Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid, 49136-49138 [2015-20177]
Download as PDF
49136
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E,
paragraphs 402 and 404d, the FAA has
conducted an independent evaluation of
the United States Army, Joint Readiness
Training Center’s Final Environmental
Assessment for the Establishment of
Additional Restricted Airspace Joint
Readiness Training Center and Fort
Polk, LA dated March 2013 (hereinafter
‘‘the FEA’’). The FAA adopted the
relevant portions of the FEA and
prepared a Finding of No Significant
Impact/Record of Decision dated August
11, 2015. The FAA has determined that
no significant impacts would occur as a
result of the Federal action and
therefore that preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement is not
warranted, and a Finding of No
Significant Impact in accordance with
40 CFR part 1501.4(e) is appropriate.
Regarding amending the time of
designation for R–3804A and R–3804B,
the FAA has determined that this action
qualifies for categorical exclusion under
the National Environmental Policy Act
in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 311c. This
action, by changing time of designation
from ‘‘continuous’’ to ‘‘by NOTAM’’
serves to return all or part of special use
airspace (SUA) to the National Airspace
System (NAS). It is not expected to
cause any potentially significant
environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exists that
warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.
Regarding making using agency
corrections to R–3804A, R–3804B, and
R–3804C, the FAA has determined that
this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 311d. This action
is an administrative change to the titles
in the descriptions of the affected
restricted areas to reflect the correct
locations. It does not alter the
dimensions, altitudes, times of
designation or actual physical locations
of the airspace; therefore, it is not
expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, and
no extraordinary circumstances exists
that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted
areas.
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
■
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106 (f), 106(g), 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11,
2015.
M. Randy Willis,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2015–20286 Filed 8–14–15; 8:45 am]
PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
§ 73.38
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
[Amended]
■
2. Section 73.38 is amended as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
R–3804A Fort Polk, LA (Amended)
Boundaries. Beginning at lat.
31°00′53″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to lat.
31°00′53″ N., long. 92°56′53″ W.; to lat.
31°00′20″ N., long. 92°56′14″ W.; to lat.
31°00′20″ N., long. 92°54′23″ W.; to lat.
31°03′55″ N., long. 92°51′34″ W.; to lat.
31°09′35″ N., long. 92°58′25″ W.; to lat.
31°09′35″ N., long. 93°00′56″ W.; to lat.
31°08′43″ N., long. 93°01′55″ W.; to lat.
31°08′43″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to the
point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to FL
180.
Time of designation. By NOTAM.
Controlling agency. FAA, Houston
ARTCC.
Using agency. U.S. Army,
Commanding General, Fort Polk, LA.
Food and Drug Administration
R–3804B Fort Polk, LA (Amended)
Boundaries. Beginning at lat.
31°00′53″ N., long. 93°10′53″ W.; to lat.
31°00′53″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to lat.
31°08′43″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to lat.
31°08′43″ N., long. 93°11′00″ W.; to lat.
31°04′56″ N., long. 93°11′00″ W.; to lat.
31°04′15″ N., long. 93°12′31″ W.; to the
point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to but
not including 10,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. By NOTAM.
Controlling agency. FAA, Houston
ARTCC.
Using agency. U.S. Army,
Commanding General, Fort Polk, LA.
R–3804C Fort Polk, LA (Amended)
Boundaries. Beginning at lat.
31°00′53″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to lat.
31°00′53″ N., long. 92°56′53″ W.; to lat.
31°00′20″ N., long. 92°56′14″ W.; to lat.
31°00′20″ N., long. 92°54′23″ W.; to lat.
31°03′55″ N., long. 92°51′34″ W.; to lat.
31°09′35″ N., long. 92°58′25″ W.; to lat.
31°09′35″ N., long. 93°00′56″ W.; to lat.
31°08′43″ N., long. 93°01′55″ W.; to lat.
31°08′43″ N., long. 93°08′12″ W.; to the
point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. FL 180 to but
not including FL 350.
Time of designation. By NOTAM 24
hours in advance.
Controlling agency. FAA, Houston
ARTCC.
Using agency. U.S. Army,
Commanding General, Fort Polk, LA.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
21 CFR Part 882
[Docket No. FDA–2015–N–2737]
Medical Devices; Neurological
Devices; Classification of the
Computerized Cognitive Assessment
Aid
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final order.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is classifying the
computerized cognitive assessment aid
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 computerized cognitive assessment
aid’s 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 September
16, 2015. The classification was
applicable on June 5, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Como, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G242, Silver Spring,
MD 20993–0002, 301–796–6919,
peter.como@fda.hhs.gov.
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 postamendment
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
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
equivalent, in accordance with section
513(i) of the FD&C 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
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part
807 (21 CFR part 807) of the 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). 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) of the FD&C Act,
the person requests a classification
under section 513(f)(2). 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 June 24,
2013, Cerebral Assessment Systems,
Inc., submitted a request for
classification of the Cognivue 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). 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
49137
believes these special controls, in
addition to general controls, will
provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on June 5, 2015, FDA
issued an order to the requestor
classifying the device into class II. FDA
is codifying the classification of the
device by adding § 882.1470.
Following the effective date of this
final classification administrative order,
any firm submitting a premarket
notification [510(k)] for a computerized
cognitive assessment aid will need to
comply with the special controls named
in the final order. The device is assigned
the generic name computerized
cognitive assessment aid, and it is
identified as a prescription device that
uses an individual’s score(s) on a battery
of cognitive tasks to provide an
interpretation of the current level of
cognitive function. The computerized
cognitive assessment aid is used only as
an assessment aid to determine level of
cognitive functioning for which there
exists other valid methods of cognitive
assessment and does not identify the
presence or absence of clinical
diagnoses. The computerized cognitive
assessment aid is not intended as a
stand-alone or adjunctive diagnostic
device.
FDA has identified the following risks
to health associated specifically with
this type of device, as well as the
measures required to mitigate these
risks in table 1:
TABLE 1—COMPUTERIZED COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT AID RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Identified risk
Mitigation measure
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Equipment malfunction leading to subject injury (shock, burn, or mechanical failure).
User discomfort (e.g., visual fatigue, stimulus-induced nausea) .............
Incorrect result, inclusive of:
• False positive—cognitive impairment when, in fact, none is
present
• False negative—cognitive impairment when, in fact, cognitive
impairment is present
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:
• The technical parameters of the
device’s hardware and software must be
fully characterized and be accompanied
by appropriate non-clinical testing:
Æ Hardware specifications must be
provided. Appropriate verification,
validation, and hazard analysis must be
performed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
Electrical safety testing.
Labeling.
Labeling.
Hardware and software verification, validation, and hazard analysis.
Labeling.
Æ Software, including any proprietary
algorithm(s) used by the device to arrive
at its interpretation of the patient’s
cognitive function, must be described in
detail in the Software Requirements
Specification (SRS) and Software Design
Specification (SDS). Appropriate
software verification, validation, and
hazard analysis must be performed.
• The device must be designed and
tested for electrical safety.
• The labeling must include:
Æ A summary of any testing
conducted to demonstrate how the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
device functions as an interpretation of
the current level of cognitive function.
The summary of testing must include
the following, if available: Any expected
or observed adverse events and
complications; any performance
measurements including sensitivity,
specificity, positive predictive value
(PPV), and negative predictive value
(NPV) per the device intended use; a
description of the repeatability of
measurements; a description of how the
cut-off values for categorization of
measurements were determined; and a
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
49138
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 158 / Monday, August 17, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
description of the construct validity of
the device.
Æ A warning that the device does not
identify the presence or absence of
clinical diagnoses.
Æ A warning that the device is not a
stand-alone diagnostic.
Æ The intended use population and
the intended use environment.
Æ Any instructions technicians must
convey to patients regarding the
administration of the test and collection
of cognitive test data.
Computerized cognitive assessment
aids are prescription devices 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), 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 computerized
cognitive assessment aid they intend to
market.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Aug 14, 2015
Jkt 235001
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, and is available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov.
1. DEN130033: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act from Cerebral Assessment Systems,
Inc., dated June 24, 2013.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 882
Medical devices, Neurological
devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is
amended as follows:
PART 882—NEUROLOGICAL DEVICES
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 882 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 371.
2. Add § 882.1470 to subpart B to read
as follows:
■
§ 882.1470 Computerized cognitive
assessment aid.
(a) Identification. The computerized
cognitive assessment aid is a
prescription device that uses an
individual’s score(s) on a battery of
cognitive tasks to provide an
interpretation of the current level of
cognitive function. The computerized
cognitive assessment aid is used only as
an assessment aid to determine level of
cognitive functioning for which there
exists other valid methods of cognitive
assessment and does not identify the
presence or absence of clinical
diagnoses. The computerized cognitive
assessment aid is not intended as a
stand-alone or adjunctive diagnostic
device.
(b) Classification. Class II (special
controls). The special control(s) for this
device are:
(1) The technical parameters of the
device’s hardware and software must be
fully characterized and be accompanied
by appropriate non-clinical testing:
(i) Hardware specifications must be
provided. Appropriate verification,
validation, and hazard analysis must be
performed.
(ii) Software, including any
proprietary algorithm(s) used by the
device to arrive at its interpretation of
the patient’s cognitive function, must be
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
described in detail in the software
requirements specification (SRS) and
software design specification (SDS).
Appropriate software verification,
validation, and hazard analysis must be
performed.
(2) The device must be designed and
tested for electrical safety.
(3) The labeling must include:
(i) A summary of any testing
conducted to demonstrate how the
device functions as an interpretation of
the current level of cognitive function.
The summary of testing must include
the following, if available: Any expected
or observed adverse events and
complications; any performance
measurements including sensitivity,
specificity, positive predictive value
(PPV), and negative predictive value
(NPV) per the devices intended use; a
description of the repeatability of
measurements; a description of how the
cut-off values for categorization of
measurements were determined; and a
description of the construct validity of
the device.
(ii) A warning that the device does not
identify the presence or absence of
clinical diagnoses.
(iii) A warning that the device is not
a stand-alone diagnostic.
(iv) The intended use population and
the intended use environment.
(v) Any instructions technicians must
convey to patients regarding the
administration of the test and collection
of cognitive test data.
Dated: August 11, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–20177 Filed 8–14–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Part 35
[Public Notice 9220]
RIN 1400–AD85
Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Department of State.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of State is
updating its regulations regarding its
implementation of the Program Fraud
Civil Remedies Act of 1986, to remove
a conflict between the ‘‘reviewing
official’’ and the ‘‘authority head’’ as
defined by the implementing
regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective August 17,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49136-49138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20177]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 882
[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2737]
Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the
Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the
computerized cognitive assessment aid 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
computerized cognitive assessment aid's 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 September 16, 2015. The classification
was applicable on June 5, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Como, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G242, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6919,
peter.como@fda.hhs.gov.
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 postamendment 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
[[Page 49137]]
equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C 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 FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR
part 807) of the 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).
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) of the
FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
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
June 24, 2013, Cerebral Assessment Systems, Inc., submitted a request
for classification of the Cognivue 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). 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 5, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor
classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the
classification of the device by adding Sec. 882.1470.
Following the effective date of this final classification
administrative order, any firm submitting a premarket notification
[510(k)] for a computerized cognitive assessment aid will need to
comply with the special controls named in the final order. The device
is assigned the generic name computerized cognitive assessment aid, and
it is identified as a prescription device that uses an individual's
score(s) on a battery of cognitive tasks to provide an interpretation
of the current level of cognitive function. The computerized cognitive
assessment aid is used only as an assessment aid to determine level of
cognitive functioning for which there exists other valid methods of
cognitive assessment and does not identify the presence or absence of
clinical diagnoses. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is not
intended as a stand-alone or adjunctive diagnostic device.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated
specifically with this type of device, as well as the measures required
to mitigate these risks in table 1:
Table 1--Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid Risks and Mitigation
Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identified risk Mitigation measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment malfunction leading to Electrical safety testing.
subject injury (shock, burn, or Labeling.
mechanical failure).
User discomfort (e.g., visual fatigue, Labeling.
stimulus-induced nausea).
Incorrect result, inclusive of: Hardware and software
False positive--cognitive verification, validation, and
impairment when, in fact, none is hazard analysis.
present Labeling.
False negative--cognitive
impairment when, in fact, cognitive
impairment is present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
The technical parameters of the device's hardware and
software must be fully characterized and be accompanied by appropriate
non-clinical testing:
[cir] Hardware specifications must be provided. Appropriate
verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
[cir] Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the
device to arrive at its interpretation of the patient's cognitive
function, must be described in detail in the Software Requirements
Specification (SRS) and Software Design Specification (SDS).
Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must
be performed.
The device must be designed and tested for electrical
safety.
The labeling must include:
[cir] A summary of any testing conducted to demonstrate how the
device functions as an interpretation of the current level of cognitive
function. The summary of testing must include the following, if
available: Any expected or observed adverse events and complications;
any performance measurements including sensitivity, specificity,
positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV)
per the device intended use; a description of the repeatability of
measurements; a description of how the cut-off values for
categorization of measurements were determined; and a
[[Page 49138]]
description of the construct validity of the device.
[cir] A warning that the device does not identify the presence or
absence of clinical diagnoses.
[cir] A warning that the device is not a stand-alone diagnostic.
[cir] The intended use population and the intended use environment.
[cir] Any instructions technicians must convey to patients
regarding the administration of the test and collection of cognitive
test data.
Computerized cognitive assessment aids are prescription devices
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), 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
computerized cognitive assessment aid 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 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,
and is available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.
1. DEN130033: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act from Cerebral Assessment Systems, Inc., dated
June 24, 2013.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 882
Medical devices, Neurological devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
882 is amended as follows:
PART 882--NEUROLOGICAL DEVICES
0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 882 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
0
2. Add Sec. 882.1470 to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 882.1470 Computerized cognitive assessment aid.
(a) Identification. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is a
prescription device that uses an individual's score(s) on a battery of
cognitive tasks to provide an interpretation of the current level of
cognitive function. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is used
only as an assessment aid to determine level of cognitive functioning
for which there exists other valid methods of cognitive assessment and
does not identify the presence or absence of clinical diagnoses. The
computerized cognitive assessment aid is not intended as a stand-alone
or adjunctive diagnostic device.
(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
control(s) for this device are:
(1) The technical parameters of the device's hardware and software
must be fully characterized and be accompanied by appropriate non-
clinical testing:
(i) Hardware specifications must be provided. Appropriate
verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
(ii) Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the
device to arrive at its interpretation of the patient's cognitive
function, must be described in detail in the software requirements
specification (SRS) and software design specification (SDS).
Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must
be performed.
(2) The device must be designed and tested for electrical safety.
(3) The labeling must include:
(i) A summary of any testing conducted to demonstrate how the
device functions as an interpretation of the current level of cognitive
function. The summary of testing must include the following, if
available: Any expected or observed adverse events and complications;
any performance measurements including sensitivity, specificity,
positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV)
per the devices intended use; a description of the repeatability of
measurements; a description of how the cut-off values for
categorization of measurements were determined; and a description of
the construct validity of the device.
(ii) A warning that the device does not identify the presence or
absence of clinical diagnoses.
(iii) A warning that the device is not a stand-alone diagnostic.
(iv) The intended use population and the intended use environment.
(v) Any instructions technicians must convey to patients regarding
the administration of the test and collection of cognitive test data.
Dated: August 11, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-20177 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P