Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Herpes Simplex Virus Types 1 and 2 Serological Assays, 42773-42775 [E9-20411]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
references to specific standards under
U.S. GAAP in the Commission’s rules
and staff guidance.
It should be noted that although the
FASB has stated that the FASB
Codification supersedes existing
references in U.S. GAAP, the FASB
Codification does not supersede
Commission rules or regulations. We
understand that the FASB Codification,
as a service to users, includes references
to some Commission rules and staff
guidance. However, the FASB
Codification is not the authoritative
source for such content, nor does its
inclusion in the FASB Codification
affect how such content may be updated
in the future.
III. Codification Update
The ‘‘Codification of Financial
Reporting Policies’’ announced in
Financial Reporting Release No. 1 (April
15, 1982) [47 FR 21028] is updated by
adding at the end of Section 101, under
the Financial Reporting Number (FR–
80A) assigned to this interpretive
release, the text in Sections I and II of
this release.
The Codification is a separate
publication of the Commission. It will
not be published in the Federal
Register/Code of Federal Regulations.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 211
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.
17 CFR Parts 231 and 241
Securities.
Amendments to the Code of Federal
Regulations
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Commission is amending
title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
■
PART 211—INTERPRETATIONS
RELATING TO FINANCIAL REPORTING
MATTERS
Part 211, Subpart A, is amended by
adding Release No. FR–80A and the
release date of August 18, 2009 to the
list of interpretive releases.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
■
PART 231—INTERPRETATIVE
RELEASES RELATING TO THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER
Part 231 is amended by adding
Release No. 33–9062A and the release
date of August 18, 2009 to the list of
interpretive releases.
■
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:42 Aug 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
PART 241—INTERPRETATIVE
RELEASES RELATING TO THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND GENERAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS THEREUNDER
Part 241 is amended by adding
Release No. 34–60519A and the release
date of August 18, 2009 to the list of
interpretive releases.
■
By the Commission.
Dated: August 19, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–20381 Filed 8–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. FDA–2009–N–0344]
Microbiology Devices; Reclassification
of Herpes Simplex Virus Types 1 and
2 Serological Assays
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is implementing a
direct final rule correcting the
regulation classifying herpes simplex
virus (HSV) serological assays by
removing the reference to HSV
serological assays other than type 1 and
type 2. When reclassifying this device,
FDA mistakenly distinguished between
HSV serological assays type 1 and type
2 and all other HSV serological assays.
At that time, and today, the only
preamendments HSV serological assays
which FDA was aware of were type 1
and type 2 and, therefore, the
classification of HSV assays other than
type 1 and type 2 was incorrect. FDA is
correcting the classification of this
device to eliminate possible confusion
resulting from this error. Elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register, we are
publishing a companion proposed rule
under FDA’s usual procedure for notice
and comment to provide a procedural
framework to finalize the rule in the
event we receive significant adverse
comment and withdraw this direct final
rule.
DATES: This rule is effective December 7,
2009. Submit written or electronic
comments on the direct final rule by
October 8, 2009. If we receive no
significant adverse comments within the
specified comment period, we intend to
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42773
publish a document confirming the
effective date of the final rule in the
Federal Register within 30 days after
the comment period on this direct final
rule ends. If we receive any timely
significant adverse comment, we will
withdraw this final rule in part or in
whole by publication of a document in
the Federal Register within 30 days
after the comment period ends.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Docket No FDA–2009–N–
0344, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the
following ways:
• Fax: 301–827–6870.
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For
paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]:
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
To ensure more timely processing of
comments, FDA is no longer accepting
comments submitted to the agency by email. FDA encourages you to continue
to submit electronic comments by using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described previously, in the ADDRESSES
portion of this document under
Electronic Submissions.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
Docket No(s). and Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) (if a RIN
number has been assigned) for this
rulemaking. All comments received may
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
additional information on submitting
comments, see the ‘‘Comments’’ heading
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number(s), found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the
‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts
and/or go to the Division of Dockets
Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott McFarland, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health WO/66, rm. 5543,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring,
MD, 301–796–6217.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\25AUR1.SGM
25AUR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
42774
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
I. What Is the Background of the Rule?
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the act), 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 Modernization Act of
1997 (FDAMA) (Public Law 105–115),
and the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA)
(Public Law 110–85), among other
amendments, 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, depending on 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).
Devices that were in commercial
distribution before May 28, 1976 (the
date of enactment of the 1976
amendments), are commonly referred to
as ‘‘preamendments devices.’’ Under
section 513 of the act, FDA classifies
preamendments devices according to
the following steps: (1) FDA receives a
recommendation from a device
classification panel (an FDA advisory
committee); (2) FDA publishes the
panel’s recommendation for comment,
along with a proposed regulation
classifying the device; and (3) FDA
publishes a final regulation classifying
the device. FDA has classified most
preamendments devices under these
procedures.
Devices that were not in commercial
distribution before May 28, 1976, are
commonly referred to as
‘‘postamendments devices.’’ These
devices are classified automatically by
statute (section 513(f) of the act (21
U.S.C. 360c(f)) into class III and require
premarket approval, unless and until:
(1) FDA reclassifies the device into class
I or II; (2) FDA issues an order
classifying the device into class I or II
in accordance with section 513(f)(2) of
the act; or (3) FDA issues an order under
section 513(i) of the act (21 U.S.C.
360c(i)) finding the device to be
substantially equivalent to a predicate
device that does not require premarket
approval.
In the Federal Register of November
9, 1983 (47 FR 50823), FDA classified
the preamendments devices, herpes
simplex virus serological reagents, into
class III (§ 866.3305 (21 CFR 866.3305)).
At the time FDA classified the device,
the only preamendments HSV
serological assays FDA was aware of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:42 Aug 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
were type 1 and type 2 HSV serological
assays. Since that time, FDA has not
become aware of any other
preamendments HSV serological assays,
nor has it received a premarket
notification for a HSV serological assay
other than a type 1 or type 2 HSV
serological assay.
In the Federal Register of April 3,
2007 (72 FR 15828), FDA published a
final rule reclassifying the
preamendments device HSV serological
assays from class III to class II. In that
rulemaking FDA identified the device
being reclassified as type 1 and type 2
HSV serological assays and identified
other HSV serological assays as class III
devices. However, as stated previously,
the only preamendments HSV
serological assays of which FDA is
aware are type 1 and type 2 HSV
serological assays. To avoid any
possible confusion, FDA is correcting
the regulation to accurately describe this
generic type of device. This direct final
rule corrects the classification
regulation by removing the reference to
HSV serological assays other than type
1 and type 2.
II. What Does This Direct Final
Rulemaking Do?
In this direct final rule, FDA is
correcting § 866.3305 by removing from
the regulation the reference to HSV
serological assays other than type 1 and
type 2.
III. What Are the Procedures for Issuing
a Direct Final Rule?
In the Federal Register of November
21, 1997 (62 FR 62466), FDA announced
the availability of the guidance
document entitled ‘‘Guidance for FDA
and Industry: Direct Final Rule
Procedures’’ that described when and
how FDA will employ direct final
rulemaking. We believe that this rule is
appropriate for direct final rulemaking
because it is intended to make
noncontroversial changes to existing
regulations. We anticipate no significant
adverse comment. Consistent with
FDA’s procedures on direct final
rulemaking, we are publishing
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register a companion proposed rule
that is identical to the direct final rule.
The companion proposed rule provides
a procedural framework within which
the rule may be finalized in the event
the direct final rule is withdrawn
because of any significant adverse
comment. The comment period for this
direct final rule runs concurrently with
the comment period of the companion
proposed rule. Any comments received
in response to the companion proposed
rule will also be considered as
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
comments regarding this direct final
rule.
We are providing a comment period
on the direct final rule of 75 days after
the date of publication in the Federal
Register. If we receive any significant
adverse comment, we intend to
withdraw this final rule before its
effective date by publication of a notice
in the Federal Register within 30 days
after the comment period ends. A
significant adverse comment is defined
as a comment that explains why the rule
would be inappropriate, including
challenges to the rule’s underlying
premise or approach, or would be
ineffective or unacceptable without
change. In determining whether an
adverse comment is significant and
warrants withdrawing a direct final
rulemaking, we will consider whether
the comment raises an issue serious
enough to warrant a substantive
response in a notice-and-comment
process in accordance with section 553
of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). Comments that are
frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the
scope of the rule will not be considered
significant or adverse under this
procedure. For example, a comment
recommending an additional change to
the rule will not be considered a
significant adverse comment, unless the
comment states why the rule would be
ineffective without the additional
change. In addition, if a significant
adverse comment applies to part of a
rule and that part can be severed from
the remainder of the rule, we may adopt
as final those parts of the rule that are
not the subject of a significant adverse
comment. If we withdraw the direct
final rule, all comments received will be
considered under the companion
proposed rule in developing a final rule
under the usual notice-and-comment
procedures under the APA (5 U.S.C.
552a et seq.). If we receive no significant
adverse comment during the specified
comment period, we intend to publish
a confirmation document in the Federal
Register within 30 days after the
comment period ends.
IV. What is the Legal Authority for This
Rule?
FDA is issuing this direct final rule
under the device and general
administrative provisions of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
321, 331, 351, 352, 360i, 371, and 374).
V. What is the Environmental Impact of
This Rule?
FDA has determined under 21 CFR
25.30(i) and 25.34(b) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
E:\FR\FM\25AUR1.SGM
25AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
VI. What is the Economic Impact of
This Rule?
FDA has examined the impacts of the
direct 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 direct final rule is not
a significant regulatory action 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. Because we do not believe any
companies are currently selling or
producing these devices, 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 $133
million, using the most current (2008)
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.
VII. How Does the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 Apply to This
Rule?
This direct final rule contains no
collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management
and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520) is not required.
VIII. What are the Federalism Impacts
of This Rule?
FDA has analyzed this direct final
rule in accordance with the principles
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:42 Aug 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
IX. How Do You Submit Comments on
This Rule?
Interested persons may submit to the
Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) written or electronic
comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic
comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that
individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866
Biologics, Laboratories, and Medical
devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, it is proposed to
amend 21 CFR part 866 as follows:
■
PART 866—IMMUNOLOGY AND
MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES
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.
2. Section 866.3305 is amended by
removing paragraph (c) and by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 866.3305 Herpes simplex virus
serological assays.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Classification. Class II (special
controls). The device is classified as
class II (special controls). 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42775
Dated: August 17, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9–20411 Filed 8–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Indian Gaming Commission
25 CFR Parts 502, 514, 531, 533, 535,
537, 539, 556, 558, 571, and 573
RIN 3141–0001
Amendments to Various National
Indian Gaming Commission
Regulations
AGENCY: National Indian Gaming
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective
date.
SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming
Commission (‘‘NIGC’’) announces the
extension of the effective date on the
final rule concerning various
amendments to the National Indian
Gaming Commission regulations. The
final rule was published in the Federal
Register on July 27, 2009. The
Commission has changed the effective
date to December 31, 2009, in order to
extend the transition time.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
for the final rule published July 27,
2009, at 74 FR 36926, is delayed from
August 26, 2009, until December 31,
2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca Chapman, Staff Attorney,
Office of General Counsel, at (202) 632–
7003; fax (202) 632–7066 (not toll-free
numbers).
Congress
established the National Indian Gaming
Commission under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2701–
21) (‘‘IGRA’’) to regulate gaming on
Indian lands. The NIGC issued a final
rule updating various NIGC regulations
and streamlining procedures, which was
published in the Federal Register on
July 27, 2009 (74 FR 36926). The final
rule provided an effective date of
August 26, 2009. The NIGC is extending
the effective date to December 31, 2009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Philip N. Hogen,
Chairman.
Norman H. DesRosiers,
Vice Chairman.
[FR Doc. E9–20511 Filed 8–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25AUR1.SGM
25AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 25, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42773-42775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20411]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 866
[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0344]
Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of Herpes Simplex Virus
Types 1 and 2 Serological Assays
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is implementing a
direct final rule correcting the regulation classifying herpes simplex
virus (HSV) serological assays by removing the reference to HSV
serological assays other than type 1 and type 2. When reclassifying
this device, FDA mistakenly distinguished between HSV serological
assays type 1 and type 2 and all other HSV serological assays. At that
time, and today, the only preamendments HSV serological assays which
FDA was aware of were type 1 and type 2 and, therefore, the
classification of HSV assays other than type 1 and type 2 was
incorrect. FDA is correcting the classification of this device to
eliminate possible confusion resulting from this error. Elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register, we are publishing a companion
proposed rule under FDA's usual procedure for notice and comment to
provide a procedural framework to finalize the rule in the event we
receive significant adverse comment and withdraw this direct final
rule.
DATES: This rule is effective December 7, 2009. Submit written or
electronic comments on the direct final rule by October 8, 2009. If we
receive no significant adverse comments within the specified comment
period, we intend to publish a document confirming the effective date
of the final rule in the Federal Register within 30 days after the
comment period on this direct final rule ends. If we receive any timely
significant adverse comment, we will withdraw this final rule in part
or in whole by publication of a document in the Federal Register within
30 days after the comment period ends.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No FDA-2009-
N-0344, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
Fax: 301-827-6870.
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM
submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer
accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages
you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion
of this document under Electronic Submissions.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and Docket No(s). and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) (if a RIN
number has been assigned) for this rulemaking. All comments received
may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. For additional information on
submitting comments, see the ``Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number(s), found in brackets in the heading of this document,
into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the
Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott McFarland, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health WO/66, rm. 5543, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 301-796-6217.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 42774]]
I. What Is the Background of the Rule?
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), 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 Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Public Law
105-115), and the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007
(FDAAA) (Public Law 110-85), among other amendments, 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, depending on 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).
Devices that were in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976
(the date of enactment of the 1976 amendments), are commonly referred
to as ``preamendments devices.'' Under section 513 of the act, FDA
classifies preamendments devices according to the following steps: (1)
FDA receives a recommendation from a device classification panel (an
FDA advisory committee); (2) FDA publishes the panel's recommendation
for comment, along with a proposed regulation classifying the device;
and (3) FDA publishes a final regulation classifying the device. FDA
has classified most preamendments devices under these procedures.
Devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28,
1976, are commonly referred to as ``postamendments devices.'' These
devices are classified automatically by statute (section 513(f) of the
act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)) into class III and require premarket approval,
unless and until: (1) FDA reclassifies the device into class I or II;
(2) FDA issues an order classifying the device into class I or II in
accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the act; or (3) FDA issues an
order under section 513(i) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) finding the
device to be substantially equivalent to a predicate device that does
not require premarket approval.
In the Federal Register of November 9, 1983 (47 FR 50823), FDA
classified the preamendments devices, herpes simplex virus serological
reagents, into class III (Sec. 866.3305 (21 CFR 866.3305)). At the
time FDA classified the device, the only preamendments HSV serological
assays FDA was aware of were type 1 and type 2 HSV serological assays.
Since that time, FDA has not become aware of any other preamendments
HSV serological assays, nor has it received a premarket notification
for a HSV serological assay other than a type 1 or type 2 HSV
serological assay.
In the Federal Register of April 3, 2007 (72 FR 15828), FDA
published a final rule reclassifying the preamendments device HSV
serological assays from class III to class II. In that rulemaking FDA
identified the device being reclassified as type 1 and type 2 HSV
serological assays and identified other HSV serological assays as class
III devices. However, as stated previously, the only preamendments HSV
serological assays of which FDA is aware are type 1 and type 2 HSV
serological assays. To avoid any possible confusion, FDA is correcting
the regulation to accurately describe this generic type of device. This
direct final rule corrects the classification regulation by removing
the reference to HSV serological assays other than type 1 and type 2.
II. What Does This Direct Final Rulemaking Do?
In this direct final rule, FDA is correcting Sec. 866.3305 by
removing from the regulation the reference to HSV serological assays
other than type 1 and type 2.
III. What Are the Procedures for Issuing a Direct Final Rule?
In the Federal Register of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466), FDA
announced the availability of the guidance document entitled ``Guidance
for FDA and Industry: Direct Final Rule Procedures'' that described
when and how FDA will employ direct final rulemaking. We believe that
this rule is appropriate for direct final rulemaking because it is
intended to make noncontroversial changes to existing regulations. We
anticipate no significant adverse comment. Consistent with FDA's
procedures on direct final rulemaking, we are publishing elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register a companion proposed rule that is
identical to the direct final rule. The companion proposed rule
provides a procedural framework within which the rule may be finalized
in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn because of any
significant adverse comment. The comment period for this direct final
rule runs concurrently with the comment period of the companion
proposed rule. Any comments received in response to the companion
proposed rule will also be considered as comments regarding this direct
final rule.
We are providing a comment period on the direct final rule of 75
days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. If we
receive any significant adverse comment, we intend to withdraw this
final rule before its effective date by publication of a notice in the
Federal Register within 30 days after the comment period ends. A
significant adverse comment is defined as a comment that explains why
the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's
underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable
without change. In determining whether an adverse comment is
significant and warrants withdrawing a direct final rulemaking, we will
consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant
a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process in accordance
with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553). Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope
of the rule will not be considered significant or adverse under this
procedure. For example, a comment recommending an additional change to
the rule will not be considered a significant adverse comment, unless
the comment states why the rule would be ineffective without the
additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment
applies to part of a rule and that part can be severed from the
remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those parts of the rule
that are not the subject of a significant adverse comment. If we
withdraw the direct final rule, all comments received will be
considered under the companion proposed rule in developing a final rule
under the usual notice-and-comment procedures under the APA (5 U.S.C.
552a et seq.). If we receive no significant adverse comment during the
specified comment period, we intend to publish a confirmation document
in the Federal Register within 30 days after the comment period ends.
IV. What is the Legal Authority for This Rule?
FDA is issuing this direct final rule under the device and general
administrative provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 360i, 371, and 374).
V. What is the Environmental Impact of This Rule?
FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(i) and 25.34(b) that this
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on
[[Page 42775]]
the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement is required.
VI. What is the Economic Impact of This Rule?
FDA has examined the impacts of the direct 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 direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action 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. Because we do not believe any companies are
currently selling or producing these devices, 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 $133 million, using the most current (2008) 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.
VII. How Does the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Apply to This Rule?
This direct final rule contains no collection of information.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required.
VIII. What are the Federalism Impacts of This Rule?
FDA has analyzed this direct 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.
IX. How Do You Submit Comments on This Rule?
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 866
Biologics, Laboratories, and Medical devices.
0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is
proposed to amend 21 CFR part 866 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 amended by removing paragraph (c) and by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 866.3305 Herpes simplex virus serological assays.
* * * * *
(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The device is
classified as class II (special controls). 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).
Dated: August 17, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-20411 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S