Medical Devices; Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices; Classification of the Organophosphate Test System, 48413-48415 [2017-22590]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
authorities, as noted above, are
responsible for supervising FCs as part
of their ongoing prudential regulation
and supervision of such FCs, will
enforce the RTS, which are directly
applicable in the Member States, and
will take all measures necessary to
ensure that those rules are
implemented. Thus, the Commission
finds that the EC, through the competent
authorities, has the necessary powers to
supervise, investigate, and discipline
entities for compliance with its margin
requirements and recognizes the
relevant competent authorities’ ongoing
efforts to detect and deter violations of,
and ensure compliance with, the margin
requirements applicable in the EU.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
V. Conclusion
As detailed above, the Commission
has noted several differences between
the Final Margin Rule and the EU
margin rules. However, having
considered the scope and objectives of
the margin requirements for uncleared
swaps under the laws of the EU,202
whether such margin requirements
achieve comparable outcomes to the
Commission’s corresponding margin
requirements,203 and the ability of the
Member State competent authorities to
supervise and enforce compliance with
the margin requirements for noncentrally cleared OTC derivatives under
the laws of the EU,204 the Commission
has determined that the EU margin rules
are comparable in outcome to the Final
Margin Rule.
As noted above, the Final Margin
Rule’s regulatory objective is to ensure
the safety and soundness of CSEs in
order to offset the greater risk to CSEs
and the financial system arising from
the use of swaps that are not cleared.
The EU margin rules require
counterparties to apply robust riskmitigation techniques to their bilateral
relationships to reduce counterparty
credit risk and to mitigate the potential
systemic risk that could arise. Moreover,
the EU margin rules achieve comparable
outcomes to the Final Margin Rule in
the following specific areas: The
products and entities subject to the EU’s
International/MemorandaofUnderstanding/
index.htm.
202 See § 23.160(c)(3)(i).
203 See § 23.160(c)(3)(ii). As discussed above, the
Commission’s Final Margin Rule is based on the
BCBS/IOSCO Framework; therefore, the
Commission expects that the relevant foreign
margin requirements would conform to such
Framework at minimum in order to be deemed
comparable in outcome to the Commission’s
corresponding margin requirements.
204 See § 23.160(c)(3)(iii). See also
§ 23.160(c)(3)(iv) (indicating the Commission would
also consider any other relevant facts and
circumstances).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Oct 17, 2017
Jkt 244001
margin requirements; the treatment of
inter-affiliate derivative transactions;
the methodologies for calculating the
amounts of initial and variation margin;
the process and standards for approving
models for calculating initial and
variation margin models; the timing and
manner in which initial and variation
margin must be collected and/or paid;
any threshold levels or amounts; risk
management controls for the calculation
of initial and variation margin; eligible
collateral for initial and variation
margin; the requirements of custodial
arrangements, including segregation of
margin and rehypothecation; margin
documentation requirements; and the
cross-border application of the EU’s
margin regime. Finally, based on the
long history of regulatory cooperation
between the Commission and Member
State competent authorities with
supervisory and enforcement authority
under the RTS, the Commission finds
that the EC, through the competent
authorities, has the necessary powers to
supervise, investigate, and discipline
entities for compliance with its margin
requirements, and recognizes the
relevant authorities’ ongoing efforts to
detect and deter violations of, and
ensure compliance with, the margin
requirements applicable in the EU.
Accordingly, a CSE that is subject to
both the Final Margin Rule and the EU’s
margin rules with respect to an
uncleared swap that is also a noncentrally cleared OTC derivative may
rely on substituted compliance for all
aspects of the Final Margin Rule and the
Cross-Border Margin Rule. Any such
CSE that, in accordance with this
comparability determination, complies
with the EU margin rules, would be
deemed to be in compliance with the
Final Margin Rule but would remain
subject to the Commission’s
examination and enforcement
authority.205
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 13,
2017, by the Commission.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
Appendix to Comparability
Determination for the European Union:
Margin Requirements for Uncleared
Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major
Swap Participants—Commission Voting
Summary
On this matter, Chairman Giancarlo and
Commissioners Quintenz and Behnam voted
in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in
the negative.
[FR Doc. 2017–22616 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
205 See
PO 00000
§ 23.160(c)(4).
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48413
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 862
[Docket No. FDA–2017–N–5160]
Medical Devices; Clinical Chemistry
and Clinical Toxicology Devices;
Classification of the Organophosphate
Test System
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Final order.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or we) is
classifying the organophosphate test
system into class II (special controls).
The special controls that apply to the
device type are identified in this order
and will be part of the codified language
for the organophosphate test system’s
classification. We are taking this action
because we have determined that
classifying the device into class II
(special controls) will provide a
reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness of the device. We believe
this action will also enhance patients’
access to beneficial innovative devices,
in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
DATES: This order is effective October
18, 2017. The classification was
applicable on August 8, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Tjoe, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4550, Silver Spring,
MD, 20993–0002, 301–796–5866.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
Upon request, FDA has classified the
organophosphate test system as class II
(special controls), which we have
determined will provide a reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness. In
addition, we believe this action will
enhance patients’ access to beneficial
innovation, in part by reducing
regulatory burdens by placing the
device into a lower device class than the
automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III
occurs by operation of law and without
any action by FDA, regardless of the
level of risk posed by the new device.
Any device that was not in commercial
distribution before May 28, 1976, is
automatically classified as, and remains
within, class III and requires premarket
approval unless and until FDA takes an
action to classify or reclassify the device
(see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to
E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM
18OCR1
48414
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
these devices as ‘‘postamendments
devices’’ because they were not in
commercial distribution prior to the
date of enactment of the Medical Device
Amendments of 1976, which amended
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in
appropriate circumstances to classify or
reclassify a device into class I or II. We
may issue an order finding a new device
to be substantially equivalent under
section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a
predicate device that does not require
premarket approval (see 21 U.S.C.
360c(i)). We determine whether a new
device is substantially equivalent to a
predicate by means of the procedures
for premarket notification under section
510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)
and 21 CFR part 807.
FDA may also classify a device
through ‘‘De Novo’’ classification, a
common name for the process
authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the
FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and
Drug Administration Modernization Act
of 1997 established the first procedure
for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105–
115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation
Act modified the De Novo application
process by adding a second procedure
(Pub. L. 112–144). A device sponsor
may utilize either procedure for De
Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person
submits a 510(k) for a device that has
not previously been classified. After
receiving an order from FDA classifying
the device into class III under section
513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person
then requests a classification under
section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather
than first submitting a 510(k) and then
a request for classification, if the person
determines that there is no legally
marketed device upon which to base a
determination of substantial
equivalence, that person requests a
classification under section 513(f)(2) of
the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo
classification, FDA is required to
classify the device by written order
within 120 days. The classification will
be according to the criteria under
section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
Although the device was automatically
within class III, the De Novo
classification is considered to be the
initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification
will enhance patients’ access to
beneficial innovation, in part by
reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA
classifies a device into class I or II via
the De Novo process, the device can
serve as a predicate for future devices of
that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21
U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other
device sponsors do not have to submit
a De Novo request or premarket
approval (PMA) application in order to
market a substantially equivalent device
(see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining
‘‘substantial equivalence’’).
Instead, sponsors can use the less
burdensome 510(k) process, when
necessary, to market their device.
II. De Novo Classification
For this device, FDA issued an order
on May 2, 2013, finding the
Quantitation of Organophosphate
Metabolites in Urine by LC/MS/MS
(liquid chromatography-tandem mass
spectrometry (the two ‘‘MS’’ next to
each other denote ‘‘tandem’’)) not
substantially equivalent to a predicate
not subject to PMA. Thus, the device
remained in class III in accordance with
section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act when
we issued the order.
On May 31, 2013, Elizabeth Hamelin,
on behalf of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Division of
Laboratory Sciences/National Center for
Environmental Health, submitted a
request for classification of the
Quantitation of Organophosphate
Metabolites in Urine by LC/MS/MS.
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.
We classify 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 that, in
combination with the general controls,
provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of the device for
its intended use (see 21 U.S.C.
360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the
information submitted in the request,
we determined that the device can be
classified into class II with the
establishment of special controls. FDA
has determined that these special
controls, in addition to general controls,
will provide reasonable assurance of the
safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on August 8, 2013, FDA
issued an order to the requestor
classifying the device into class II. FDA
is codifying the classification of the
device by adding 21 CFR 862.3652. We
have named the generic type of device
organophosphate test system, and it is
identified as a device intended to
measure organophosphate metabolites
quantitatively in human urine from
individuals who have signs and
symptoms consistent with
cholinesterase poisoning. The data
obtained by this device is intended to
aid in the confirmation and
investigation of organophosphate
exposure.
FDA has identified the following risks
to health associated specifically with
this type of device and the measures
required to mitigate these risks in table
1.
TABLE 1—ORGANOPHOSPHATE TEST SYSTEM RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Identified risks
Mitigation measures
False Positive ..................................
(1) The distribution of these devices is limited to laboratories with experienced personnel who are trained
to measure and evaluate organophosphate exposure and guide public health response.
(2) Analytical testing must demonstrate the device has appropriate performance characteristics, including
adequate precision and accuracy across the measuring range and near medical decision points.
(1) The distribution of these devices is limited to laboratories with experienced personnel who are trained
to measure and evaluate organophosphate exposure and guide public health response.
(2) Analytical testing must demonstrate the device has appropriate performance characteristics, including
adequate precision and accuracy across the measuring range and near medical decision points.
(1) The distribution of these devices is limited to laboratories with experienced personnel who are trained
to measure and evaluate organophosphate exposure and guide public health response.
(2) Analytical testing must demonstrate the device has appropriate performance characteristics, including
adequate precision and accuracy across the measuring range and near medical decision points.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
False Negative ................................
Public Health Risk from Incorrect
Test Results.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Oct 17, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM
18OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
FDA has determined that special
controls, in combination with the
general controls, address these risks to
health and provide reasonable assurance
of safety and effectiveness. In order for
a device to fall within this classification,
and thus avoid automatic classification
in class III, it would have to comply
with the special controls named in this
final order. The necessary special
controls appear in the regulation
codified by this order. This device is
subject to premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k).
III. Analysis of Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
IV. 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.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 862
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 862 is
amended as follows:
PART 862—CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
AND CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY
DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 862
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e,
360j, 360l, 371.
2. Add § 862.3652 to subpart D to read
as follows:
■
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
§ 862.3652
Organophosphate test system.
(a) Identification. An
organophosphate test system is a device
intended to measure organophosphate
metabolites quantitatively in human
urine from individuals who have signs
and symptoms consistent with
cholinesterase poisoning. The data
obtained by this device is intended to
aid in the confirmation and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:09 Oct 17, 2017
Jkt 244001
investigation of organophosphate
exposure.
(b) Classification. Class II (special
controls). The special controls for this
device are:
(1) The distribution of these devices is
limited to laboratories with experienced
personnel who are trained to measure
and evaluate organophosphate exposure
and guide public health response.
(2) Analytical testing must
demonstrate the device has appropriate
performance characteristics, including
adequate precision and accuracy across
the measuring range and near medical
decision points.
Dated: October 13, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017–22590 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
32 CFR Part 706
Certifications and Exemptions Under
the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of the Navy
(DoN) is amending its certifications and
exemptions under the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at
Sea, 1972, as amended (72 COLREGS),
to reflect that the Deputy Assistant
Judge Advocate General
(DAJAG)(Admiralty and Maritime Law)
has determined that USS MICHAEL
MONSOOR (DDG 1001) is a vessel of
the Navy which, due to its special
construction and purpose, cannot fully
comply with certain provisions of the 72
COLREGS without interfering with its
special function as a naval ship. The
intended effect of this rule is to warn
mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS
apply.
DATES: This rule is effective October 18,
2017 and is applicable beginning
October 3, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick,
(Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of
the Judge Advocate General, Department
of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE.,
Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC
20374–5066, telephone 202–685–5040.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C.
1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.
This amendment provides notice that
the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48415
Law), under authority delegated by the
Secretary of the Navy, has certified that
USS MICHAEL MONSOOR (DDG 1001)
is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its
special construction and purpose,
cannot fully comply with the following
specific provisions of 72 COLREGS
without interfering with its special
function as a naval ship: Annex I
paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the
location of the forward masthead light at
a height not less than 6 meters above the
hull; Annex I, paragraph 2(g) pertaining
to the placement of sidelights above the
hull of the vessel; Rule 30(a)(i) and
Annex I, paragraph 2(k) pertaining to
the vertical separation between anchor
lights, and the location of the forward
anchor light at a height of not less than
6 meters above the hull; Annex I,
paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the
horizontal separation between the
forward and after masthead lights;
Annex I, paragraph 2(i)(iii), pertaining
to the vertical spacing of task lights; and
Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to
the task lights placed at a horizontal
distance of not less than 2 meters from
the fore and aft centerline of the vessel.
The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime
Law) has also certified that the lights
involved are located in closest possible
compliance with the applicable 72
COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in
accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and
701, that publication of this amendment
for public comment prior to adoption is
impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to public interest since it is
based on technical findings that the
placement of lights on this vessel in a
manner differently from that prescribed
herein will adversely affect the vessel’s
ability to perform its military functions.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of
title 32 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND
EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE
INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR
PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA,
1972
1. The authority citation for part 706
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605.
2. Section 706.2 is amended by:
a. In Table One, adding in
alphanumerical order by vessel number,
an entry for USS MICHAEL MONSOOR
(DDG 1001);
■
■
E:\FR\FM\18OCR1.SGM
18OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48413-48415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22590]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 862
[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-5160]
Medical Devices; Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology
Devices; Classification of the Organophosphate Test System
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying
the organophosphate test system into class II (special controls). The
special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this
order and will be part of the codified language for the organophosphate
test system's classification. We are taking this action because we have
determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls)
will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the
device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to
beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
DATES: This order is effective October 18, 2017. The classification was
applicable on August 8, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Tjoe, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4550, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002, 301-796-5866.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Upon request, FDA has classified the organophosphate test system as
class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a
reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we
believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial
innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the
device into a lower device class than the automatic class III
assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law
and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by
the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution
before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains
within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA
takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C.
360c(f)(1)). We refer to
[[Page 48414]]
these devices as ``postamendments devices'' because they were not in
commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical
Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to
classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an
order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section
513(i) of the FD&C Act to a predicate device that does not require
premarket approval (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)). We determine whether a new
device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the
procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807.
FDA may also classify a device through ``De Novo'' classification,
a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the
FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization
Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification
(Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration
Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by
adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may
utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device
that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from
FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of
the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section
513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k)
and then a request for classification, if the person determines that
there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination
of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under
section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required
to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The
classification will be according to the criteria under section
513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically within
class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial
classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients'
access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory
burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De
Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of
that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a
result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request
or premarket approval (PMA) application in order to market a
substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining
``substantial equivalence'').
Instead, sponsors can use the less burdensome 510(k) process, when
necessary, to market their device.
II. De Novo Classification
For this device, FDA issued an order on May 2, 2013, finding the
Quantitation of Organophosphate Metabolites in Urine by LC/MS/MS
(liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (the two ``MS'' next to
each other denote ``tandem'')) not substantially equivalent to a
predicate not subject to PMA. Thus, the device remained in class III in
accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act when we issued the
order.
On May 31, 2013, Elizabeth Hamelin, on behalf of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Laboratory Sciences/
National Center for Environmental Health, submitted a request for
classification of the Quantitation of Organophosphate Metabolites in
Urine by LC/MS/MS. 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.
We classify 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 that, in combination with the general controls, provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for
its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the
information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can
be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls.
FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to general
controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on August 8, 2013, FDA issued an order to the requestor
classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the
classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 862.3652. We have named
the generic type of device organophosphate test system, and it is
identified as a device intended to measure organophosphate metabolites
quantitatively in human urine from individuals who have signs and
symptoms consistent with cholinesterase poisoning. The data obtained by
this device is intended to aid in the confirmation and investigation of
organophosphate exposure.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated
specifically with this type of device and the measures required to
mitigate these risks in table 1.
Table 1--Organophosphate Test System Risks and Mitigation Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identified risks Mitigation measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
False Positive.................... (1) The distribution of these
devices is limited to laboratories
with experienced personnel who are
trained to measure and evaluate
organophosphate exposure and guide
public health response.
(2) Analytical testing must
demonstrate the device has
appropriate performance
characteristics, including adequate
precision and accuracy across the
measuring range and near medical
decision points.
False Negative.................... (1) The distribution of these
devices is limited to laboratories
with experienced personnel who are
trained to measure and evaluate
organophosphate exposure and guide
public health response.
(2) Analytical testing must
demonstrate the device has
appropriate performance
characteristics, including adequate
precision and accuracy across the
measuring range and near medical
decision points.
Public Health Risk from Incorrect (1) The distribution of these
Test Results. devices is limited to laboratories
with experienced personnel who are
trained to measure and evaluate
organophosphate exposure and guide
public health response.
(2) Analytical testing must
demonstrate the device has
appropriate performance
characteristics, including adequate
precision and accuracy across the
measuring range and near medical
decision points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48415]]
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the
general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall
within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in
class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in
this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the
regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket
notification requirements under section 510(k).
III. Analysis of Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
IV. 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.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 862
Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
862 is amended as follows:
PART 862--CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY DEVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 862 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
0
2. Add Sec. 862.3652 to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 862.3652 Organophosphate test system.
(a) Identification. An organophosphate test system is a device
intended to measure organophosphate metabolites quantitatively in human
urine from individuals who have signs and symptoms consistent with
cholinesterase poisoning. The data obtained by this device is intended
to aid in the confirmation and investigation of organophosphate
exposure.
(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
controls for this device are:
(1) The distribution of these devices is limited to laboratories
with experienced personnel who are trained to measure and evaluate
organophosphate exposure and guide public health response.
(2) Analytical testing must demonstrate the device has appropriate
performance characteristics, including adequate precision and accuracy
across the measuring range and near medical decision points.
Dated: October 13, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-22590 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P