PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 14, 2011
FDA Renewing Efficiency From Outside Reviewer Management Act of 2011 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend through October 1, 2017, provisions authorizing accredited persons to provide classification reports for a medical device and to inspect class II device or class III device facilities.
Deems a recommendation of an accredited person as to the classification of a medical device to be accepted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) if the Secretary fails to make a determination with respect to the recommendation within 30 days.
Requires the Secretary to regularly publish: (1) detailed decision summaries for each clearance of a device, classification of a device, approval of an application of a device, or grant of exemption for a device occurring after the enactment of this Act; and (2) total product life cycles information for devices.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Expands the devices for which an accredited person may perform a review to include: (1) a class II device for which clinical data is required in the report, and (2) a class II device which is intended to be permanently implantable or life sustaining or supporting only if notification is provided to the Secretary before such a review. Deems the review permissible if the Secretary does not object within 60 days.
Requires the Secretary to provide for the initial training and periodic updating of training of accredited persons.
Makes accreditation valid for three years. Sets forth provisions regarding reaccreditation.
Prohibits an accredited person from being a sole practitioner. Provides that the prohibitions against an accredited person being owned or controlled by a manufacturer, supplier, or vendor of devices or engaging in the design, manufacture, promotion, or sale of devices shall apply only if the devices are of the same type for which the person is accredited.
People & committees
Rep. Paulsen, Erik [R-MN-3] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3205 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3205 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3205 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3205 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.