Medical Devices; Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Classification of the Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System, 10330-10333 [2015-03934]
Download as PDF
10330
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
databases. As such, these special
conditions address these vulnerabilities.
The digital systems architecture for
the Boeing Model 767–2C series
airplanes is composed of several
connected networks. This network
architecture is used for a diverse set of
functions providing data connectivity
between systems, including:
1. Airplane control, communication,
display, monitoring and navigation
systems,
2. operator business and
administrative support systems,
3. passenger entertainment systems,
and
4. access by systems external to the
airplane.
The Model 767–2C series airplane
electronic-system network architecture
allows connection to airplane electronic
systems and networks, and access from
airplane external sources (e.g., operator
networks, wireless devices, Internet
connectivity, service-provider satellite
communications, electronic flight bags,
etc.) to the previously isolated airplane
electronic assets.
This design may result in networksecurity vulnerabilities from intentional
or unintentional corruption of data and
systems required for the safety,
operations, and maintenance of the
airplane. The existing regulations and
guidance material did not anticipate this
type of system architecture, or external
wired and wireless electronic access to
airplane electronic systems.
Furthermore, regulations, and current
system safety-assessment policy and
techniques, do not address potential
security vulnerabilities, which could be
caused by unauthorized access to
airplane electronic systems and
networks.
Special conditions have been applied
on past airplane programs to require
consideration of related security
vulnerabilities. These special conditions
are similar to those previously applied,
except that the scope has been adjusted
to be consistent with those features
unique to the Model 767–2C series
airplane.
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Applicability
As discussed above, these special
conditions apply to Boeing Model 767–
2C series airplanes. Should Boeing
apply later for a change to the type
certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual
design feature, the special conditions
would apply to that model as well.
Conclusion
This action affects only certain novel
or unusual design features on one model
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Feb 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
series of airplane. It is not a rule of
general applicability.
The substance of these special
conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several
prior instances, and has been derived
without substantive change from those
previously issued. It is unlikely that
prior public comment would result in a
significant change from the substance
contained herein. Therefore, because a
delay would significantly affect the
certification of the airplane, the FAA
has determined that prior public notice
and comment are unnecessary and
impracticable, and good cause exists for
adopting these special conditions upon
publication in the Federal Register.
The FAA is requesting comments to
allow interested persons to submit
views that may not have been submitted
in response to the prior opportunities
for comment described above.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these
special conditions is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,
44702, 44704.
The Special Conditions
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special
conditions are issued as part of the typecertification basis for Boeing Model
767–2C series airplanes.
1. The applicant must ensure airplane
electronic-system security protection
from access by unauthorized sources
external to the airplane, including those
possibly caused by maintenance
activity.
2. The applicant must ensure that
electronic-system security threats are
identified and assessed, and that
effective electronic-system security
protection strategies are implemented to
protect the airplane from all adverse
impacts on safety, functionality, and
continued airworthiness.
3. The applicant must establish
appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued
airworthiness of the airplane is
maintained, including all post typecertification modifications that may
have an impact on the approved
electronic-system security safeguards.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
19, 2015.
John J. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–03970 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 884
[Docket No. FDA–2014–M–1957]
Medical Devices; Obstetrical and
Gynecological Devices; Classification
of the Assisted Reproduction Embryo
Image Assessment System
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final order.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is classifying the
Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image
Assessment System into class II (special
controls). The special controls that will
apply to the device are identified in this
order, and will be part of the codified
language for the Assisted Reproduction
Embryo Image Assessment System
classification. 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.
DATES: This order is effective February
26, 2015. The classification was
applicable June 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Bailey, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G120, Silver Spring,
MD 20993–0002, 301–796–6530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C 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),
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), 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 FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part
807) of the regulations.
E:\FR\FM\26FER1.SGM
26FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as
amended by section 607 of the Food and
Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112–144),
provides two procedures by which a
person may request FDA to classify a
device under the criteria set forth in
section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
Under the first procedure, the person
submits a premarket notification under
section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a
device that has not previously been
classified and, within 30 days of
receiving an order classifying the device
into class III under section 513(f)(1), the
person requests a classification under
section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Under
the second procedure, rather than first
submitting a premarket notification
under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act
and then a request for classification
under the first procedure, the person
determines that there is no legally
marketed device upon which to base a
determination of substantial
equivalence and requests a classification
under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
If the person submits a request to
classify the device under this second
procedure, FDA may decline to
undertake the classification request if
FDA identifies a legally marketed device
that could provide a reasonable basis for
review of substantial equivalence with
the device, or if FDA determines that
the device submitted is not of ‘‘lowmoderate risk’’, or that general controls
would be inadequate to control the risks
and special controls to mitigate the risks
cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a
device under either procedure provided
by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act,
FDA will classify the device by written
order within 120 days. This
classification will be the initial
classification of the device.
On August 3, 2012, FDA issued an
order classifying the EEVA System into
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
August 23, 2012, Auxogyn, Inc.,
submitted a de novo request for
classification of the EEVA System under
section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The
manufacturer recommended that the
device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of
the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the
request in order to classify the device
under the criteria for classification set
forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C
Act. FDA classifies devices 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
10331
information submitted in the request,
FDA determined that the device can be
classified into class II with the
establishment of special controls. FDA
believes these special controls, in
addition to general controls, will
provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on June 6, 2014, FDA
issued an order to the requestor
classifying the device into class II. FDA
is codifying the classification of the
device by adding § 884.6195 (21 CFR
884.6195).
Following the effective date of this
final classification administrative order,
any firm submitting a premarket
notification (510(k)) for an Assisted
Reproduction Embryo Image
Assessment System will need to comply
with the special controls named in the
final administrative order.
The device is assigned the generic
name Assisted Reproduction Embryo
Image Assessment System, and it is
identified as a prescription device that
is designed to obtain and analyze light
microscopy images of developing
embryos. This device provides
information to aid in the selection of
embryo(s) for transfer when there are
multiple embryos deemed suitable for
transfer or freezing.
FDA has identified the following risks
to health associated with this type of
device and the measures required to
mitigate these risks in Table 1:
TABLE 1—ASSISTED REPRODUCTION EMBRYO IMAGE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Identified risk
Mitigation measures
Damage or Destruction of the Embryo ....................................................
Infection (Contamination of Device, Labware, and Incubator) .................
Incorrect Embryo Development Prediction ...............................................
Electromagnetic Interference/Electrical Safety Issues .............................
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Use Error ..................................................................................................
FDA believes that the following
special controls, in addition to the
general controls, address these risks to
health and provide reasonable assurance
of safety and effectiveness:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Feb 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
Non-Clinical Performance Testing.
Software Verification, Validation & Hazard Analysis.
Clinical Testing.
Electromagnetic Compatibility Testing.
Electrical Safety Testing.
Labeling.
Training.
Cleaning and Disinfection Validation.
Labeling.
Training.
Non-Clinical Performance Testing.
Software Verification, Validation & Hazard Analysis.
Clinical Testing.
Labeling.
Training.
Electromagnetic Compatibility Testing.
Electrical Safety Testing.
Labeling.
Labeling.
Training.
• Clinical performance testing must
demonstrate a reasonable assurance of
the safety and effectiveness of the
device to predict embryo
development. Classification
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
performance (sensitivity and
specificity) and predictive accuracy
(Positive Predictive Value and
Negative Predictive Value) must be
E:\FR\FM\26FER1.SGM
26FER1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
10332
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
assessed at the subject and embryo
levels.
• Software validation, verification, and
hazard analysis must be provided.
• Non-clinical performance testing data
must demonstrate the performance
characteristics of the device. Testing
must include the following:
Æ Total light exposure and output
testing;
Æ a safety analysis must be performed
based on maximum (worst-case)
light exposure to embryos, which
also includes the safety of the light
wavelength(s) emitted by the
device;
Æ simulated-use testing;
Æ Mouse Embryo Assay testing to
assess whether device operation
impacts growth and development of
mouse embryos to the blastocyst
stage;
Æ cleaning and disinfection
validation of reusable components;
Æ package integrity and transit
testing;
Æ hardware fail-safe validation;
Æ electrical equipment safety and
electromagnetic compatibility
testing; and
Æ prediction algorithm
reproducibility.
• Labeling must include the following:
Æ A detailed summary of clinical
performance testing, including any
adverse events;
Æ specific instructions, warnings,
precautions, and training needed
for safe use of the device;
Æ appropriate electromagnetic
compatibility information;
Æ validated methods and instructions
for cleaning and disinfection of
reusable components; and
Æ information identifying compatible
cultureware and explain how they
are used with the device.
An Assisted Reproduction Embryo
Image Assessment System is a
prescription device restricted to patient
use only upon the authorization of a
practitioner licensed by law to
administer or use the device. (See 21
CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices).)
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act
provides that FDA may exempt a class
II device from the premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k) of the
FD&C 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, FDA has
determined that premarket notification
is necessary to provide reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness
of the device. Therefore, this device
type is not exempt from premarket
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Feb 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 Assisted Reproduction
Embryo Image Assessment System they
intend to market.
II. 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.
III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final administrative order
establishes special controls that refer to
previously approved collections of
information found in other FDA
regulations. These collections of
information are subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The
collections of information in part 807,
subpart E regarding premarket
notification submissions have been
approved under OMB control number
0910–0120 and the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 801,
regarding labeling, have been approved
under OMB control number 0910–0485.
IV. Reference
The following reference has 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. K120427: De Novo Request from Auxogyn,
Inc., dated August 23, 2012.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 884
Medical devices, Obstetrical and
Gynecological devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 884 is
amended as follows:
PART 884—OBSTETRICAL AND
GYNECOLOGICAL DEVICES
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 884 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 371.
2. Section 884.6195 is added to
subpart G to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 884.6195 Assisted Reproduction Embryo
Image Assessment System.
(a) Identification. An Assisted
Reproduction Embryo Image
Assessment System is a prescription
device that is designed to obtain and
analyze light microscopy images of
developing embryos. This device
provides information to aid in the
selection of embryo(s) for transfer when
there are multiple embryos deemed
suitable for transfer or freezing.
(b) Classification. Class II (special
controls). The special control(s) for this
device are:
(1) Clinical performance testing must
demonstrate a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of the device to
predict embryo development.
Classification performance (sensitivity
and specificity) and predictive accuracy
(Positive Predictive Value and Negative
Predictive Value) must be assessed at
the subject and embryo levels.
(2) Software validation, verification,
and hazard analysis must be provided.
(3) Non-clinical performance testing
data must demonstrate the performance
characteristics of the device. Testing
must include the following:
(i) Total light exposure and output
testing;
(ii) A safety analysis must be
performed based on maximum (worstcase) light exposure to embryos, which
also includes the safety of the light
wavelength(s) emitted by the device;
(iii) Simulated-use testing;
(iv) Mouse Embryo Assay testing to
assess whether device operation impacts
growth and development of mouse
embryos to the blastocyst stage;
(v) Cleaning and disinfection
validation of reusable components;
(vi) Package integrity and transit
testing;
(vii) Hardware fail-safe validation;
(viii) Electrical equipment safety and
electromagnetic compatibility testing;
and
(ix) Prediction algorithm
reproducibility.
(4) Labeling must include the
following:
(i) A detailed summary of clinical
performance testing, including any
adverse events;
(ii) Specific instructions, warnings,
precautions, and training needed for
safe use of the device
(iii) Appropriate electromagnetic
compatibility information;
(iv) Validated methods and
instructions for cleaning and
disinfection of reusable components;
and
(v) Information identifying compatible
cultureware and explain how they are
used with the device.
E:\FR\FM\26FER1.SGM
26FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: February 20, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–03934 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 57
[TD 9711]
RIN 1545–BM52
Health Insurance Providers Fee
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Final and temporary
regulations.
AGENCY:
This document contains
temporary regulations that provide rules
for the definition of a covered entity for
purposes of the fee imposed by section
9010 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, as amended. The
temporary regulations are necessary to
clarify certain terms in section 9010.
The temporary regulations affect
persons engaged in the business of
providing health insurance for United
States health risks. The text of the
temporary regulations also serves as the
text of the proposed regulations (REG–
143416–14) published in the Proposed
Rules section in this issue of the Federal
Register.
DATES: Effective Date: These regulations
are effective on February 26, 2015.
Applicability Date: For dates of
applicability, see §§ 57.10 and 57.10T.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel S. Smith, (202) 317–6855 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Background
Section 9010 of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),
Public Law 111–148 (124 Stat. 119
(2010)), as amended by section 10905 of
PPACA, and as further amended by
section 1406 of the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,
Public Law 111–152 (124 Stat. 1029
(2010)) (collectively, the Affordable Care
Act or ACA) imposes an annual fee on
covered entities that provide health
insurance for United States health risks.
All references in this preamble to
section 9010 are references to the ACA.
Section 9010 did not amend the Internal
Revenue Code (Code) but contains
cross-references to specified Code
sections. Unless otherwise indicated, all
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Feb 25, 2015
Jkt 235001
other references to subtitles, chapters,
subchapters, and sections in this
preamble are references to subtitles,
chapters, subchapters, and sections in
the Code and related regulations. All
references to ‘‘fee’’ in this preamble are
references to the fee imposed by section
9010.
On November 27, 2013, the Treasury
Department and the IRS issued the
Health Insurance Providers Fee
regulations as final regulations (TD
9643). On August 12, 2014, the Treasury
Department and the IRS issued Notice
2014–47, 2014–35 IRB 522, to provide
further guidance for the 2014 fee year on
the definition of a covered entity. The
temporary regulations provide further
guidance on the definition of a covered
entity for the 2015 fee year and
subsequent fee years.
General Overview
Section 9010(a) imposes an annual fee
on each covered entity engaged in the
business of providing health insurance.
The fee is due by the annual date
specified by the Secretary, but in no
event later than September 30th of each
calendar year in which a fee must be
paid (fee year).
Section 9010(b) requires the Secretary
to determine the annual fee for each
covered entity based on the ratio of the
covered entity’s net premiums written
for health insurance for any United
States health risk that are taken into
account for the calendar year
immediately before the fee year (data
year) to the aggregate net premiums
written for health insurance of United
States health risks of all covered entities
that are taken into account during the
data year. In calculating the fee, the
Secretary must determine each covered
entity’s net premiums written for United
States health risks based on reports
submitted to the Secretary by the
covered entity and through the use of
any other source of information
available to the Secretary.
Section 9010(c)(1) defines a covered
entity as any entity that provides health
insurance for any United States health
risk during each fee year. Section
9010(c)(2) excludes the following
entities from being covered entities: (A)
Any employer to the extent that the
employer self-insures its employees’
health risks; (B) any governmental
entity; (C) any entity (i) that is
incorporated as a nonprofit corporation
under a State law, (ii) no part of the net
earnings of which inures to the benefit
of any private shareholder or individual,
no substantial part of the activities of
which is carrying on propaganda, or
otherwise attempting, to influence
legislation (except as otherwise
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10333
provided in section 501(h)), and which
does not participate in, or intervene in,
any political campaign on behalf of (or
in opposition to) any candidate for
public office, and (iii) more than 80
percent of the gross revenues of which
is received from government programs
that target low income, elderly, or
disabled populations under titles XVIII,
XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act;
and (D) any entity that is described in
section 501(c)(9) (a voluntary
employees’ beneficiary association
(VEBA)) and is established by an entity
(other than by an employer or
employers) for purposes of providing
health care benefits.
Section 9010(c)(3)(A) provides a
controlled group rule under which all
persons treated as a single employer
under section 52(a) or (b) or section
414(m) or (o) are treated as a single
covered entity. Section 9010(c)(4)
provides that, if more than one person
is liable to pay the fee on a single
covered entity by reason of the
application of the controlled group rule,
then all such persons are jointly and
severally liable for payment of the fee.
Section 57.2(c)(1) of the Health
Insurance Providers Fee regulations
defines the term controlled group to
mean a group of two or more persons,
including at least one person that is a
covered entity, that is treated as a single
employer under section 52(a), 52(b),
414(m), or 414(o). Section 57.2(c)(3)(ii)
further provides that a person is treated
as being a member of the controlled
group if it is a member of the group at
the end of the day on December 31st of
the data year.
Explanation of Provisions
Following the publication of the final
regulations in TD 9643, the Treasury
Department and the IRS received
questions about how to apply the
exclusions under section 9010(c)(2) to
the general definition of a covered
entity. The Treasury Department and
the IRS also received questions about
whether covered entities must report
information on net premiums written
for certain members of a controlled
group. Notice 2014–47 was
subsequently issued to resolve those
questions for the 2014 fee year. The
temporary regulations adopt the general
approach of Notice 2014–47 to resolve
those questions for the 2015 fee year
and each subsequent fee year.
Application of Exclusions Under
Section 9010(c)(2)
Notice 2014–47 provided that, for the
2014 fee year, the Treasury Department
and the IRS would not treat any entity
as a covered entity if it would be
E:\FR\FM\26FER1.SGM
26FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10330-10333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03934]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 884
[Docket No. FDA-2014-M-1957]
Medical Devices; Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices;
Classification of the Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment
System
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the
Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System into class II
(special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device
are identified in this order, and will be part of the codified language
for the Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System
classification. 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.
DATES: This order is effective February 26, 2015. The classification
was applicable June 6, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Bailey, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G120, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C 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), 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), 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 FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.
[[Page 10331]]
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the
Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-
144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to
classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of
the FD&C Act. Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket
notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has
not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an
order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1),
the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the
FD&C Act. Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a
premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a
request for classification under the first procedure, the person
determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base
a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a
classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person
submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure,
FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA
identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable
basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device, or if FDA
determines that the device submitted is not of ``low-moderate risk'',
or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and
special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either
procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will
classify the device by written order within 120 days. This
classification will be the initial classification of the device.
On August 3, 2012, FDA issued an order classifying the EEVA System
into 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 August
23, 2012, Auxogyn, Inc., submitted a de novo request for classification
of the EEVA System under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The
manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II
(Ref. 1).
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed
the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for
classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA
classifies devices 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 request, FDA determined that the device
can be classified into class II with the establishment of special
controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general
controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on June 6, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor
classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the
classification of the device by adding Sec. 884.6195 (21 CFR
884.6195).
Following the effective date of this final classification
administrative order, any firm submitting a premarket notification
(510(k)) for an Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System
will need to comply with the special controls named in the final
administrative order.
The device is assigned the generic name Assisted Reproduction
Embryo Image Assessment System, and it is identified as a prescription
device that is designed to obtain and analyze light microscopy images
of developing embryos. This device provides information to aid in the
selection of embryo(s) for transfer when there are multiple embryos
deemed suitable for transfer or freezing.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with
this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks
in Table 1:
Table 1--Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System Risks and
Mitigation Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identified risk Mitigation measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damage or Destruction of the Embryo.... Non-Clinical Performance
Testing.
Software Verification,
Validation & Hazard Analysis.
Clinical Testing.
Electromagnetic Compatibility
Testing.
Electrical Safety Testing.
Labeling.
Training.
Infection (Contamination of Device, Cleaning and Disinfection
Labware, and Incubator). Validation.
Labeling.
Training.
Incorrect Embryo Development Prediction Non-Clinical Performance
Testing.
Software Verification,
Validation & Hazard Analysis.
Clinical Testing.
Labeling.
Training.
Electromagnetic Interference/Electrical Electromagnetic Compatibility
Safety Issues. Testing.
Electrical Safety Testing.
Labeling.
Use Error.............................. Labeling.
Training.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA believes that the following special controls, in addition to
the general controls, address these risks to health and provide
reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness:
Clinical performance testing must demonstrate a reasonable
assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device to predict
embryo development. Classification performance (sensitivity and
specificity) and predictive accuracy (Positive Predictive Value and
Negative Predictive Value) must be
[[Page 10332]]
assessed at the subject and embryo levels.
Software validation, verification, and hazard analysis must be
provided.
Non-clinical performance testing data must demonstrate the
performance characteristics of the device. Testing must include the
following:
[cir] Total light exposure and output testing;
[cir] a safety analysis must be performed based on maximum (worst-
case) light exposure to embryos, which also includes the safety of the
light wavelength(s) emitted by the device;
[cir] simulated-use testing;
[cir] Mouse Embryo Assay testing to assess whether device operation
impacts growth and development of mouse embryos to the blastocyst
stage;
[cir] cleaning and disinfection validation of reusable components;
[cir] package integrity and transit testing;
[cir] hardware fail-safe validation;
[cir] electrical equipment safety and electromagnetic compatibility
testing; and
[cir] prediction algorithm reproducibility.
Labeling must include the following:
[cir] A detailed summary of clinical performance testing, including
any adverse events;
[cir] specific instructions, warnings, precautions, and training
needed for safe use of the device;
[cir] appropriate electromagnetic compatibility information;
[cir] validated methods and instructions for cleaning and
disinfection of reusable components; and
[cir] information identifying compatible cultureware and explain
how they are used with the device.
An Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System is a
prescription device restricted to patient use only upon the
authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use
the device. (See 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices).)
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class
II device from the premarket notification requirements under section
510(k) of the FD&C 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, FDA has
determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, this device type 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 Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image
Assessment System they intend to market.
II. 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.
III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final administrative order establishes special controls that
refer to previously approved collections of information found in other
FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of
information in part 807, subpart E regarding premarket notification
submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120 and
the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling,
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
IV. Reference
The following reference has 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. K120427: De Novo Request from Auxogyn, Inc., dated August 23,
2012.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 884
Medical devices, Obstetrical and Gynecological devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
884 is amended as follows:
PART 884--OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL DEVICES
0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 884 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
0
2. Section 884.6195 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 884.6195 Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System.
(a) Identification. An Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image
Assessment System is a prescription device that is designed to obtain
and analyze light microscopy images of developing embryos. This device
provides information to aid in the selection of embryo(s) for transfer
when there are multiple embryos deemed suitable for transfer or
freezing.
(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
control(s) for this device are:
(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate a reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device to predict embryo
development. Classification performance (sensitivity and specificity)
and predictive accuracy (Positive Predictive Value and Negative
Predictive Value) must be assessed at the subject and embryo levels.
(2) Software validation, verification, and hazard analysis must be
provided.
(3) Non-clinical performance testing data must demonstrate the
performance characteristics of the device. Testing must include the
following:
(i) Total light exposure and output testing;
(ii) A safety analysis must be performed based on maximum (worst-
case) light exposure to embryos, which also includes the safety of the
light wavelength(s) emitted by the device;
(iii) Simulated-use testing;
(iv) Mouse Embryo Assay testing to assess whether device operation
impacts growth and development of mouse embryos to the blastocyst
stage;
(v) Cleaning and disinfection validation of reusable components;
(vi) Package integrity and transit testing;
(vii) Hardware fail-safe validation;
(viii) Electrical equipment safety and electromagnetic
compatibility testing; and
(ix) Prediction algorithm reproducibility.
(4) Labeling must include the following:
(i) A detailed summary of clinical performance testing, including
any adverse events;
(ii) Specific instructions, warnings, precautions, and training
needed for safe use of the device
(iii) Appropriate electromagnetic compatibility information;
(iv) Validated methods and instructions for cleaning and
disinfection of reusable components; and
(v) Information identifying compatible cultureware and explain how
they are used with the device.
[[Page 10333]]
Dated: February 20, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-03934 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P