83 FR 25598 - Radiology Devices; Reclassification of Medical Image Analyzers
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 107 (June 4, 2018)
Food and Drug Administration
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 107 (June 4, 2018)
| Page Range | 25598-25604 | |
| FR Document | 2018-11880 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 25598-25604] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-11880] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 892 [Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1553] Radiology Devices; Reclassification of Medical Image Analyzers AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Proposed order. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is issuing this proposed order to reclassify medical image analyzers applied to mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection as postamendments class III (premarket approval) devices (regulated under product code MYN), into class II (special controls), subject to premarket notification. FDA is also identifying the proposed special controls that the Agency believes are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. These devices are intended to direct the clinician's attention to portions of an image that may reveal abnormalities during interpretation of patient's radiology images by the clinician. If finalized, this order will reclassify these types of devices from class III to class II and reduce regulatory burdens on industry as these types of devices will no longer be required to submit a premarket approval application (PMA) but can instead submit a less burdensome premarket notification (510(k)) before marketing their device. [[Page 25599]] DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed order by August 3, 2018. Please see section X of this document for the proposed effective date when the new requirements apply and for the proposed effective date of a final order based on this proposed order. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows: Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 3, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of August 3, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date. Electronic Submissions Submit electronic comments in the following way:Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov. If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions''). Written/Paper Submissions Submit written/paper submissions as follows: Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.'' Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1553 for ``Radiology Devices; Reclassification of Medical Image Analyzers.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Ochs, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4312, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6661, Robert.Ochs@fda.hhs.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background--Regulatory Authorities The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended, establishes a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval). Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices), are automatically classified by section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially 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 21 CFR part 807. A postamendments device that has been initially classified in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act may be reclassified into class I or II under section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act. Section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA acting by order can reclassify the device into class I or II on its own initiative, or in response to a petition from the manufacturer or importer of the device. To change the classification of the device, the proposed new class must have sufficient regulatory controls to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available regulatory authority (see Bell v. Goddard, 366 F.2d 177, 181 (7th Cir. 1966); Ethicon, Inc. v. FDA, 762 F. Supp. 382, 388-391 (D.D.C. 1991)), or in light of changes in ``medical science'' (Upjohn v. Finch, 422 F.2d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 1970)). Whether data before the Agency are old or new, the ``new information'' to support reclassification [[Page 25600]] under 513(f)(3) must be ``valid scientific evidence'', as defined in section 513(a)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 860.7(c)(2). (See, e.g., General Medical Co. v. FDA, 770 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Contact Lens Mfrs. Assoc. v. FDA, 766 F.2d 592 (DC Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1986)). FDA relies upon ``valid scientific evidence'' in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be considered in the reclassification process, the ``valid scientific evidence'' upon which the Agency relies must be publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending PMA (see section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)). In accordance with section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act, the Agency is proposing to reclassify medical image analyzers applied to mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection from class III into class II on the basis that there is sufficient information to establish special controls, in addition to general controls, to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that a class II device may be exempted from the 510(k) premarket notification requirements, if the Agency determines that premarket notification is not necessary to reasonably assure the safety and effectiveness of the device. II. Regulatory History of the Devices This proposed order covers medical image analyzers including computer-assisted/aided detection (CADe) devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection that are assigned product code MYN. These postamendments devices are currently regulated as class III devices under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA has experience reviewing and analyzing data and information for medical image analyzers since premarket approval of the first device for these uses in 1998. On June 26, 1998, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) approved the first CADe device included in this reclassification order. In the December 30, 1998, Federal Register notice (63 FR 71930), FDA announced a PMA approval order for R2 Technology, Inc. M 1000 Image Checker and the availability of the summary of safety and effectiveness data for the device. Since 1998, 11 devices have received premarket approval for the analysis of several modalities, including mammography, ultrasound, as well as chest and dental radiographs. Based upon our review experience and consistent with the FD&C Act and FDA's regulations, FDA believes that these devices should be reclassified from class III into class II because there is sufficient information to establish special controls that can provide reasonable assurance of the device's safety and effectiveness. This proposed order does not apply to medical image analyzers/CADe devices currently classified under Sec. 892.2050 (21 CFR 892.2050), Picture archiving and communication system. FDA has regulated other CADe devices intended to aid lung nodule and colon polyp detection from computed tomography images as class II devices under Sec. 892.2050, Picture archiving and communication system and assigned the following product codes: NWE (Colon Computed Tomography System, Computer-Aided Detection); OEB (Lung Computed Tomography System, Computer-Aided Detection); OMJ (Chest X-Ray Computer Aided Detection). There have been no recalls for class II CADe devices. As of the date of this proposal, FDA has received three recalls for class III devices and one Medical Device Report (MDR), however, in the past 10 years only one recall for the class III devices has been received due to distribution of the CADe device without PMA approval. None of these recalls were classified as a Class I recall. There were also no MDRs related to either the class III medical image analyzers or class II CADe devices in the past 10 years. This evidence suggests that the safety profiles for existing class III CADe devices are similar to the class II CADe, and consequently that our regulatory controls applied should be similar. III. Device Description This proposed order applies to medical image analyzers including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection that are currently regulated as class III devices as postamendment devices. These devices are intended to identify, mark, highlight, or in any other manner direct the clinicians' attention to portions of a radiology image that may reveal abnormalities during interpretation of patient radiology images by the clinicians. These devices incorporate pattern recognition and data analysis capabilities and operate on previously acquired radiology images, including mammography, radiograph, and ultrasound. These devices are not intended to replace the review by a qualified radiologist or to be used for triage. Furthermore, these devices are not intended to recommend diagnosis of any diseases. IV. Proposed Reclassification The Radiological Devices Panel (the Panel) convened on March 4-5, 2008 (Ref. 1) and discussed issues relating to how medical image analyzers including CADe devices are used in clinical decisionmaking, how the performance of the devices should be evaluated, and the information needed to determine whether the device provides a reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. Additional discussions were held regarding medical image analyzers for mammography and radiograph applications. Following the 2008 Panel Meeting, FDA convened a second meeting of the Panel on November 18, 2009. The 2009 Panel Meeting was asked to discuss two proposed draft guidances for the evaluation of medical image analyzers and the Agency's regulatory strategy for these devices (Ref. 2). Subsequently, the two draft guidance documents were finalized by FDA and were made public on July 3, 2012 (Refs. 3 and 4). The guidance document entitled ``Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data-- Premarket Approval (PMA) and Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions'' provides guidance regarding clinical performance assessment studies for CADe applied to radiology images and radiology device data. The guidance document entitled ``Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data--Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions'' provides guidance regarding premarket notification (510(k)) submissions for CADe applied to radiology images and radiology device data. These guidance documents describe clinical and non-clinical methods to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CADe devices, including medical image analyzers covered by this proposed order. In addition to the two guidance documents, the Panel's discussion regarding the benefits and risks of medical image analyzers that were discussed at the 2008 and 2009 Panel meetings have been taken into consideration by the Agency when developing the proposed special [[Page 25601]] controls provided in this proposed order below. Since publication of these guidance documents, the Agency has gained considerable experience in reviewing medical image analyzers using the methods described in the aforementioned guidance documents. Further, as part CDRH's 2014-2015 strategic priority ``Strike the Right Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection,'' a retrospective review of class III devices subject to a PMA was completed to determine whether or not, based on our current understanding of the technology, reclassification may be appropriate. During this retrospective review, FDA determined that sufficient information exists such that the risks of false positive and false negative results, misuse, and device failure can be mitigated, to establish special controls that, together with general controls, can provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of medical image analyzers and therefore proposes these devices be reclassified from class III to class II. On April 29, 2015, FDA published a notice in the Federal Register entitled ``Retrospective Review of Premarket Approval Application Devices; Striking the Balance Between Premarket and Postmarket Data Collection'' in which FDA announced plans to consider reclassifying medical image analyzers identified with the MYN product code from class III to class II (80 FR 23798). No adverse comments were received regarding our proposed intent for MYN. In accordance with section 513(f)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR part 860, subpart C, FDA is proposing to reclassify postamendments medical image analyzers, including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection, from class III into class II. FDA believes that there is sufficient information to establish special controls, in addition to general controls, that would effectively mitigate the risks to health identified in section V and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these devices. Absent the special controls identified in this proposed order, general controls applicable to the device are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA is proposing to create a separate classification regulation for medical image analyzer devices that will be reclassified from class III to II. Under this proposed order, if finalized, the medical image analyzer devices will be identified as a prescription device. As such, the prescription device must satisfy prescription labeling requirements (see Sec. 801.109 (21 CFR 801.109), Prescription devices). Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352) and Sec. 801.5 (21 CFR 801.5), as long as the conditions of Sec. 801.109 are met. In this proposed order, if finalized, the Agency has identified the special controls under section 513(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act that, together with general controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness for medical image analyzer 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) of the FD&C 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 safety and effectiveness and, therefore, does not intend to exempt these proposed class II devices from the premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a 510(k) and receive clearance prior to marketing the device. This proposal, if finalized, will decrease regulatory burden on the medical device industry and will reduce private costs and expenditures required to comply with Federal Regulations. Specifically, regulated industry will no longer have to submit a PMA but can instead submit a 510(k) to the Agency for review prior to marketing their device. A 510(k) is a less-burdensome pathway to market a device which typically results in a more timely premarket review compared to a PMA and reduces the regulatory burden on industry in addition to providing more timely access of these types of devices to patients. V. Risks to Health From the Panel discussions on March 4-5, 2008, and November 18, 2009, along with the peer-reviewed literature (Refs. 5-8) and FDA's experiences over the years in reviewing submissions for these devices and similar devices, FDA determined the probable risks to health associated with medical image analyzers including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection are as follows: (1) False positive results may result in complications, such as incorrect management of the patient with possible adverse effects, and unnecessary additional radiology imaging and/or invasive procedures, such as biopsy; (2) false negative results could result in complications, including incorrect diagnosis and delay in disease management; (3) the device could be misused to analyze images from an unintended patient population or on images acquired with incompatible imaging hardware or incompatible image acquisition parameters, resulting in possibly lower device performance; (4) the device could be misused by not following the appropriate reading protocol, which may lead to lower sensitivity; and (5) device failure could result in the absence or delay of device output, or incorrect device output, which could likewise lead to inaccurate patient assessment. VI. Summary of the Reasons for Reclassification After considering the information above, FDA has determined that all class III medical image analyzers currently approved by FDA should be reclassified into class II on the basis that special controls, in addition to general controls, can be established to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA believes that the risks to health associated with medical image analyzers applied to mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection can be mitigated with special controls and that these mitigations will provide a reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness. FDA's reasons for reclassification of these devices are as follows: The risk of false positive results and false negative results can be mitigated by demonstrating, through clinical performance assessment (e.g., reader studies), that reader performance improves when using the medical image analyzer. In instances where a medical image analyzer has the same intended use but has different technological characteristics compared to the legally marketed device (predicate), a performance comparison of the predicate and new device evaluating with the same assessment process on the same dataset that is representative of the intended population may be sufficient to demonstrate device safety and effectiveness. The risk of false positive results and false negative results can be further mitigated by special controls that require sufficient information in labeling to provide [[Page 25602]] detailed instructions for use to the user and inform the user of the expected device performance on a dataset representative of the intended population. The risk associated with misuse of the medical image analyzers on an unintended population can be mitigated by specifying in the labeling and indications for use of the device the intended patient population for which the device has been demonstrated to be effective. This risk can be further mitigated by special controls that require informing intended users in the labeling of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance level. The risk associated with misuse of the medical image analyzer on images acquired from unintended image acquisition hardware or image acquisition parameters can be mitigated by special controls that require including in the device labeling specifications for compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols. The risk resulting from not following the intended reading protocol can be mitigated by including in the labeling the indications for use of the device, by providing adequate instructions for use including a description of the intended reading protocol, and by special controls requiring that the device labeling provide a detailed description of user training that addresses appropriate reading protocols for the device. The risk of device failure can be mitigated by requiring design verification and validation testing, and special controls that require device operating instructions. This risk can be further mitigated by special controls that require informing users in the labeling of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance level. VII. Proposed Special Controls FDA believes that the following special controls, in addition to general controls, are sufficient to mitigate the risks to health described in section V and provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these medical image analyzers: Design verification and validation must include detailed descriptions of image analysis algorithms, detailed descriptions of study protocols and datasets, results from performance testing demonstrating the device improves reader performance in the intended use population, standalone performance testing protocols and results, and appropriate software documentation. Performance testing ensures that the risk of false positive and false negative results is reduced. Labeling for the device must include detailed descriptions of the following: patient population, the intended reading protocol, the intended user and user training, device inputs and outputs, compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols. In addition, the labeling for the device must also include applicable warnings, limitations, precautions, device operating instructions, and a detailed summary of the performance testing. Detailed instructions for use and expected device performance on a dataset representative of the intended population in labeling helps minimize the risk of false positive and false negative results. Labeling ensures proper use of the device, including warnings to inform users of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance level. Table 1 shows how FDA believes the special controls set forth in the proposed order will mitigate each of the risks to health described in section V. Table 1--Risks to Health and Mitigation Measures for Medical Image Analyzers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mitigation measures/21 CFR Identified risk to health section ------------------------------------------------------------------------ False positive results.................... Special controls 1 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(1)) and 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)). False negative results.................... Special controls 1 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(1)) and 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)). Device misuse (analyzing images from an Special control 2 (21 CFR unintended patient population, images 892.2070(b)(2)). acquired with incompatible imaging hardware, or incompatible image acquisition parameters) resulting in possibly lower device performance. Device misuse (not following the Special control 2 (21 CFR appropriate reading protocol) which may 892.2070(b)(2)). lead to lower sensitivity. Device failure............................ Special control 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, FDA is proposing to limit these devices to prescription use under Sec. 801.109. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act and Sec. 801.5, as long as the conditions of Sec. 801.109 are met (referring to 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)). Under Sec. 807.81, the device would continue to be subject to 510(k) notification requirements. If this proposed order is finalized, medical image analyzers including CADe devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection will be reclassified into class II. The reclassification will be codified in Sec. 892.2070. FDA believes that adherence to the proposed special controls, in addition to the general controls, is necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices. FDA intends to update the guidance document entitled ``Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data--Premarket Approval (PMA) and Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions'' to make it consistent with this reclassification upon finalization of this proposed reclassification order. VIII. 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. IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed order contains no new collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) is not required. This [[Page 25603]] proposed order refers to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120 and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485. X. Proposed Effective Date FDA proposes that any final order based on this proposed order become effective 30 days after its date of publication in the Federal Register. XI. References The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time. 1. Transcript of the FDA Radiological Devices Panel Meeting, March 4-5, 2008 (available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAdvisory/results.cfm?panel=24&searchtype=1&month=0&year=&maxrows=10). 2. Transcript of the FDA Radiological Devices Panel Meeting, November 18, 2009 (available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170404002254/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/RadiologicalDevicesPanel/UCM197419.pdf). 3. ``Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff-- Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data--Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions,'' issued July 3, 2012 (https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/cm187294.pdf). 4. ``Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff--Clinical Performance Assessment: Considerations for Computer-Assisted Detection Devices Applied to Radiology Images and Radiology Device Data--Premarket Approval (PMA) and Premarket Notification [510(k)] Submissions,'' issued July 3, 2012 (https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm187315.pdf). 5. Dromain, C., B. Boyer, R. Ferr[eacute], et al., ``Computed-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) in the Detection of Breast Cancer,'' European Journal of Radiology, 82(3): 417-423 (2013). 6. Fenton, J.J., G. Xing, J.G. Elmore, et al., ``Short-Term Outcomes of Screening Mammography Using Computer-Aided Detection: A Population-Based Study of Medicare Enrollees,'' Annals of Internal Medicine, 158: 580-587 (2013). 7. Gur, D., J.H. Sumkin, H.E. Rockette, et al., ``Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and Mammography Recall Rates After the Introduction of a Computer-Aided Detection System,'' Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96: 185-190 (2004). 8. Noble M., W. Bruening, S. Uhl, and K. Schoelles, ``Computer-Aided Detection Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,'' Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 279(6): 881-90 (2009). List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 892 Radiology devices. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 892 be amended as follows: PART 892--RADIOLOGY DEVICES 0 1. The authority citation for part 892 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371. 0 2. Add Sec. 892.2070 to subpart B to read as follows: Sec. 892.2070 Medical image analyzer. (a) Identification. Medical image analyzers, including computer- assisted/aided detection (CADe) devices for mammography breast cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph lung nodules, and radiograph dental caries detection, is a prescription device that is intended to identify, mark, highlight, or in any other manner direct the clinicians' attention to portions of a radiology image that may reveal abnormalities during interpretation of patient radiology images by the clinicians. This device incorporates pattern recognition and data analysis capabilities and operates on previously acquired medical images. This device is not intended to replace the review by a qualified radiologist, and is not intended to be used for triage, or to recommend diagnosis. (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: (1) Design verification and validation must include: (i) A detailed description of the image analysis algorithms including a description of the algorithm inputs and outputs, each major component or block, and algorithm limitations. (ii) A detailed description of pre-specified performance testing methods and dataset(s) used to assess whether the device will improve reader performance as intended and to characterize the standalone device performance. Performance testing includes one or more standalone tests, side-by-side comparisons, or a reader study, as applicable. (iii) Results from performance testing that demonstrate that the device improves reader performance in the intended use population when used in accordance with the instructions for use. The performance assessment must be based on appropriate diagnostic accuracy measures (e.g., receiver operator characteristic plot, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and diagnostic likelihood ratio). The test dataset must contain a sufficient number of cases from important cohorts (e.g., subsets defined by clinically relevant confounders, effect modifiers, concomitant diseases, and subsets defined by image acquisition characteristics) such that the performance estimates and confidence intervals of the device for these individual subsets can be characterized for the intended use population and imaging equipment. (iv) Appropriate software documentation (e.g., device hazard analysis; software requirements specification document; software design specification document; traceability analysis; description of verification and validation activities including system level test protocol, pass/fail criteria, and results; and cybersecurity). (2) Labeling must include the following: (i) A detailed description of the patient population for which the device is indicated for use. (ii) A detailed description of the intended reading protocol. (iii) A detailed description of the intended user and user training that addresses appropriate reading protocols for the device. (iv) A detailed description of the device inputs and outputs. (v) A detailed description of compatible imaging hardware and imaging protocols. (vi) Discussion of warnings, precautions, and limitations must include situations in which the device may fail or may not operate at its expected performance level (e.g., poor image quality or for certain subpopulations), as applicable. (vii) Device operating instructions. (viii) A detailed summary of the performance testing, including: test methods, dataset characteristics, results, and a summary of sub- analyses on case distributions stratified by relevant [[Page 25604]] confounders, such as lesion and organ characteristics, disease stages, and imaging equipment. Dated: May 29, 2018. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2018-11880 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
![25600 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules
under 513(f)(3) must be ‘‘valid scientific analysis of several modalities, including previously acquired radiology images,
evidence’’, as defined in section mammography, ultrasound, as well as including mammography, radiograph,
513(a)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR chest and dental radiographs. Based and ultrasound. These devices are not
860.7(c)(2). (See, e.g., General Medical upon our review experience and intended to replace the review by a
Co. v. FDA, 770 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. consistent with the FD&C Act and qualified radiologist or to be used for
1985); Contact Lens Mfrs. Assoc. v. FDA, FDA’s regulations, FDA believes that triage. Furthermore, these devices are
766 F.2d 592 (DC Cir.1985), cert. these devices should be reclassified not intended to recommend diagnosis of
denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1986)). FDA from class III into class II because there any diseases.
relies upon ‘‘valid scientific evidence’’ is sufficient information to establish
in the classification process to special controls that can provide IV. Proposed Reclassification
determine the level of regulation for reasonable assurance of the device’s The Radiological Devices Panel (the
devices. To be considered in the safety and effectiveness. Panel) convened on March 4–5, 2008
reclassification process, the ‘‘valid This proposed order does not apply to (Ref. 1) and discussed issues relating to
scientific evidence’’ upon which the medical image analyzers/CADe devices how medical image analyzers including
Agency relies must be publicly currently classified under § 892.2050 CADe devices are used in clinical
available. Publicly available information (21 CFR 892.2050), Picture archiving decisionmaking, how the performance
excludes trade secret and/or and communication system. FDA has of the devices should be evaluated, and
confidential commercial information, regulated other CADe devices intended the information needed to determine
e.g., the contents of a pending PMA (see to aid lung nodule and colon polyp whether the device provides a
section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21 detection from computed tomography
reasonable assurance of its safety and
U.S.C. 360j(c)). images as class II devices under
effectiveness. Additional discussions
In accordance with section 513(f)(3) of § 892.2050, Picture archiving and
were held regarding medical image
the FD&C Act, the Agency is proposing communication system and assigned the
analyzers for mammography and
to reclassify medical image analyzers following product codes:
• NWE (Colon Computed radiograph applications. Following the
applied to mammography breast cancer,
Tomography System, Computer-Aided 2008 Panel Meeting, FDA convened a
ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph
Detection); second meeting of the Panel on
lung nodules, and radiograph dental
• OEB (Lung Computed Tomography November 18, 2009. The 2009 Panel
caries detection from class III into class
System, Computer-Aided Detection); Meeting was asked to discuss two
II on the basis that there is sufficient
information to establish special • OMJ (Chest X-Ray Computer Aided proposed draft guidances for the
controls, in addition to general controls, Detection). evaluation of medical image analyzers
to provide reasonable assurance of the There have been no recalls for class II and the Agency’s regulatory strategy for
safety and effectiveness of the device. CADe devices. As of the date of this these devices (Ref. 2). Subsequently, the
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act proposal, FDA has received three recalls two draft guidance documents were
provides that a class II device may be for class III devices and one Medical finalized by FDA and were made public
exempted from the 510(k) premarket Device Report (MDR), however, in the on July 3, 2012 (Refs. 3 and 4). The
notification requirements, if the Agency past 10 years only one recall for the guidance document entitled ‘‘Clinical
determines that premarket notification class III devices has been received due Performance Assessment:
is not necessary to reasonably assure the to distribution of the CADe device Considerations for Computer-Assisted
safety and effectiveness of the device. without PMA approval. None of these Detection Devices Applied to Radiology
recalls were classified as a Class I recall. Images and Radiology Device Data—
II. Regulatory History of the Devices There were also no MDRs related to Premarket Approval (PMA) and
This proposed order covers medical either the class III medical image Premarket Notification [510(k)]
image analyzers including computer- analyzers or class II CADe devices in the Submissions’’ provides guidance
assisted/aided detection (CADe) devices past 10 years. This evidence suggests regarding clinical performance
for mammography breast cancer, that the safety profiles for existing class assessment studies for CADe applied to
ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph III CADe devices are similar to the class radiology images and radiology device
lung nodules, and radiograph dental II CADe, and consequently that our data. The guidance document entitled
caries detection that are assigned regulatory controls applied should be ‘‘Computer-Assisted Detection Devices
product code MYN. These similar. Applied to Radiology Images and
postamendments devices are currently Radiology Device Data—Premarket
regulated as class III devices under III. Device Description Notification [510(k)] Submissions’’
section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA This proposed order applies to provides guidance regarding premarket
has experience reviewing and analyzing medical image analyzers including notification (510(k)) submissions for
data and information for medical image CADe devices for mammography breast CADe applied to radiology images and
analyzers since premarket approval of cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, radiology device data. These guidance
the first device for these uses in 1998. radiograph lung nodules, and documents describe clinical and non-
On June 26, 1998, the Center for Devices radiograph dental caries detection that clinical methods to evaluate the safety
and Radiological Health (CDRH) are currently regulated as class III and effectiveness of CADe devices,
approved the first CADe device devices as postamendment devices. including medical image analyzers
included in this reclassification order. These devices are intended to identify, covered by this proposed order. In
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
In the December 30, 1998, Federal mark, highlight, or in any other manner addition to the two guidance
Register notice (63 FR 71930), FDA direct the clinicians’ attention to documents, the Panel’s discussion
announced a PMA approval order for R2 portions of a radiology image that may regarding the benefits and risks of
Technology, Inc. M 1000 Image Checker reveal abnormalities during medical image analyzers that were
and the availability of the summary of interpretation of patient radiology discussed at the 2008 and 2009 Panel
safety and effectiveness data for the images by the clinicians. These devices meetings have been taken into
device. Since 1998, 11 devices have incorporate pattern recognition and data consideration by the Agency when
received premarket approval for the analysis capabilities and operate on developing the proposed special
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Jun 01, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_25705/page/3.svg)
![25602 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules
detailed instructions for use to the user instructions for use including a intended use population, standalone
and inform the user of the expected description of the intended reading performance testing protocols and
device performance on a dataset protocol, and by special controls results, and appropriate software
representative of the intended requiring that the device labeling documentation. Performance testing
population. provide a detailed description of user ensures that the risk of false positive
• The risk associated with misuse of training that addresses appropriate and false negative results is reduced.
the medical image analyzers on an reading protocols for the device. • Labeling for the device must
unintended population can be mitigated • The risk of device failure can be include detailed descriptions of the
by specifying in the labeling and mitigated by requiring design following: patient population, the
indications for use of the device the verification and validation testing, and intended reading protocol, the intended
intended patient population for which special controls that require device user and user training, device inputs
the device has been demonstrated to be operating instructions. This risk can be and outputs, compatible imaging
effective. This risk can be further further mitigated by special controls hardware and imaging protocols. In
mitigated by special controls that that require informing users in the addition, the labeling for the device
require informing intended users in the labeling of foreseeable situations in must also include applicable warnings,
labeling of foreseeable situations in which the device is likely to fail or not limitations, precautions, device
which the device is likely to fail or not to operate at its expected performance operating instructions, and a detailed
to operate at its expected performance level.
summary of the performance testing.
level. VII. Proposed Special Controls Detailed instructions for use and
• The risk associated with misuse of FDA believes that the following expected device performance on a
the medical image analyzer on images special controls, in addition to general dataset representative of the intended
acquired from unintended image controls, are sufficient to mitigate the population in labeling helps minimize
acquisition hardware or image risks to health described in section V the risk of false positive and false
acquisition parameters can be mitigated and provide a reasonable assurance of negative results. Labeling ensures
by special controls that require safety and effectiveness for these proper use of the device, including
including in the device labeling medical image analyzers: warnings to inform users of foreseeable
specifications for compatible imaging • Design verification and validation situations in which the device is likely
hardware and imaging protocols. must include detailed descriptions of to fail or not to operate at its expected
• The risk resulting from not image analysis algorithms, detailed performance level.
following the intended reading protocol descriptions of study protocols and Table 1 shows how FDA believes the
can be mitigated by including in the datasets, results from performance special controls set forth in the
labeling the indications for use of the testing demonstrating the device proposed order will mitigate each of the
device, by providing adequate improves reader performance in the risks to health described in section V.
TABLE 1—RISKS TO HEALTH AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MEDICAL IMAGE ANALYZERS
Identified risk to health Mitigation measures/21 CFR section
False positive results ................................................................................................ Special controls 1 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(1)) and 2 (21 CFR
892.2070(b)(2)).
False negative results ............................................................................................... Special controls 1 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(1)) and 2 (21 CFR
892.2070(b)(2)).
Device misuse (analyzing images from an unintended patient population, images Special control 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)).
acquired with incompatible imaging hardware, or incompatible image acquisi-
tion parameters) resulting in possibly lower device performance.
Device misuse (not following the appropriate reading protocol) which may lead to Special control 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)).
lower sensitivity.
Device failure ............................................................................................................ Special control 2 (21 CFR 892.2070(b)(2)).
In addition, FDA is proposing to limit reclassification will be codified in VIII. Analysis of Environmental Impact
these devices to prescription use under § 892.2070. FDA believes that adherence
§ 801.109. Prescription devices are to the proposed special controls, in The Agency has determined under 21
exempt from the requirement for addition to the general controls, is CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type
adequate directions for use for the necessary to provide a reasonable that does not individually or
layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the cumulatively have a significant effect on
assurance of the safety and effectiveness
FD&C Act and § 801.5, as long as the the human environment. Therefore,
of the devices. FDA intends to update
conditions of § 801.109 are met neither an environmental assessment
the guidance document entitled nor an environmental impact statement
(referring to 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)). Under ‘‘Clinical Performance Assessment:
§ 807.81, the device would continue to is required.
Considerations for Computer-Assisted
be subject to 510(k) notification
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Detection Devices Applied to Radiology IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
requirements. Images and Radiology Device Data—
If this proposed order is finalized, FDA tentatively concludes that this
Premarket Approval (PMA) and
medical image analyzers including proposed order contains no new
CADe devices for mammography breast Premarket Notification [510(k)] collections of information. Therefore,
cancer, ultrasound breast lesions, Submissions’’ to make it consistent with clearance by the Office of Management
radiograph lung nodules, and this reclassification upon finalization of and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
radiograph dental caries detection will this proposed reclassification order. Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
be reclassified into class II. The 3501–3520) is not required. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Jun 01, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_25705/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules 25603
proposed order refers to previously 6. Fenton, J.J., G. Xing, J.G. Elmore, et al., and dataset(s) used to assess whether
approved collections of information ‘‘Short-Term Outcomes of Screening the device will improve reader
found in other FDA regulations. These Mammography Using Computer-Aided performance as intended and to
Detection: A Population-Based Study of
collections of information are subject to characterize the standalone device
Medicare Enrollees,’’ Annals of Internal
review by OMB under the PRA. The Medicine, 158: 580–587 (2013). performance. Performance testing
collections of information in 21 CFR 7. Gur, D., J.H. Sumkin, H.E. Rockette, et al., includes one or more standalone tests,
part 807, subpart E have been approved ‘‘Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and side-by-side comparisons, or a reader
under OMB control number 0910–0120 Mammography Recall Rates After the study, as applicable.
and the collections of information in 21 Introduction of a Computer-Aided (iii) Results from performance testing
CFR part 801 have been approved under Detection System,’’ Journal of the that demonstrate that the device
OMB control number 0910–0485. National Cancer Institute, 96: 185–190 improves reader performance in the
(2004). intended use population when used in
X. Proposed Effective Date 8. Noble M., W. Bruening, S. Uhl, and K.
accordance with the instructions for
FDA proposes that any final order Schoelles, ‘‘Computer-Aided Detection
Mammography for Breast Cancer use. The performance assessment must
based on this proposed order become Screening: Systematic Review and Meta- be based on appropriate diagnostic
effective 30 days after its date of Analysis,’’ Archives of Gynecology and accuracy measures (e.g., receiver
publication in the Federal Register. Obstetrics, 279(6): 881–90 (2009). operator characteristic plot, sensitivity,
XI. References specificity, predictive value, and
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 892 diagnostic likelihood ratio). The test
The following references are on Radiology devices. dataset must contain a sufficient
display in the Dockets Management Therefore, under the Federal Food, number of cases from important cohorts
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under (e.g., subsets defined by clinically
for viewing by interested persons authority delegated to the Commissioner relevant confounders, effect modifiers,
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that concomitant diseases, and subsets
through Friday; they are also available 21 CFR part 892 be amended as follows: defined by image acquisition
electronically at https:// characteristics) such that the
www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified PART 892—RADIOLOGY DEVICES performance estimates and confidence
the website addresses, as of the date this intervals of the device for these
document publishes in the Federal ■ 1. The authority citation for part 892
continues to read as follows: individual subsets can be characterized
Register, but websites are subject to for the intended use population and
change over time. Authority: 21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, imaging equipment.
1. Transcript of the FDA Radiological Devices 360j, 360l, 371. (iv) Appropriate software
Panel Meeting, March 4–5, 2008 ■ 2. Add § 892.2070 to subpart B to read documentation (e.g., device hazard
(available at: https://www.accessdata. as follows: analysis; software requirements
fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAdvisory/ specification document; software design
results.cfm?panel=24&searchtype= § 892.2070 Medical image analyzer.
1&month=0&year=&maxrows=10).
specification document; traceability
(a) Identification. Medical image analysis; description of verification and
2. Transcript of the FDA Radiological Devices analyzers, including computer-assisted/
Panel Meeting, November 18, 2009 validation activities including system
(available at: https://wayback.archive-
aided detection (CADe) devices for level test protocol, pass/fail criteria, and
it.org/7993/20170404002254/https:// mammography breast cancer, results; and cybersecurity).
www.fda.gov/downloads/Advisory ultrasound breast lesions, radiograph (2) Labeling must include the
Committees/CommitteesMeeting lung nodules, and radiograph dental following:
Materials/MedicalDevices/Medical caries detection, is a prescription device (i) A detailed description of the
DevicesAdvisoryCommittee/Radiological that is intended to identify, mark, patient population for which the device
DevicesPanel/UCM197419.pdf). highlight, or in any other manner direct
3. ‘‘Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug is indicated for use.
Administration Staff—Computer-
the clinicians’ attention to portions of a (ii) A detailed description of the
Assisted Detection Devices Applied to radiology image that may reveal intended reading protocol.
Radiology Images and Radiology Device abnormalities during interpretation of (iii) A detailed description of the
Data—Premarket Notification [510(k)] patient radiology images by the intended user and user training that
Submissions,’’ issued July 3, 2012 clinicians. This device incorporates addresses appropriate reading protocols
(https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ pattern recognition and data analysis for the device.
MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationand capabilities and operates on previously (iv) A detailed description of the
Guidance/GuidanceDocuments/ acquired medical images. This device is device inputs and outputs.
cm187294.pdf). (v) A detailed description of
4. ‘‘Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff—
not intended to replace the review by a
Clinical Performance Assessment: qualified radiologist, and is not compatible imaging hardware and
Considerations for Computer-Assisted intended to be used for triage, or to imaging protocols.
Detection Devices Applied to Radiology recommend diagnosis. (vi) Discussion of warnings,
Images and Radiology Device Data— (b) Classification. Class II (special precautions, and limitations must
Premarket Approval (PMA) and controls). The special controls for this include situations in which the device
Premarket Notification [510(k)] device are: may fail or may not operate at its
Submissions,’’ issued July 3, 2012 (1) Design verification and validation expected performance level (e.g., poor
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
(https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ must include: image quality or for certain
MedicalDevices/Device (i) A detailed description of the image subpopulations), as applicable.
RegulationandGuidance/Guidance
analysis algorithms including a (vii) Device operating instructions.
Documents/ucm187315.pdf).
5. Dromain, C., B. Boyer, R. Ferré, et al., description of the algorithm inputs and (viii) A detailed summary of the
‘‘Computed-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) in outputs, each major component or performance testing, including: test
the Detection of Breast Cancer,’’ block, and algorithm limitations. methods, dataset characteristics, results,
European Journal of Radiology, 82(3): (ii) A detailed description of pre- and a summary of sub-analyses on case
417–423 (2013). specified performance testing methods distributions stratified by relevant
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Jun 01, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_25705/page/6.svg)
![25604 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2018 / Proposed Rules
confounders, such as lesion and organ whose disclosure is restricted by statute. EPA demonstrated that CAIR would
characteristics, disease stages, and Multimedia submissions (audio, video, achieve greater reasonable progress than
imaging equipment. etc.) must be accompanied by a written BART in revisions to the regional haze
Dated: May 29, 2018. comment. The written comment is program made in 2005.1 See 70 FR 39104
Leslie Kux, considered the official comment and (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA
should include discussion of all points amended its regulations to provide that
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
you wish to make. EPA will generally states participating in the CAIR cap-and-
[FR Doc. 2018–11880 Filed 6–1–18; 8:45 am]
not consider comments or comment trade programs pursuant to an EPA-
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P approved CAIR SIP or states that remain
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or subject to a CAIR FIP need not require
other file sharing system). For affected BART-eligible electric
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION additional submission methods, the full generating units (EGUs) to install,
AGENCY EPA public comment policy, operate, and maintain BART for
information about CBI or multimedia emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides
40 CFR Part 52 (NOX). As a result of EPA’s
submissions, and general guidance on
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0073; FRL–9978– making effective comments, please visit determination that CAIR was ‘‘better-
92—Region 4] http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ than-BART,’’ a number of states in the
commenting-epa-dockets. CAIR region, including South Carolina,
Air Plan Approval; SC; Regional Haze relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade
Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
programs as an alternative to BART for
2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in
2008 Ozone NAAQS Management Section, Air Planning and
designing their regional haze plans.
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides These states also relied on CAIR as an
AGENCY: Environmental Protection and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Agency (EPA). element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for
Environmental Protection Agency, achieving their reasonable progress
ACTION: Proposed rule. Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, goals (RPGs) for their regional haze
Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Notarianni can programs. However, in 2008, the United
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection be reached by telephone at (404) 562–
Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the States Court of Appeals for the District
9031 or via electronic mail at of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
following four actions regarding the notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
South Carolina State Implementation remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur
Plan (SIP): Approve the portion of South SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to preserve the environmental benefits
Carolina’s September 5, 2017, SIP provided by CAIR. North Carolina v.
I. Background
submittal seeking to change reliance EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (DC Cir.
from the Clean Air Interstate Rule A. Regional Haze Plans and Their 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208),
(CAIR) to the Cross-State Air Pollution Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA
Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air and issued FIPs to implement the rule
requirements; convert EPA’s limited Act (CAA or Act) requires states to
approval/limited disapproval of South in CSAPR-subject states.2
submit regional haze plans that contain Implementation of CSAPR was
Carolina’s regional haze plan to a full such measures as may be necessary to
approval; remove EPA’s Federal scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012,
make reasonable progress towards the when CSAPR would have superseded
Implementation Plan (FIP) for South natural visibility goal, including a
Carolina, which replaced reliance on the CAIR program.
requirement that certain categories of Due to the D.C. Circuit’s 2008 ruling
CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to existing major stationary sources built
address the deficiencies identified in that CAIR was ‘‘fatally flawed’’ and its
between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, resulting status as a temporary measure
the limited disapproval of South and operate Best Available Retrofit
Carolina’s regional haze plan; and following that ruling, EPA could not
Technology (BART) as determined by fully approve regional haze plans to the
convert the conditional approvals of the the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule
visibility prong of South Carolina’s extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy
(RHR), states are directed to conduct the BART requirement and the
infrastructure SIP submittals for the BART determinations for such ‘‘BART-
2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), eligible’’ sources that may be 1 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 anticipated to cause or contribute to any reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2008 8-hour visibility impairment in a Class I area. (and the District of Columbia), including South
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Rather than requiring source-specific Carolina, that contributed to downwind
Standards (NAAQS) to full approvals. nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of
BART controls, states also have the the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5
DATES: Comments must be received on flexibility to adopt an emissions trading NAAQS.
or before July 5, 2018. program or other alternative program as 2 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, long as the alternative provides greater statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– reasonable progress towards improving impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain
OAR–2018–0073 at http:// visibility than BART. See 40 CFR four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
instructions for submitting comments. this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms
Once submitted, comments cannot be 1999, and further refined the criteria for of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for emissions of
edited or removed from Regulations.gov. assessing whether an alternative annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX
EPA may publish any comment received program provides for greater reasonable by each covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR
to its public docket. Do not submit progress in two subsequent state budgets are implemented in two phases of
generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1
electronically any information you rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016
consider to be Confidential Business 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in
Information (CBI) or other information 60612 (October 13, 2006). 2017 and later years.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:57 Jun 01, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM 04JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_25705/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2018-06-02 00:47:29
Document Modified: 2018-06-02 00:47:29
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed order. | |
| Dates | Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed order by August 3, 2018. Please see section X of this document for the proposed effective date when the new requirements apply and for the proposed effective date of a final order based on this proposed order. | |
| Contact | Robert Ochs, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4312, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6661, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 25598 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR