Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of Plasmodium Species Antigen Detection Assays, 29052-29054 [E8-11263]
Download as PDF
29052
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–11254 Filed 5–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. FDA–2008–N–0231]
Medical Devices; Immunology and
Microbiology Devices; Classification of
Plasmodium Species Antigen
Detection Assays
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is classifying
Plasmodium species antigen detection
assays into class II (special controls).
The special control that will apply to
the device is the guidance document
entitled ‘‘Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document: Plasmodium
Species Antigen Detection Assays.’’ The
agency is classifying the device into
class II (special controls) in order to
provide a reasonable assurance of safety
and effectiveness of the device.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FDA is announcing the
availability of the guidance document
that will serve as the special control for
this device.
DATES: This rule is effective June 19,
2008. The classification was effective
June 13, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Freddie M. Poole, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (HFZ–440),
Food and Drug Administration, 2098
Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240–
276–0712.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
I. What Is the Background of This
Rulemaking?
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)),
devices that were not in commercial
distribution before May 28, 1976, the
date of enactment of the Medical Device
Amendments of 1976 (the amendments),
generally referred to as postamendments
devices, are classified automatically by
statute into class III without any FDA
rulemaking process. These devices
remain in class III and require
premarket approval, unless and until
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 May 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
the device is classified or reclassified
into class I or II, or FDA issues an order
finding the device to be substantially
equivalent, in accordance with section
513(i) of the act, to a predicate device
that does not require premarket
approval. The agency determines
whether new devices are substantially
equivalent to predicate devices by
means of premarket notification
procedures in section 510(k) of the act
(21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807
of FDA’s regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides
that any person who submits a
premarket notification under section
510(k) of the act for a device that has not
previously been classified may, within
30 days after receiving an order
classifying the device in class III under
section 513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA
to classify the device under the criteria
set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act.
FDA shall, within 60 days of receiving
such a request, classify the device by
written order. This classification shall
be the initial classification of the device.
Within 30 days after the issuance of an
order classifying the device, FDA must
publish a notice in the Federal Register
announcing this classification (section
513(f)(2) of the act).
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of
the act, FDA issued an order on
February 22, 2007, classifying the Binax
NOW Malaria Test in class III, because
it was not substantially equivalent to a
device that was introduced or delivered
for introduction into interstate
commerce for commercial distribution
before May 28, 1976, or a device which
was subsequently reclassified into class
I or class II. On March 22, 2007, Binax,
Inc., submitted a petition requesting
classification of the Binax NOW
Malaria Test under section 513(f)(2) of
the act. The manufacturer recommended
that the device be classified into class II
(Ref. 1).
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of
the act, FDA reviewed the petition in
order to classify the device under the
criteria for classification set forth in
section 513(a)(1) of the act. Devices are
to be classified into class II if general
controls, by themselves, are insufficient
to provide reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness, but there is
sufficient information to establish
special controls to provide reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness
of the device for its intended use. After
review of the information submitted in
the petition, FDA determined that the
Binax NOW Malaria Test can be
classified in class II with the
establishment of special controls. FDA
believes these special controls, in
addition to general controls, will
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
provide reasonable assurance of safety
and effectiveness of the device.
The device is assigned the generic
name ‘‘Plasmodium species antigen
detection assays.’’ It is identified as a
device that employs antibodies for the
detection of specific malaria parasite
antigens, including histidine-rich
protein-2 (HRP2) specific antigens, and
pan malarial antigens in human whole
blood. These devices are used for testing
specimens from individuals who have
signs and symptoms consistent with
malaria infection. The detection of these
antigens aids in the clinical laboratory
diagnosis of malaria caused by the four
malaria species capable of infecting
humans: Plasmodium falciparum,
Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium ovale,
and Plasmodium malariae, and aids in
the differential diagnosis of P.
falciparum infections from other less
virulent Plasmodium species. The
device is intended for use in
conjunction with other clinical
laboratory findings.
FDA has identified the following risks
to health associated with the device.
Failure of the test to perform as
indicated may lead to improper patient
management and/or inappropriate
public health responses. For example,
false negative results may lead to delays
in providing, or even failure to provide,
definitive diagnosis and appropriate
treatment. A false positive test result
may subject individuals to unnecessary
and/or inappropriate treatment for
malaria, and failure to appropriately
diagnose and treat the actual disease
condition. The unnecessary use of
alternative drugs, such as quinine,
mefloquine and artemisinin, typically
used in high resistance areas outside the
United States, is problematic because
these drugs are less safe than the first
and second line treatments.
In addition, malaria is a significant
public health issue and is a reportable
disease to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Local and state
health departments are required to
conduct case investigations upon
receiving a report of a malaria infection.
A false positive test result could place
an undue burden on local and state
health department resources and could
also lead to unnecessary public health
actions (e.g., unnecessary or
inappropriate treatment and
management of others in the
community). On the other hand, a false
negative result could lead to a delay in
recognition of increased transmission of
the parasitic infection.
An error in interpretation of results
could also pose a risk, especially
decisions about treatment without
confirmation of negative results by
E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM
20MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
microscopy, which is more sensitive
than antigen detection assays for
detecting malaria parasites in blood.
TABLE 1.—RISKS TO HEALTH AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measures
Failure of the assay
to perform properly, i.e., false
negative or false
positive results
which can lead to
improper patient
management and/
or inappropriate
public health responses
Section 6. of the
guidance—Performance Characteristics
Section 7. of the
guidance—Labeling
Failure to properly
interpret test results
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Identified Risks
Section 6. of the
guidance—Performance Characteristics
Section 7. of the
guidance—Labeling
FDA believes the class II special
controls guidance document generally
addresses the risks to health identified
in the previous paragraphs. FDA
believes the class II special controls
guidance document will aid in
mitigating potential risks by providing
recommendations on labeling and
validation of performance
characteristics. The guidance document
also provides information on how to
meet 510(k) premarket notification
submission requirements for the device.
FDA believes that the special controls,
in addition to general controls, address
the risks to health identified previously
and provide reasonable assurances of
the safety and effectiveness of the
device type. Therefore, on June 13,
2007, FDA issued an order to the
petitioner classifying the device into
class II (Ref. 2). FDA is codifying this
classification by adding 21 CFR
866.3402.
Following the effective date of this
final classification rule, any firm
submitting a premarket notification
submission for a Plasmodium species
antigen detection assay will need to
address the issues covered in the special
controls guidance. However, the firm
need only show that its device meets the
recommendations of the guidance, or in
some other way provides equivalent
assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Section 510(m) of the act provides
that FDA may exempt a class II device
from the premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k) of the
act if FDA determines that premarket
notification is not necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:52 May 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
effectiveness of the device. For this type
of device, however, FDA has
determined that premarket notification
is necessary to provide a reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness
of the device and, therefore, this type of
device is not exempt from premarket
notification requirements. Persons who
intend to market this type of device
must submit to FDA a premarket
notification, prior to marketing the
device, which contains information
about the Plasmodium species antigen
detection assays they intend to market.
II. What Is the Environmental Impact of
This Rule?
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.
III. What Is the Economic Impact of
This Rule?
FDA has examined the impacts of the
final rule under Executive Order 12866
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601–612), 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 not a
significant regulatory action as defined
by 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. Because classification of this
device into class II will relieve
manufacturers of the cost of complying
with the premarket approval
requirements of section 515 of the act
(21 U.S.C. 360e), and may permit small
potential competitors to enter the
marketplace by lowering their costs, the
agency certifies that the 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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
29053
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 $127
million, using the most current (2006)
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.
IV. Does This Final Rule Have
Federalism Implications?
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.
V. How Does This Rule Comply With
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995?
This final rule contains no new
information collection provisions.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is
not required.
VI. What References Are on Display?
The following references have been
placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,
and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
1. Petition from Binax, Inc., dated March
22, 2007.
2. Order classifying Binax NOW Malaria
Test, dated June 13, 2007.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866
Biologics, Laboratories, Medical
devices.
I Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 866 is
amended as follows:
PART 866—IMMUNOLOGY AND
MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 866 continues to read as follows:
I
E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM
20MYR1
29054
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 20, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 371.
2. Section 866.3402 is added to
subpart D to read as follows:
I
§ 866.3402 Plasmodium species antigen
detection assays.
(a) Identification. A Plasmodium
species antigen detection assay is a
device that employs antibodies for the
detection of specific malaria parasite
antigens, including histidine-rich
protein-2 (HRP2) specific antigens, and
pan malarial antigens in human whole
blood. These devices are used for testing
specimens from individuals who have
signs and symptoms consistent with
malaria infection. The detection of these
antigens aids in the clinical laboratory
diagnosis of malaria caused by the four
malaria species capable of infecting
humans: Plasmodium falciparum,
Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium ovale,
and Plasmodium malariae, and aids in
the differential diagnosis of Plasmodium
falciparum infections from other less
virulent Plasmodium species. The
device is intended for use in
conjunction with other clinical
laboratory findings.
(b) Classification. Class II (special
controls). The special control is FDA’s
guidance document entitled ‘‘Class II
Special Controls Guidance Document:
Plasmodium species Antigen Detection
Assays.’’ See § 866.1(e) for the
availability of this guidance document.
Dated: April 30, 3008.
Daniel G. Schultz,
Director, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health.
[FR Doc. E8–11263 Filed 5–19–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 9399]
RIN 1545–BE93
Guidance Under Section 7874 for
Determining the Ownership
Percentage in the Case of Expanded
Affiliated Groups
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulation.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document contains final
regulations under section 7874 of the
Internal Revenue Code (Code) relating to
the disregard of certain affiliate-owned
stock in determining whether a
corporation is a surrogate foreign
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:52 May 19, 2008
Jkt 214001
corporation under section 7874(a)(2)(B)
of the Code.
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations
are effective on May 20, 2008.
Applicability Date: For the date of
applicability, see § 1.7874–1(g).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Milton Cahn, 202–622–3860 (not a tollfree number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 7874 provides rules for
expatriated entities and their surrogate
foreign corporations. An expatriated
entity is defined in section 7874(a)(2)(A)
as a domestic corporation or partnership
with respect to which a foreign
corporation is a surrogate foreign
corporation, and any U.S. person related
(within the meaning of section 267(b) or
section 707(b)(1)) to such domestic
corporation or partnership. Generally, a
foreign corporation is a surrogate foreign
corporation under section 7874(a)(2)(B)
if, pursuant to a plan or a series of
related transactions, certain conditions
are met. One such condition depends on
the percentage of owner continuity in
the foreign corporation after the
acquisition. This condition is satisfied
if, after the acquisition, at least 60
percent of the stock (by vote or value)
of the foreign corporation is held (in the
case of an acquisition with respect to a
domestic corporation) by former
shareholders of the domestic
corporation by reason of holding stock
in the domestic corporation, or (in the
case of an acquisition with respect to a
domestic partnership) by former
partners of the domestic partnership by
reason of holding a capital or profits
interest in the domestic partnership. See
section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii).
The treatment of expatriated entities
and surrogate foreign corporations
varies depending on this percentage
(ownership fraction). If the ownership
fraction is 80 percent or more, the
surrogate foreign corporation is treated
as a domestic corporation for all
purposes of the Code. If the ownership
fraction is 60 percent or more (but less
than 80 percent), the surrogate foreign
corporation is treated as a foreign
corporation, but certain income or gain
recognized by the expatriated entity
generally cannot be offset by net
operating losses or credits from the first
date properties are acquired pursuant to
the plan through the end of the 10-year
period following the completion of the
acquisition.
Section 7874(c)(2)(A) provides that
stock held by members of the
‘‘expanded affiliated group’’ which
includes the foreign corporation is not
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
taken into account for purposes of the
ownership fraction (affiliate-owned
stock rule). Section 7874(c)(1) defines
the term expanded affiliated group
(EAG) as an affiliated group defined in
section 1504(a), but without regard to
the exclusion of foreign corporations in
section 1504(b)(3) and with a reduction
of the 80 percent ownership threshold
of section 1504(a) to a more-than-50
percent threshold.
Section 7874(g) provides that ‘‘[t]he
Secretary shall provide such regulations
as are necessary to carry out this
section, including regulations providing
for such adjustments to the application
of this section as are necessary to
prevent the avoidance of the purposes of
this section, including the avoidance of
such purposes through * * *. the use of
related persons, pass-through or other
noncorporate entities, or other
intermediaries * * *.’’ Section
7874(c)(6) provides that ‘‘[t]he Secretary
shall prescribe such regulations as may
be appropriate to determine whether a
corporation is a surrogate foreign
corporation, including regulations
* * * to treat stock as not stock.’’
On December 28, 2005, a temporary
regulation (TD 9238) was published in
the Federal Register (70 FR 76685) that
related to the disregard of affiliateowned stock under section
7874(c)(2)(A). A notice of proposed
rulemaking (REG–143244–05) crossreferencing the temporary regulation
was published in the Federal Register
for the same day (70 FR 76732). No
public hearing was requested or held.
Written and electronic comments
responding to the notice of proposed
rulemaking were received. After
consideration of all the comments, the
proposed regulation is adopted, as
amended by this Treasury decision, as
final, and the corresponding temporary
regulation is removed. The revisions are
discussed below.
Summary of Comments and Revisions
A. Temporary and Proposed Regulations
Treasury regulation § 1.7874–1T
provides guidance under the affiliatedowned stock rule. Generally, § 1.7874–
1T provides that stock owned by
members of an EAG is excluded from
both the numerator and denominator of
the ownership fraction. However,
affiliate-owned stock is excluded from
the numerator of the ownership fraction,
but is included in the denominator of
the ownership fraction, in two
instances: (1) Certain transactions
occurring as part of an internal group
restructuring involving a domestic
entity; and (2) certain acquisitive
business transactions between unrelated
E:\FR\FM\20MYR1.SGM
20MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 20, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29052-29054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11263]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0231]
Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices;
Classification of Plasmodium Species Antigen Detection Assays
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying
Plasmodium species antigen detection assays into class II (special
controls). The special control that will apply to the device is the
guidance document entitled ``Class II Special Controls Guidance
Document: Plasmodium Species Antigen Detection Assays.'' The agency is
classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to
provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the
device. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is
announcing the availability of the guidance document that will serve as
the special control for this device.
DATES: This rule is effective June 19, 2008. The classification was
effective June 13, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Freddie M. Poole, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (HFZ-440), Food and Drug Administration, 2098
Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-0712.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What Is the Background of This Rulemaking?
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in
commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, the date of enactment of
the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the amendments), generally
referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by
statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These
devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and
until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or
FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent,
in accordance with section 513(i) of the act, to a predicate device
that does not require premarket approval. The agency determines whether
new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means
of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the act (21
U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807 of FDA's regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides that any person who submits a
premarket notification under section 510(k) of the act for a device
that has not previously been classified may, within 30 days after
receiving an order classifying the device in class III under section
513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA to classify the device under the
criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. FDA shall, within
60 days of receiving such a request, classify the device by written
order. This classification shall be the initial classification of the
device. Within 30 days after the issuance of an order classifying the
device, FDA must publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing
this classification (section 513(f)(2) of the act).
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the act, FDA issued an
order on February 22, 2007, classifying the Binax NOW[supreg] Malaria
Test in class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a
device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into
interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or
a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II.
On March 22, 2007, Binax, Inc., submitted a petition requesting
classification of the Binax NOW[supreg] Malaria Test under section
513(f)(2) of the act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be
classified into class II (Ref. 1).
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA reviewed the
petition in order to classify the device under the criteria for
classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. Devices are
to be classified into class II if general controls, by themselves, are
insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special
controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the
information submitted in the petition, FDA determined that the Binax
NOW[supreg] Malaria Test can be classified in class II with the
establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls,
in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of the device.
The device is assigned the generic name ``Plasmodium species
antigen detection assays.'' It is identified as a device that employs
antibodies for the detection of specific malaria parasite antigens,
including histidine-rich protein-2 (HRP2) specific antigens, and pan
malarial antigens in human whole blood. These devices are used for
testing specimens from individuals who have signs and symptoms
consistent with malaria infection. The detection of these antigens aids
in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of malaria caused by the four
malaria species capable of infecting humans: Plasmodium falciparum,
Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium ovale, and Plasmodium malariae, and aids
in the differential diagnosis of P. falciparum infections from other
less virulent Plasmodium species. The device is intended for use in
conjunction with other clinical laboratory findings.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with
the device. Failure of the test to perform as indicated may lead to
improper patient management and/or inappropriate public health
responses. For example, false negative results may lead to delays in
providing, or even failure to provide, definitive diagnosis and
appropriate treatment. A false positive test result may subject
individuals to unnecessary and/or inappropriate treatment for malaria,
and failure to appropriately diagnose and treat the actual disease
condition. The unnecessary use of alternative drugs, such as quinine,
mefloquine and artemisinin, typically used in high resistance areas
outside the United States, is problematic because these drugs are less
safe than the first and second line treatments.
In addition, malaria is a significant public health issue and is a
reportable disease to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Local and state health departments are required to conduct case
investigations upon receiving a report of a malaria infection. A false
positive test result could place an undue burden on local and state
health department resources and could also lead to unnecessary public
health actions (e.g., unnecessary or inappropriate treatment and
management of others in the community). On the other hand, a false
negative result could lead to a delay in recognition of increased
transmission of the parasitic infection.
An error in interpretation of results could also pose a risk,
especially decisions about treatment without confirmation of negative
results by
[[Page 29053]]
microscopy, which is more sensitive than antigen detection assays for
detecting malaria parasites in blood.
Table 1.--Risks to Health and Mitigation Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identified Risks Mitigation Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure of the assay to perform Section 6. of the guidance--
properly, i.e., false negative or Performance Characteristics
false positive results which can Section 7. of the guidance--
lead to improper patient Labeling
management and/or inappropriate
public health responses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to properly interpret test Section 6. of the guidance--
results Performance Characteristics
Section 7. of the guidance--
Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA believes the class II special controls guidance document
generally addresses the risks to health identified in the previous
paragraphs. FDA believes the class II special controls guidance
document will aid in mitigating potential risks by providing
recommendations on labeling and validation of performance
characteristics. The guidance document also provides information on how
to meet 510(k) premarket notification submission requirements for the
device. FDA believes that the special controls, in addition to general
controls, address the risks to health identified previously and provide
reasonable assurances of the safety and effectiveness of the device
type. Therefore, on June 13, 2007, FDA issued an order to the
petitioner classifying the device into class II (Ref. 2). FDA is
codifying this classification by adding 21 CFR 866.3402.
Following the effective date of this final classification rule, any
firm submitting a premarket notification submission for a Plasmodium
species antigen detection assay will need to address the issues covered
in the special controls guidance. However, the firm need only show that
its device meets the recommendations of the guidance, or in some other
way provides equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Section 510(m) of the act provides that FDA may exempt a class II
device from the premarket notification requirements under section
510(k) of the act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not
necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, however, FDA has
determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide a
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device and,
therefore, this type of device is not exempt from premarket
notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of
device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing
the device, which contains information about the Plasmodium species
antigen detection assays they intend to market.
II. What Is the Environmental Impact of This Rule?
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.
III. What Is the Economic Impact of This Rule?
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), 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 not a significant regulatory action as defined by
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. Because classification of this device into class II
will relieve manufacturers of the cost of complying with the premarket
approval requirements of section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e), and
may permit small potential competitors to enter the marketplace by
lowering their costs, the agency certifies that the 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 $127 million, using the most current (2006) 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.
IV. Does This Final Rule Have Federalism Implications?
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.
V. How Does This Rule Comply With the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995?
This final rule contains no new information collection provisions.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
VI. What References Are on Display?
The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Petition from Binax, Inc., dated March 22, 2007.
2. Order classifying Binax NOW[reg] Malaria Test, dated June 13,
2007.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866
Biologics, Laboratories, Medical devices.
0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner 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:
[[Page 29054]]
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
0
2. Section 866.3402 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 866.3402 Plasmodium species antigen detection assays.
(a) Identification. A Plasmodium species antigen detection assay is
a device that employs antibodies for the detection of specific malaria
parasite antigens, including histidine-rich protein-2 (HRP2) specific
antigens, and pan malarial antigens in human whole blood. These devices
are used for testing specimens from individuals who have signs and
symptoms consistent with malaria infection. The detection of these
antigens aids in the clinical laboratory diagnosis of malaria caused by
the four malaria species capable of infecting humans: Plasmodium
falciparum, Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium ovale, and Plasmodium
malariae, and aids in the differential diagnosis of Plasmodium
falciparum infections from other less virulent Plasmodium species. The
device is intended for use in conjunction with other clinical
laboratory findings.
(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
control is FDA's guidance document entitled ``Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document: Plasmodium species Antigen Detection Assays.'' See
Sec. 866.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
Dated: April 30, 3008.
Daniel G. Schultz,
Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. E8-11263 Filed 5-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S