Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the computerized labor monitoring systems into class II (special controls). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance document entitled, “Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Computerized Labor Monitoring Systems,” which will serve as the special controls for these devices. The agency is classifying these devices into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of these devices.
This rule is effective May 24, 2007. The classification was effective January 30, 2007.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Glenn Bell, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-470), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-4100.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
I. What is The Background Of This Rulemaking?
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the 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 (the amendments), 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 the device is classified or reclassified into class I or class II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the 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 act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of FDA's regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides that any person who submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the act for a device that has not previously been classified may, within 30 days after receiving an order classifying the device in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA to classify the device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. FDA shall, within 60 days of receiving such a request, classify the device by written order. This classification shall be the initial classification of the device type. Within 30 days after the issuance of an order classifying the device, FDA must publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing such classification (section 513(f)(2) of the act).
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the act, FDA issued an order on October 5, 2006, classifying the Computerized Start Printed Page 20226Labor Monitoring System in 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 that was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. Barnev Ltd. submitted a petition dated October 15, 2006, requesting classification of the Computerized Labor Monitoring System under section 513(f)(2) of the act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA reviewed the petition in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in 513(a)(1) of the act. Devices are to be classified 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 petition, FDA determined that computerized labor monitoring systems can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes that these special controls, in addition to general controls, are adequate to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
The device is assigned the generic name “Computerized Labor Monitoring System.” It is identified as a system intended to continuously measure cervical dilation and fetal head descent and provide a display that indicates the progress of labor. The computerized labor monitoring system includes a monitor and ultrasound transducers. Ultrasound transducers are placed on the maternal abdomen and cervix and on the fetal scalp to provide the matrix of measurements used to produce the display.
FDA has identified the risks to health associated with this type of device as—
A. Patient Injury—tissue injury or bleeding to baby or mother
B. Electrical Hazards—electrical shock
C. Acoustical (ultrasound) Tissue Damage—acoustical heating of tissue due to ultrasound
D. Electromagnetic Interference and Electrostatic Discharge Hazards—electromagnetic emissions interfering with other medical devices or electromagnetic susceptibility causing the device to function improperly due to emissions of other devices
E. Mismanagement of Patient—unattended birth or improper clinical decisions based on device output information
F. Adverse Tissue Reaction—adverse tissue reaction to bio-incompatible materials
G. Infection - bacterial, viral, or fungal infection of baby or mother
FDA believes that the class II special controls guidance document will aid in mitigating the potential risks to health as described in table 1 of this document.
|Identified Risk||Mitigation Measures|
|Patient Injury||Nonclinical Analysis and Testing|
|Electrical Hazards||Nonclinical Analysis and Testing|
|Acoustical (ultrasound) Tissue Damage||Nonclinical Analysis and Testing|
|Electromagnetic Interference and Electrostatic Discharge Hazards||Electromagnetic Compatibility|
|Mismanagement of Patient||Nonclinical Analysis and Testing|
|Adverse Tissue Reaction||Biocompatibility|
FDA believes that the special controls, in addition to general controls, address the risks to health identified previously and provide reasonable assurances of the safety and effectiveness of the device type. Thus, on January 30, 2007, FDA issued an order to the petitioner classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying this classification at 21 CFR 884.2800.
Following the effective date of the final classification rule, manufacturers will need to address the issues covered in the special controls guidance. However, the manufacturer need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Section 510(m) of the act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirement under 510(k) of the 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 and, therefore, the type of device 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 Start Printed Page 20227labor monitoring system they intend to market.
II. What is The Environmental Impact Of This Rule?
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. Thus, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
III. What is The Economic Impact Of This Rule?
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because classification of this device into class II will relieve manufacturers of the cost of complying with the premarket approval requirements of section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e), and may permit small potential competitors to enter the marketplace by lowering their costs, the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $122 million, using the most current (2005) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.
IV. Does This Final Rule Have Federalism Implications?
FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
V. How Does This Rule Comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995?
This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
VI. What References are on Display?
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. Petition from Barnev Ltd., dated October 15, 2006.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 884End List of Subjects Start Amendment Part
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs,End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 884-OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL DEVICESEnd Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation forEnd Amendment Part Start Amendment Part
2. Section 884.2800 is added to subpart C to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(a) Identification. A computerized labor monitoring system is a system intended to continuously measure cervical dilation and fetal head descent and provide a display that indicates the progress of labor. The computerized labor monitoring system includes a monitor and ultrasound transducers. Ultrasound transducers are placed on the maternal abdomen and cervix and on the fetal scalp to provide the matrix of measurements used to produce the display.
(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls are the FDA guidance document entitled: “Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Computerized Labor Monitoring Systems.” See § 884.1(e) for availability of this guidance document.Start Signature
Dated: April 13, 2007.
Linda S. Kahan,
Deputy Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. E7-7702 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S