The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability, 43753-43754 [2014-17666]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Comments
Interested persons may submit either
written comments to the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or
electronic comments to https://
www.regulations.gov. It is only
necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket
number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
will be posted to the docket at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FDA invites comment on all matters
relating to a potential program for
reserving proprietary names for drug
products. This request is not limited to
comments on the proposal described in
the submission by PhRMA. FDA is
particularly interested in comments and
information regarding the following:
• Are there examples of drug market
launches being delayed, or of drugs
being launched without a proprietary
name, because FDA’s determination that
a proposed proprietary name would not
be acceptable came too close to the date
of product approval? If so, please
provide details, including how far in
advance of approval the applicant
submitted the proposed name to the
Agency, whether the proposed name
had been tentatively accepted, and how
long the launch was delayed or how
long the product was marketed without
a proprietary name.
• Potential approaches for reserving
proprietary names that would create
more certainty for applicants than the
current ‘‘tentative acceptance’’ process.
For each proposed approach, please
describe the following:
Æ How the program would create
certainty while balancing the need to
avoid or minimize the risk of
medication error.
Æ The parameters of the proposed
program, including whether
participation in the program should be
voluntary or mandatory; what
conditions should be met before a name
is ‘‘reserved’’; and for how long a name
may be ‘‘reserved.’’
Æ The procedural and legal
framework for the proposed program.
Æ Whether the ‘‘reservation’’ of a
proprietary name for one applicant
would be binding, such that a similar or
identical proprietary name for another
applicant’s drug would be rejected, even
in situations in which such drug is
ready for approval before that of the
applicant for whom the name is
‘‘reserved.’’
Æ A discussion of the application of
the program to over-the-counter
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Jul 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
monograph products and drugs that are
manufactured for a private label
distributor, under an existing approved
application.
• Data and information regarding:
Æ The number of applicants that
would be interested in participating in
a voluntary name reservation program.
Æ Whether applicants would be
willing to participate voluntarily if
‘‘reservation’’ of a name is not
guaranteed to prevent the use of the
name by all other drugs that enter the
U.S. market prior to the drug for which
the name is ‘‘reserved.’’
• In the absence of a binding name
reservation program, what measures
could be used to provide greater
predictability to applicants about the
likelihood that a name found tentatively
acceptable will subsequently be
approved? Can industry address this
without FDA involvement, for example,
through a voluntary posting of proposed
names?
• Under current FDA regulations,
information in an unapproved
application, including proposed
proprietary names, is generally not
publicly available (see 21 CFR 312.130,
314.430, 601.50 & 601.51). What
mechanisms could be used to provide
notice to an applicant of possible
confusion between its proposed
proprietary name and other proposed
proprietary names contained in pending
applications?
Dated: July 22, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014–17691 Filed 7–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2011–D–0652]
The 510(k) Program: Evaluating
Substantial Equivalence in Premarket
Notifications; Guidance for Industry
and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Availability
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled
‘‘The 510(k) Program: Evaluating
Substantial Equivalence in Premarket
Notifications [510(k)].’’ This guidance
document describes FDA’s current
review practices for premarket
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43753
notification (510(k)) submissions by
describing in greater detail the
regulatory framework, policies, and
practices underlying FDA’s review of
traditional 510(k) submissions. This
guidance document does not address
the special and abbreviated 510(k)
programs. FDA intends to finalize those
sections separately.
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments on this guidance at
any time. General comments on Agency
guidance documents are welcome at any
time.
ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for
single copies of the guidance document
entitled ‘‘The 510(k) Program:
Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in
Premarket Notifications [510(k)]’’ to the
Office of the Center Director, Guidance
and Policy Development, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431,
Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002 or the
Office of Communication, Outreach and
Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128,
Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your
request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for information on
electronic access to the guidance.
Submit electronic comments on the
guidance to https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA–
305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marjorie Shulman, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1536, Silver Spring,
MD 20993–0002, 301–796–6572; or
Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301,
Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240–
402–7911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This guidance serves to identify,
explain, and clarify each of the critical
decision points in the decision-making
process FDA uses to determine
substantial equivalence under the 510(k)
program. Since the program’s inception
in 1976, FDA has periodically published
documents, including guidance
E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM
28JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
43754
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 144 / Monday, July 28, 2014 / Notices
documents, which describe FDA’s
approach and any changes therein to the
510(k) program. On June 30, 1986, FDA
published a Blue Book Memorandum
entitled ‘‘Guidance on the CDRH
Premarket Notification Review Program,
510(k) Memorandum #K86–3’’ (the
‘‘#K86–3 Memorandum’’). This
document discussed general points
regarding the process of determining
substantial equivalence between a new
device and a predicate device. On
March 20, 1998, FDA published a
guidance document entitled ‘‘The New
510(k) Paradigm—Alternate Approaches
to Demonstrating Substantial
Equivalence in Premarket Notifications’’
(‘‘the New 510(k) Paradigm’’). This
guidance introduced two new 510(k)
programs—the Special 510(k) and the
Abbreviated 510(k)—as optional
approaches available to device
manufacturers and renames the original
510(k) program that had been in place
since 1976 to the ‘‘Traditional 510(k).’’
Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated
510(k)s differ with respect to the scope
and content of information that are
included within the submission. It is
noted that the #K86–3 Memorandum
was issued as a final guidance prior to
the February 27, 1997, implementation
of FDA’s Good Guidance Practices, 21
CFR 10.115. Neither the #K86–3
Memorandum nor the New 510(k)
Paradigm has been updated since its
initial publication. As further explained
later in this section, this new guidance
document will replace only the #K86–
3 Memorandum.
On December 28, 2011, FDA
announced the availability of ‘‘Draft
Guidance for Industry and Food and
Drug Administration Staff: The 510(k)
Program: Evaluating Substantial
Equivalence in Premarket Notifications
[510(k)]’’ (76 FR 81510) (the ‘‘Draft
Guidance’’). Interested persons were
invited to comment by April 26, 2012.
FDA received 26 sets of comments,
totaling over 400 comments. While the
sections on Special 510(k),
technological characteristics, and
predicate devices received the most
comments, there were also requests for
inclusion of examples to assist in
defining the gray areas of how FDA
interprets what would be considered
substantially equivalent under the
510(k) program.
In response to these comments, the
guidance was revised to provide a
broader overview of the use of predicate
devices and to explain more clearly the
intent and value of defining a ‘‘primary
predicate’’ device in the submission.
Examples were added to several
sections to clarify the boundaries and
FDA’s decision-making process for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:53 Jul 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
finding devices equivalent to a predicate
that may have different indications for
use, technological characteristics, or
performance characteristics. There were
requests for the addition of a ‘‘fillable
form’’ to ensure consistency in the
amount and type of detail expected in
a 510(k) summary. In response, an
appendix was added with a sample
510(k) summary, including clinical data,
to demonstrate the level of detail that is
expected in each regulatory mandated
section upon finalization of the
guidance to increase transparency.
Lastly, industry expressed concern
relating to the inclusion of the Special
510(k) Program within this guidance,
given the connection of this topic and
determining when it is necessary to
submit a new 510(k) for a device
modification. In response, FDA elected
to remove the sections addressing the
alternatives to Traditional 510(k)s,
specifically the Special and Abbreviated
510(k) programs that were included in
the draft guidance. FDA intends to
finalize these sections separately. Until
FDA issues a new final guidance
document on the Special and
Abbreviated 510(k) Programs, the
recommendations for Special and
Abbreviated 510(k)s contained in the
New 510(k) Paradigm remain in effect
for these alternate submission types.
In response to other minor substantive
and editorial comments, FDA revised
the guidance document to clarify the
processes and policies as appropriate.
II. Significance of Guidance
This guidance is being issued
consistent with FDA’s good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).
The guidance represents the Agency’s
current thinking on ‘‘The 510(k)
Program: Evaluating Substantial
Equivalence in Premarket Notifications
[510(k)].’’ It does not create or confer
any rights for or on any person and does
not operate to bind FDA or the public.
An alternative approach may be used if
such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statute
and regulations.
III. Electronic Access
Persons interested in obtaining a copy
of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from
the Internet. A search capability for all
Center for Devices and Radiological
Health guidance documents is available
at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/
DeviceRegulationandGuidance/
GuidanceDocuments/default.htm.
Guidance documents are also available
at https://www.regulations.gov or https://
www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Information/default.htm. Persons
unable to download an electronic copy
of ‘‘The 510(k) Program: Evaluating
Substantial Equivalence in Premarket
Notifications [510(k)]’’ may send an
email request to CDRH-Guidance@
fda.hhs.gov to receive an electronic
copy of the document. Please use the
document number 1766 to identify the
guidance you are requesting.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This guidance refers to previously
approved collections of information
found in FDA regulations. These
collections of information are subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). The collections of information in
21 CFR part 820 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910–0073;
the collections of information in 21 CFR
part 812 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910–0078; the
collections of information in 21 CFR 807
subpart E have been approved under
OMB control number 0910–0120; the
collections of information in 21 CFR
56.115 have been approved under OMB
control number 0910–0130; the
collections of information found in 21
CFR part 814 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910–0231; the
collections of information in 21 CFR
part 803 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910–0437; and
the collections of information in 21 CFR
part 801 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910–0485.
V. Comments
Interested persons may submit either
electronic comments regarding this
document to https://www.regulations.gov
or written comments to the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It
is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
will be posted to the docket at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Dated: July 23, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014–17666 Filed 7–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
E:\FR\FM\28JYN1.SGM
28JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43753-43754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17666]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0652]
The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in
Premarket Notifications; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``The 510(k) Program: Evaluating
Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)].'' This
guidance document describes FDA's current review practices for
premarket notification (510(k)) submissions by describing in greater
detail the regulatory framework, policies, and practices underlying
FDA's review of traditional 510(k) submissions. This guidance document
does not address the special and abbreviated 510(k) programs. FDA
intends to finalize those sections separately.
DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at
any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at
any time.
ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
document entitled ``The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial
Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)]'' to the Office of the
Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 or the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information
on electronic access to the guidance.
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to https://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie Shulman, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1536, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6572; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This guidance serves to identify, explain, and clarify each of the
critical decision points in the decision-making process FDA uses to
determine substantial equivalence under the 510(k) program. Since the
program's inception in 1976, FDA has periodically published documents,
including guidance
[[Page 43754]]
documents, which describe FDA's approach and any changes therein to the
510(k) program. On June 30, 1986, FDA published a Blue Book Memorandum
entitled ``Guidance on the CDRH Premarket Notification Review Program,
510(k) Memorandum K86-3'' (the ``K86-3 Memorandum'').
This document discussed general points regarding the process of
determining substantial equivalence between a new device and a
predicate device. On March 20, 1998, FDA published a guidance document
entitled ``The New 510(k) Paradigm--Alternate Approaches to
Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications''
(``the New 510(k) Paradigm''). This guidance introduced two new 510(k)
programs--the Special 510(k) and the Abbreviated 510(k)--as optional
approaches available to device manufacturers and renames the original
510(k) program that had been in place since 1976 to the ``Traditional
510(k).'' Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated 510(k)s differ with
respect to the scope and content of information that are included
within the submission. It is noted that the K86-3 Memorandum
was issued as a final guidance prior to the February 27, 1997,
implementation of FDA's Good Guidance Practices, 21 CFR 10.115. Neither
the K86-3 Memorandum nor the New 510(k) Paradigm has been
updated since its initial publication. As further explained later in
this section, this new guidance document will replace only the
K86-3 Memorandum.
On December 28, 2011, FDA announced the availability of ``Draft
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: The
510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket
Notifications [510(k)]'' (76 FR 81510) (the ``Draft Guidance'').
Interested persons were invited to comment by April 26, 2012. FDA
received 26 sets of comments, totaling over 400 comments. While the
sections on Special 510(k), technological characteristics, and
predicate devices received the most comments, there were also requests
for inclusion of examples to assist in defining the gray areas of how
FDA interprets what would be considered substantially equivalent under
the 510(k) program.
In response to these comments, the guidance was revised to provide
a broader overview of the use of predicate devices and to explain more
clearly the intent and value of defining a ``primary predicate'' device
in the submission. Examples were added to several sections to clarify
the boundaries and FDA's decision-making process for finding devices
equivalent to a predicate that may have different indications for use,
technological characteristics, or performance characteristics. There
were requests for the addition of a ``fillable form'' to ensure
consistency in the amount and type of detail expected in a 510(k)
summary. In response, an appendix was added with a sample 510(k)
summary, including clinical data, to demonstrate the level of detail
that is expected in each regulatory mandated section upon finalization
of the guidance to increase transparency.
Lastly, industry expressed concern relating to the inclusion of the
Special 510(k) Program within this guidance, given the connection of
this topic and determining when it is necessary to submit a new 510(k)
for a device modification. In response, FDA elected to remove the
sections addressing the alternatives to Traditional 510(k)s,
specifically the Special and Abbreviated 510(k) programs that were
included in the draft guidance. FDA intends to finalize these sections
separately. Until FDA issues a new final guidance document on the
Special and Abbreviated 510(k) Programs, the recommendations for
Special and Abbreviated 510(k)s contained in the New 510(k) Paradigm
remain in effect for these alternate submission types.
In response to other minor substantive and editorial comments, FDA
revised the guidance document to clarify the processes and policies as
appropriate.
II. Significance of Guidance
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on ``The 510(k) Program: Evaluating
Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)].'' It does
not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute
and regulations.
III. Electronic Access
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at https://www.regulations.gov or https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm. Persons unable to
download an electronic copy of ``The 510(k) Program: Evaluating
Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)]'' may send
an email request to CDRH-Guidance@fda.hhs.gov to receive an electronic
copy of the document. Please use the document number 1766 to identify
the guidance you are requesting.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR
part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the
collections of information in 21 CFR 807 subpart E have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in
21 CFR 56.115 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130;
the collections of information found in 21 CFR part 814 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 803 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0437; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
V. Comments
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to https://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at https://www.regulations.gov.
Dated: July 23, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-17666 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P