CFR Subpart A

CFR Subpart A
in effect

21 C.F.R. § 860.1 Scope.

(a) This part implements sections 513, 514(b), 515(b), and 520(l) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the classification and reclassification of devices intended for human use. (b) This part prescribes the criteria and procedures to be used by advisory committees, including classification panels, where applicable, in making their recommendations, and by the Commissioner in making the Commissioner's determinations regarding the class of regulatory control (class I, class II, or class III) appropriate for particular devices. Supplementing the general Food and Drug Administration procedures governing advisory committees (part 14 of this chapter), this part also provides procedures for manufacturers, importers, and other interested persons to participate in proceedings to classify and reclassify devices. This part also describes the type of data required for determination of the safety and effectiveness of a device, and the circumstances under which information submitted to advisory committees, including classification panels, or to the Commissioner in connection with classification and reclassification proceedings, will be available to the public.

21 C.F.R. § 860.3 Definitions.

For the purposes of this part: Class means one of the three categories of regulatory control for medical devices, defined as follows: Class I means the class of devices that are subject only to the general controls authorized by or under sections 501 (adulteration), 502 (misbranding), 510 (registration), 516 (banned devices), 518 (notification and other remedies), 519 (records and reports), and 520 (general provisions) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A device is in class I if: (1) General controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, or (2) There is insufficient information from which to determine that general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device or to establish special controls to provide such assurance, but the device is not life-supporting or life-sustaining, or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, and which does not present a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Class II means the class of devices that is or eventually will be subject to special controls. A device is in class II if general controls alone are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness and there is sufficient information to establish special controls, including the promulgation of performance standards, postmarket surveillance, patient registries, development and dissemination of guidelines (including guidelines for the submission of clinical data in premarket notification submissions in accordance with section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), recommendations, and other appropriate actions as the Commissioner deems necessary to provide such assurance. For a device that is purported or represented to be for use in supporting or sustaining human life, the Commissioner shall examine and identify the special controls, if any, which are necessary to provide adequate assurance of safety and effectiveness, and describe how such controls provide such assurance. Class III means the class of devices for which premarket approval is or will be required in accordance with section 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A device is in class III if insufficient information exists to determine that general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness, or that application of special controls described in the definition of “Class II” in this section in addition to general controls, would provide such assurance, and if, in addition, the device is life-supporting or life-sustaining, or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or if the device presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Classification panel means one of the several advisory committees established by the Commissioner under section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and part 14 of this chapter for the purpose of making recommendations to the Commissioner on the classification and reclassification of devices and for other purposes prescribed by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or by the Commissioner. Classification regulation means a section under parts 862 through 892 of this chapter that contains the identification (general description and intended use) and classification (class I, II or III) of a single device type or more than one related device type(s). Commissioner means the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Health and Human Services, or the Commissioner's designee. De Novo request means any submission under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for a medical device, requesting classification into class I or class II, including all information submitted with or incorporated by reference therein. FDA means the Food and Drug Administration. General controls mean the controls authorized by or under sections 501 (adulteration), 502 (misbranding), 510 (registration, listing, and premarket notification), 516 (banned devices), 518 (notification and other remedies), 519 (records, reports, and unique device identification), and 520 (general provisions) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Generic type of device means a grouping of devices that do not differ significantly in purpose, design, materials, energy source, function, or any other feature related to safety and effectiveness, and for which similar regulatory controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Implant means a device that is placed into a surgically or naturally formed cavity of the human body. A device is regarded as an implant for the purpose of this part only if it is intended to remain implanted continuously for a period of 30 days or more, unless the Commissioner determines otherwise to protect human health. Life-supporting or life-sustaining device means a device that is essential to, or that yields information that is essential to, the restoration or continuation of a bodily function important to the continuation of human life. Petition means a submission seeking reclassification of a device in accordance with § 860.123. Special controls mean the controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for a generic type of device that is class II. Special controls include performance standards, performance testing, postmarket surveillance, patient registries, development and dissemination of guidelines (including guidelines for the submission of clinical data in premarket notification submissions in accordance with section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), recommendations, and other appropriate actions, as the Commissioner deems necessary to provide such assurance.

21 C.F.R. § 860.5 Confidentiality and use of data and information submitted in connection with classification and reclassification.

(a) This section governs the availability for public disclosure and the use by the Commissioner of data and information submitted to classification panels or to the Commissioner in connection with the classification or reclassification of devices under this part. (b) In general, data and information submitted to classification panels in connection with the classification of devices under § 860.84 will be available immediately for public disclosure upon request. However, except as provided by the special rules in paragraph (c) of this section, this provision does not apply to data and information exempt from public disclosure in accordance with part 20 of this chapter: Such data and information will be available only in accordance with part 20. (c)(1) Safety and effectiveness data submitted to classification panels or to the Commissioner in connection with the classification of a device under § 860.84, which have not been disclosed previously to the public, as described in § 20.81 of this chapter, shall be regarded as confidential if the device is classified in to class III. Because the classification of a device under § 860.84 may be ascertained only upon publication of a final regulation, all safety and effectiveness data that have not been disclosed previously are not available for public disclosure unless and until the device is classified into class I or II, in which case the procedure in paragraph (c)(2) of this section applies. (2) Thirty days after publication of a final regulation under § 860.84 classifying a device into class I or class II, safety and effectiveness data submitted for that device that had been regarded as confidential under paragraph (c)(1) of this section will be available for public disclosure and placed on public display in the office of the Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration unless, within that 30-day period, the person who submitted the data demonstrates that the data still fall within the exemption for trade secrets and confidential commercial information described in § 20.61 of this chapter. Safety and effectiveness data submitted for a device that is classified into class III by regulation in accordance with § 860.84 will remain confidential and unavailable for public disclosure so long as such data have not been disclosed to the public as described in § 20.81 of this chapter. (3) Because device classification affects generic types of devices, in making determinations under § 860.84 concerning the initial classification of a device, the classification panels and the Commissioner may consider safety and effectiveness data developed for another device in the same generic type, regardless of whether such data are regarded currently as confidential under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. (d)(1) The fact of its existence and the contents of a petition for reclassification filed in accordance with § 860.130 or § 860.132 are available for public disclosure at the time the petition is received by the Food and Drug Administration. (2) The fact of the existence of a petition for reclassification filed in accordance with § 860.134 or § 860.136 is available for public disclosure at the time the petition is received by the Food and Drug Administration. The contents of such a petition are not available for public disclosure for the period of time following its receipt (not longer than 30 days) during which the petition is reviewed for any deficiencies preventing the Commissioner from making a decision on it. Once it is determined that the petition contains no deficiencies preventing the Commissioner from making a decision on it, the petition will be filed with the Dockets Management Staff and its entire contents will be available for public disclosure and subject to consideration by classification panels and by the Commissioner in making a decision on the petition. If, during this 30-day period of time, the petition is found to contain deficiencies that prevent the Commissioner from making a decision on it, the petitioner will be so notified and afforded an opportunity to correct the deficiencies. (e) The Commissioner may not disclose, or use as the basis for reclassification of a device from class III to class II, any information reported to or otherwise obtained by the Commissioner under section 513, 514, 515, 516, 518, 519, 520(f), 520(g), or 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that falls within the exemption described in § 20.61 of this chapter for trade secrets and confidential commercial information. The exemption described in § 20.61 does not apply to data or information contained in a petition for reclassification submitted in accordance with § 860.130 or § 860.132, or in a petition submitted in accordance with § 860.134 or § 860.136 that has been determined to contain no deficiencies that prevent the Commissioner from making a decision on it. Accordingly, all data and information contained in such petitions may be disclosed by the Commissioner and used as the basis for reclassification of a device from class III to class II. (f) For purposes of this section, safety and effectiveness data include data and results derived from all studies and tests of a device on animals and humans and from all studies and tests of the device itself intended to establish or determine its safety and effectiveness. (g) Confidentiality of data and information in a De Novo file is as follows: (1) A “De Novo file” includes all data and information from the requester submitted with or incorporated by reference in the De Novo request, any De Novo supplement, or any other related submission relevant to the administrative file, as defined in § 10.3(a) of this chapter. Any record in the De Novo file will be available for public disclosure in accordance with the provisions of this section and part 20 of this chapter. (2) The existence of a De Novo file may not be disclosed by FDA before an order granting the De Novo request is issued unless it previously has been publicly disclosed or acknowledged by the De Novo requester. (3) Before an order granting the De Novo request is issued, data or information contained in the De Novo file is not available for public disclosure, except to the extent the existence of the De Novo file is disclosable under paragraph (g)(2) of this section and such data or information has been publicly disclosed or acknowledged by the De Novo requester. (4) After FDA issues an order granting a De Novo request, the data and information in the De Novo file that are not exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, are immediately available for public disclosure.

21 C.F.R. § 860.7 Determination of safety and effectiveness.

(a) The classification panels, in reviewing evidence concerning the safety and effectiveness of a device and in preparing advice to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner, in making determinations concerning the safety and effectiveness of a device, will apply the rules in this section. (b) In determining the safety and effectiveness of a device for purposes of classification, establishment of special controls for class II devices, and premarket approval of class III devices, the Commissioner and the classification panels will consider the following, among other relevant factors: (1) The persons for whose use the device is represented or intended; (2) The conditions of use for the device, including conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or advertising of the device, and other intended conditions of use; (3) The probable benefit to health from the use of the device weighed against any probable injury or illness from such use; and (4) The reliability of the device. (c)(1) Although the manufacturer may submit any form of evidence to the Food and Drug Administration in an attempt to substantiate the safety and effectiveness of a device, the agency relies upon only valid scientific evidence to determine whether there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective. After considering the nature of the device and the rules in this section, the Commissioner will determine whether the evidence submitted or otherwise available to the Commissioner is valid scientific evidence for the purpose of determining the safety or effectiveness of a particular device and whether the available evidence, when taken as a whole, is adequate to support a determination that there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its conditions of use. (2) Valid scientific evidence is evidence from well-controlled investigations, partially controlled studies, studies and objective trials without matched controls, well-documented case histories conducted by qualified experts, and reports of significant human experience with a marketed device, from which it can fairly and responsibly be concluded by qualified experts that there is reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of a device under its conditions of use. The evidence required may vary according to the characteristics of the device, its conditions of use, the existence and adequacy of warnings and other restrictions, and the extent of experience with its use. Isolated case reports, random experience, reports lacking sufficient details to permit scientific evaluation, and unsubstantiated opinions are not regarded as valid scientific evidence to show safety or effectiveness. Such information may be considered, however, in identifying a device with questionable safety or effectiveness. (d)(1) There is reasonable assurance that a device is safe when it can be determined, based upon valid scientific evidence, that the probable benefits to health from use of the device for its intended uses and conditions of use, when accompanied by adequate directions and warnings against unsafe use, outweigh any probable risks. The valid scientific evidence used to determine the safety of a device shall adequately demonstrate the absence of unreasonable risk of illness or injury associated with the use of the device for its intended uses and conditions of use. (2) Among the types of evidence that may be required, when appropriate, to determine that there is reasonable assurance that a device is safe are investigations using laboratory animals, investigations involving human subjects, nonclinical investigations, and analytical studies for in vitro diagnostic devices. (e)(1) There is reasonable assurance that a device is effective when it can be determined, based upon valid scientific evidence, that in a significant portion of the target population, the use of the device for its intended uses and conditions of use, when accompanied by adequate directions for use and warnings against unsafe use, will provide clinically significant results. (2) The valid scientific evidence used to determine the effectiveness of a device shall consist principally of well-controlled investigations, as defined in paragraph (f) of this section, unless the Commissioner authorizes reliance upon other valid scientific evidence which the Commissioner has determined is sufficient evidence from which to determine the effectiveness of a device, even in the absence of well-controlled investigations. The Commissioner may make such a determination where the requirement of well-controlled investigations in paragraph (f) of this section is not reasonably applicable to the device. (f) The following principles have been developed over a period of years and are recognized by the scientific community as the essentials of a well-controlled clinical investigation. They provide the basis for the Commissioner's determination whether there is reasonable assurance that a device is effective based upon well-controlled investigations and are also useful in assessing the weight to be given to other valid scientific evidence permitted under this section. (1) The plan or protocol for the study and the report of the results of a well-controlled investigation shall include the following: (i) A clear statement of the objectives of the study; (ii) A method of selection of the subjects that: (a) Provides adequate assurance that the subjects are suitable for the purposes of the study, provides diagnostic criteria of the condition to be treated or diagnosed, provides confirmatory laboratory tests where appropriate and, in the case of a device to prevent a disease or condition, provides evidence of susceptibility and exposure to the condition against which prophylaxis is desired; (b) Assigns the subjects to test groups, if used, in such a way as to minimize any possible bias; (c) Assures comparability between test groups and any control groups of pertinent variables such as sex, severity or duration of the disease, and use of therapy other than the test device; (iii) An explanation of the methods of observation and recording of results utilized, including the variables measured, quantitation, assessment of any subject's response, and steps taken to minimize any possible bias of subjects and observers; (iv) A comparison of the results of treatment or diagnosis with a control in such a fashion as to permit quantitative evaluation. The precise nature of the control must be specified and an explanation provided of the methods employed to minimize any possible bias of the observers and analysts of the data. Level and methods of “blinding,” if appropriate and used, are to be documented. Generally, four types of comparisons are recognized: (a) No treatments. Where objective measurements of effectiveness are available and placebo effect is negligible, comparison of the objective results in comparable groups of treated and untreated patients; (b) Placebo control. Where there may be a placebo effect with the use of a device, comparison of the results of use of the device with an ineffective device used under conditions designed to resemble the conditions of use under investigation as far as possible; (c) Active treatment control. Where an effective regimen of therapy may be used for comparison, e.g., the condition being treated is such that the use of a placebo or the withholding of treatment would be inappropriate or contrary to the interest of the patient; (d) Historical control. In certain circumstances, such as those involving diseases with high and predictable mortality or signs and symptoms of predictable duration or severity, or in the case of prophylaxis where morbidity is predictable, the results of use of the device may be compared quantitatively with prior experience historically derived from the adequately documented natural history of the disease or condition in comparable patients or populations who received no treatment or who followed an established effective regimen (therapeutic, diagnostic, prophylactic). (v) A summary of the methods of analysis and an evaluation of the data derived from the study, including any appropriate statistical methods utilized. (2) To insure the reliability of the results of an investigation, a well-controlled investigation shall involve the use of a test device that is standardized in its composition or design and performance. (g)(1) It is the responsibility of each manufacturer and importer of a device to assure that adequate, valid scientific evidence exists, and to furnish such evidence to the Food and Drug Administration to provide reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its intended uses and conditions of use. The failure of a manufacturer or importer of a device to present to the Food and Drug Administration adequate, valid scientific evidence showing that there is reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device, if regulated by general controls alone, or by general controls and special controls, may support a determination that the device be classified into class III. (2) The Commissioner may require that a manufacturer, importer, or distributor make reports or provide other information bearing on the classification of a device and indicating whether there is reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device or whether it is adulterated or misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. (3) A requirement for a report or other information under this paragraph will comply with section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Accordingly, the requirement will state the reason or purpose for such request; will describe the required report or information as clearly as possible; will not be imposed on a manufacturer, importer, or distributor of a classified device that has been exempted from such a requirement in accordance with § 860.95; will prescribe the time for compliance with the requirement; and will prescribe the form and manner in which the report or information is to be provided. (4) Required information that has been submitted previously to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, as applicable, need not be resubmitted, but may be incorporated by reference.

21 C.F.R. § 860.10 Implants and life-supporting or life-sustaining devices.

(a) A classification panel will recommend classification into class III of any implant or life-supporting or life-sustaining device unless the panel determines that such classification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. If the panel recommends classification or reclassification of such a device into a class other than class III, it shall set forth in its recommendation the reasons for so doing and an identification of the risks to health, if any, presented by the device. In the case of such a device being recommended for classification or reclassification into class II, the panel shall describe the special controls that, in addition to general controls, the panel believes are necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device and how such controls provide such assurance. (b) The Commissioner will classify an implant or life-supporting or life-sustaining device into class III unless the Commissioner determines that such classification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. If the Commissioner proposes to classify or reclassify such a device into a class other than class III, the regulation or order effecting such classification or reclassification will be accompanied by a full statement of the reasons for so doing. A statement of the reasons for not classifying or retaining the device in class III may be in the form of concurrence with the reasons for the recommendation of the classification panel, together with supporting documentation and data satisfying the requirements of § 860.7 and an identification of the risks to health, if any, presented by the device. In the case of such a device being classified or reclassified into class II, the Commissioner shall describe the special controls that, in addition to general controls, the panel believes are necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device and how such controls provide such assurance.

21 C.F.R. § 860.15 Exemptions from sections 510, 519, and 520(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

(a) A panel recommendation to the Commissioner that a device be classified or reclassified into class I will include a recommendation as to whether the device should be exempted from some or all of the requirements of one or more of the following sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Section 510 (registration, product listing, and premarket notification), section 519 (records and reports) and section 520(f) (good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation), and, in the case of a recommendation for classification into class II, whether the device should be exempted from the premarket notification requirement under section 510. (b) A regulation or an order classifying or reclassifying a device into class I will specify which requirements, if any, of sections 510, 519, and 520(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act the device is to be exempted from or, in the case of a regulation or an order classifying or reclassifying a device into class II, whether the device is to be exempted from the premarket notification requirement under section 510, together with the reasons for such exemption. (c) The Commissioner will grant exemptions under this section only if the Commissioner determines that the requirements from which the device is exempted are not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Starting a business? Corpus forms LLCs in all 50 states and DC.