Interested persons were invited to
comment on the proposed rule by April 10, 2006 (the draft guidance was
announced in the Federal Register of January 9, 2006 (71 FR 1432). A
proposed rule correcting the reference section of the January 9, 2006,
proposed rule was published on March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12653). FDA
received no comments on the proposed reclassification.
II. FDA's Conclusions
Based on the information discussed in the preamble to the proposed
rule (71 FR 1399), FDA concludes that special controls, in conjunction
with general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of these devices. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FDA is announcing the availability of the special controls
guidance document. Following the effective date of this final
classification rule, any firm submitting a 510(k) premarket
notification for a HSV 1 and 2 serological assay will need to address
the issues covered in the special control guidance. However, the firm
need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the
guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurances of safety
and effectiveness.
FDA is now codifying the classification and the special control
guidance document for HSV 1 and 2 serological assays by amending Sec.
866.3305 (21 CFR 866.3305). As stated in the proposed rule, FDA
considered HSV 1 and 2 serological assays in accordance with section
510(m) of the act and determined that the device does need premarket
notification to assure the safety and effectiveness of HSV 1 and 2
serological assays.
As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (71 FR 1399), HSV
serological assays of types other than type 1 and 2 will remain in
class III. HSV nucleic acid amplification assays are not within the
device type classified in Sec. 866.3305.
III. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) 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.
IV. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Public Law 96-354) (as
amended by subtitle D of the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-121), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4)). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies 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). The agency believes that this final rule is consistent with
the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in the Executive
order. In addition, the final rule is not a significant regulatory
action as defined by the Executive order and so is not subject to
review under the Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Reclassification of HSV 1 and 2 serological assays
from class III to class II will relieve manufacturers of the cost of
complying with the premarket approval requirements in section 515 of
the act. Furthermore, the special controls guidance document does not
impose any new burdens on manufacturers; it advises manufacturers about
ways to comply with the special controls that allow the agency to down
classify these devices. By eliminating the need for premarket approval
applications, reclassification will reduce regulatory costs with
respect to these devices, impose no significant economic impact on any
small entities, and may permit small potential competitors to enter the
marketplace by lowering their costs. The agency therefore certifies
that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies 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 $122 million, using the most current (2005) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.
V. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the 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, the agency has concluded
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. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
FDA concludes that this final rule contains no new collections of
information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866
Medical devices.
0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
[[Page 15830]]
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is amended as follows:
PART 866--IMMUNOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES
0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 866 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
0
2. Section 866.3305 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 866.3305 Herpes simplex virus serological assays.
(a) Identification. Herpes simplex virus serological assays are
devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in various
serological tests to identify antibodies to herpes simplex virus in
serum. Additionally, some of the assays consist of herpes simplex virus
antisera conjugated with a fluorescent dye (immunofluorescent assays)
used to identify herpes simplex virus directly from clinical specimens
or tissue culture isolates derived from clinical specimens. The
identification aids in the diagnosis of diseases caused by herpes
simplex viruses and provides epidemiological information on these
diseases. Herpes simplex viral infections range from common and mild
lesions of the skin and mucous membranes to a severe form of
encephalitis (inflammation of the brain). Neonatal herpes virus
infections range from a mild infection to a severe generalized disease
with a fatal outcome.
(b) Classification. (1) Class II (special controls). The device is
classified as class II (special controls) if the herpes simplex virus
serological assay is type 1 and/or 2. The special control for the
device is FDA's guidance document entitled ``Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document: Herpes Simplex Virus Types 1 and 2 Serological
Assays.'' For availability of the guidance document, see Sec.
866.1(e).
(2) Class III (premarket approval). The device is classified as
class III if the herpes simplex virus serological assay is a type other
than type 1 and/or 2.
(c) Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required. No
effective date has been established for the requirement for premarket
approval for the devices described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
See Sec. 866.3.
Dated: March 23, 2007.
Linda S. Kahan,
Deputy Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. E7-6167 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S