Medical Devices; Ophthalmic Devices; Classification of the Tear Electrostimulation Device, 60114-60116 [2017-27280]

Agencies

• Food and Drug Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60114-60116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27280]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 886

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-6597]


Medical Devices; Ophthalmic Devices; Classification of the Tear 
Electrostimulation Device

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying 
the tear electrostimulation device 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 tear 
electrostimulation device'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 December 19, 2017. The classification 
was applicable on April 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Steffen, Center for Devices and 
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire 
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2574, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-8795, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Upon request, FDA has classified the tear electrostimulation device 
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 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 (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 (21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that 
does not require premarket approval. 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 and 
part 807 (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and 21 CFR part 807, respectively).
    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).

[[Page 60115]]

    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 shall 
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 placed 
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 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

    On July 7, 2016, Oculeve, Inc., submitted a request for De Novo 
classification of the Intranasal Tear Neurostimulator. 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 generals 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 the 
general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and 
effectiveness of the device.
    Therefore, on April 24, 2017, FDA issued an order to the requester 
classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the 
classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 886.5300. We have named 
the generic type of device tear electrostimulation device, and it is 
identified as a non-implantable, electrostimulation device intended to 
increase tear production.
    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--Tear Electrostimulation Device Risks and Mitigation Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Identified risks                   Mitigation measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tissue damage due to over-stimulation/   Non-clinical performance
 understimulation or mechanical injury    testing; Software
 (ex: tips too long), device breakage.    verification, validation and
                                          hazard analysis; Electrical,
                                          thermal, and mechanical safety
                                          testing; and Labeling.
Pain, headache, or discomfort..........  Non-clinical performance
                                          testing; Electrical, thermal,
                                          and mechanical safety testing;
                                          and Labeling.
Adverse tissue reaction................  Biocompatibility, and Labeling.
Infection..............................  Labeling.
Electrical shock or burn...............  Electrical, thermal, and
                                          mechanical safety testing;
                                          Software verification,
                                          validation and hazard
                                          analysis; and Labeling.
Interference with other devices........  Electromagnetic compatibility
                                          (EMC) testing; Software
                                          verification, validation, and
                                          hazard analysis; and Labeling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) of the FD&C Act.

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 
the guidance document ``De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of 
Automatic Class III Designation)'' have been approved under OMB control 
number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, 
subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved 
under OMB control number 0910-0231; 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.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 886

    Medical devices, Ophthalmic goods and services.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 
886 is amended as follows:

PART 886--OPHTHALMIC DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 886 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

[[Page 60116]]


0
2. Add Sec.  886.5300 to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  886.5300   Tear electrostimulation device.

    (a) Identification. A tear electrostimulation device is a non-
implantable, electrostimulation device intended to increase tear 
production.
    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special 
controls for this device are:
    (1) Non-clinical performance testing must assess the following 
electrical output specifications: waveforms, output modes, maximum 
output voltage, maximum output current, pulse duration, frequency, net 
charge per pulse, maximum phase charge at 500 ohms, maximum current 
density, maximum average current, and maximum average power density.
    (2) Patient-contacting components of the device must be 
demonstrated to be biocompatible.
    (3) Performance testing must demonstrate the electrical, thermal, 
and mechanical safety along with electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) of 
the device in the intended use environment.
    (4) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be 
performed.
    (5) Physician and patient labeling must include:
    (i) Summaries of electrical stimulation parameters;
    (ii) Instructions on how to correctly use and maintain the device;
    (iii) Instructions and explanations of all user-interface 
components;
    (iv) Information related to electromagnetic compatibility 
classification; and
    (v) Instructions on how to clean the device.

    Dated: December 13, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-27280 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P