Can anyone please explain this? (510k submission requirement)

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#1
I feel that I might be having a blind spot - would appreciate a sanity check.
§807.81 When a premarket notification submission is required.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each person who is required to register his establishment pursuant to §807.20 must submit a premarket notification submission to the Food and Drug Administration at least 90 days before he proposes to begin the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution of a device intended for human use which meets any of the following criteria:

(1) The device is being introduced into commercial distribution for the first time; that is, the device is not of the same type as, or is not substantially equivalent to, (i) a device in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or (ii) a device introduced for commercial distribution after May 28, 1976, that has subsequently been reclassified into class I or II.

(2) The device is being introduced into commercial distribution for the first time by a person required to register, whether or not the device meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Item 2 seems to be saying that all new devices that are made by establishments requiring registration (e.g. Manufacturers) require a 510k submission, unless a PMA or a De-Novo is submitted for them (that's being said in paragraph (b)). Moreover, it seems that item 2 makes item 1 completely redundant. None of that makes sense to me.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#3
I'm not sure if I understood you question, but you seem to imply that this requirement is related to registration (of establishments). But it's related to devices, not establishments. It only mentions establishments to link with the establishments registration requirements. In fact, all requirements under Subpart E--Premarket Notification Procedures are for device listing, and links to the previous parts on establishment registration.

But I do agree that, if you are not into the exact frame of mind, reading and understanding these can be difficult.

Also, please note that this text is from August 1977 (some months after I was born).

Anyway, the basic differences between 1 and 2 is that 1 applies to new devices, and 2 applies to devices which were already into commercial distribution before by a person (establishment) but are being introduced by another person (establishment).

Please note that the original text of the proposed regulations was:

(2) The device Is being introduced into commercial distribution or the first time by a person required to register, whether or not the device is the same type as and Is substantially equivalent to a device in commercial distribution. A person who reintroduces a device that was once in commercial distribution, but is subsequently discontinued, Is required to submit a premarket notification.
But the last part of removed in the final regulation because people complained that someone who already had a "cleared" device that was out of commercial distribution should not require a new premarket notification when reintroducing the device into commercial distribution.
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#4
I'm not sure if I understood you question, but you seem to imply that this requirement is related to registration (of establishments). But it's related to devices, not establishments. It only mentions establishments to link with the establishments registration requirements. In fact, all requirements under Subpart E--Premarket Notification Procedures are for device listing, and links to the previous parts on establishment registration.
No, that wasn't the issue. I'm clear about registration (establishments), listing (devices) and premarket notification submission (devices).
Also, please note that this text is from August 1977 (some months after I was born).
I didn't check this one in specific, but 21 CFR is amended from time to time through more recent legislation (similar to regulations in other jurisdictions). I didn't remember noticing and thinking about this issue before, so I thought maybe it was changed and somebody here knew something about it. I guess I'm being a little lazy... after all, it's the weekend :)
Added in edit: Turns out that this section was last amended in 2007. Not sure why it never bothered me earlier.
Anyway, the basic differences between 1 and 2 is that 1 applies to new devices, and 2 applies to devices which were already into commercial distribution before by a person (establishment) but are being introduced by another person (establishment).
The code says "a person required to register" (in item 2). That would include a company (manufacturer) opening a new facility on a different site (materially different address), because at that point the company (person) would be required to register (the new facility). Are you saying that that manufacturer would be required to submit another 510k, for a device they might have been making in the "old" facility? I guess you'd answer "No, because that person (company) already had the device in commercial distribution, so it's not being introduced for the first time by that person." Okay, so a tougher one: What happens when a company sells a product line, complete with the 510k, to another company starting a new facility (and thus required to register)? As far as I knew until now, there was no expectation of the buyer to submit their own 510k, i.e. it's perfectly okay to buy a 510k from someone and continue to rely on it even if the device is made on a different (even new) site. Are you saying this is not the case? I understand that if the equipment (and possibly the processes) is new it may be considered a significant change, which will require a new submission regardless of ownership transfer; but what if the product line was transferred as-is - same machines, same processes, same specifications, same work instructions etc.? I don't see a provision in item 2 to exempt from submission in that situation.
 
Last edited:

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#5
I didn't check this one in specific, but 21 CFR is amended from time to time through more recent legislation (similar to regulations in other jurisdictions). I didn't remember noticing and thinking about this issue before, so I thought maybe it was changed and somebody here knew something about it. I guess I'm being a little lazy... after all, it's the weekend :)
Added in edit: Turns out that this section was last amended in 2007. Not sure why it never bothered me earlier.
Some parts of the section yes, but the introduction and itens (1) and (2) are from the original 1977 rule.

The code says "a person required to register" (in item 2). That would include a company (manufacturer) opening a new facility on a different site (materially different address), because at that point the company (person) would be required to register (the new facility). Are you saying that that manufacturer would be required to submit another 510k, for a device they might have been making in the "old" facility? I guess you'd answer "No, because that person (company) already had the device in commercial distribution, so it's not being introduced for the first time by that person." Okay, so a tougher one: What happens when a company sells a product line, complete with the 510k, to another company starting a new facility (and thus required to register)? As far as I knew until now, there was no expectation of the buyer to submit their own 510k, i.e. it's perfectly okay to buy a 510k from someone and continue to rely on it even if the device is made on a different (even new) site. Are you saying this is not the case? I understand that if the equipment (and possibly the processes) is new it may be considered a significant change, which will require a new submission regardless of ownership transfer; but what if the product line was transferred as-is - same machines, same processes, same specifications, same work instructions etc.? I don't see a provision in item 2 to exempt from submission in that situation.
This case is dealt with by 807.85 (b) (2):

Sec. 807.85 Exemption from premarket notification.

(b) A distributor who places a device into commercial distribution for the first time under his own name and a repackager who places his own name on a device and does not change any other labeling or otherwise affect the device shall be exempted from the premarket notification requirements of this subpart if:

(1) The device was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976; or

(2) A premarket notification submission was filed by another person.
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#7
Oh, sorry, I made a little confusion on your questions and my answer.

The answer for the first question is that, if the manufacturer is legally authorized to market the existing device, he does not need to submit a new 510(k).

The second question is related to what is usually called a "transfer" of a 510(k). The FDA does not expect a submission of a new 510(k) and there's a transfer and the device is not significantly changed or modified, however, the FDA does require that the 510(k) transfer is "shown" in the next update of the (new) device establishment, when it is required to list their devices, including the 510(k) number (this would show the FDA that this establishment is the new 510(k) owner, but it's important to note that the previous "owner" cannot list the 510(k) when updating, because only one "owner" for one 510(k) can exist at a time.
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
#8
Also, please note that in both cases, §807.81 a) (2) does not apply (as in both cases, the manufacturers ARE legally authorized to market the existing device).
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#9
The second question is related to what is usually called a "transfer" of a 510(k). The FDA does not expect a submission of a new 510(k) and there's a transfer and the device is not significantly changed or modified, however, the FDA does require that the 510(k) transfer is "shown" in the next update of the (new) device establishment, when it is required to list their devices, including the 510(k) number
This is what I thought as well, but this conclusion doesn't seem to follow from 807.81 in the scenario I described.
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#10
Also, please note that in both cases, §807.81 a) (2) does not apply (as in both cases, the manufacturers ARE legally authorized to market the existing device).
Sorry, I lost you.
807.81 doesn't refer to whether or not the manufacturer is authorized to market. It seems quite straightforward - it talks about when a manufacturer needs to submit a premarket notification. The only cases where where (a) doesn't apply (including (a)(2)) are those listed in (b), which don't help clarify the last scenario I described.

It seems like [cleared device} + [new ownership] + [new site] = new submission, even if nothing else has changed.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
P Layered Process Audit & the Document Audit - Can anyone explain to me, Please? Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 2
C Will anyone please share training material for ISO:13485:2016 for best practices Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 0
N TL 9000 Starter - Please let me know if anyone has worked on TL 9000 Software Quality Assurance 1
P Does anyone have a API Q1 Documentation Package? Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 1
J Does anyone have an excel IATF 16949 Internal Audit checklist I could use? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
Watchcat Anyone had an MDR technical file review/audit yet? EU Medical Device Regulations 13
S Anyone Familiar with "SPC for Excel" add-in? Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 4
M Has anyone has been through an MDR audit? (3/2020) EU Medical Device Regulations 1
M Has anyone heard of Run at Risk? Manufacturing and Related Processes 14
C Document Control Stamps - Does anyone still stamp their documents? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 21
B ASA Aviation Supply Association - Has anyone heard of ASA? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 1
B Has anyone done an IEC 60601-1 gap analysis to IEC 60335? Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 4
D Has anyone had sudden challenges from Korea-MFDS? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
MDD_QNA QR Code Standard ISO/IEC 15417:2007 - Does anyone use it? Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
F Hi friends, can anyone show me an example of a procedure for ISO 13485 6.4.1 Work Environment? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
W Does anyone have an API Q2 checklist for internal auditing? Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 1
GreatNate Metrotom - Does anyone have any exposure to the Zeiss Metrotom 800 or 1500? Manufacturing and Related Processes 0
D FDA Biomarker Qualification Program - Has anyone prepared an application? Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
T Is anyone working with N299.1 (Supply/service to nuclear power plants)? Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 0
GreatNate QMS in SharePoint - Is anyone doing this? Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
M Honda Audits - Does anyone have any experience with the QAV audit? General Auditing Discussions 2
G Anyone working with or planning to do business in the CBD (cannabidiol) industry? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
L Has anyone heard of the 2 pan system? Manufacturing and Related Processes 6
Q Does anyone have experience implementing a QMS without ISO certification? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 2
J Does anyone here use ISOXpress/IMSXpress QMS software? Software Quality Assurance 11
K Does anyone have a copy of a GM 5 Phase Problem solving form Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 1
M Has anyone here assessed the latest Abbreviated 510(K) guidance document? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
M Does anyone has a good verification and validation plan template? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D Has anyone undergone a BARDA (HHS) audit as part of their grant process? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
QIE Anyone have experience with BPA Quality (QMS system based on Office365/Sharepoint) Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 1
M AMS0320 - Electro-deposition of zinc - Anyone come across this spec? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 4
M Anyone Dropping IATF and going back to ISO ? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 18
Sidney Vianna LinkedIn bug - Anyone has any idea of how to fix this? Posts not showing for me in a Group feed. Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
R Anyone who can share a checklist for ISO 29134? IEC 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) 7
G Can anyone tell me about Tooling FMEA FMEA and Control Plans 3
B Does anyone charge for annual layouts? APQP and PPAP 8
K Has anyone used QAI for training? Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 7
N Does anyone know a registrar that offers both ISO 9001 and ISO 17020? Registrars and Notified Bodies 6
W Does anyone have any experience with the Easy Metric System? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
J Does anyone have a good APQP template that meets IATF requirements? APQP and PPAP 3
A Anyone have experience with Transmille calibrators General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
D Has anyone here had any experience with PQ-FMEA software? FMEA and Control Plans 1
D IATF 16949 - 8.5.2.1 Traceability Plan - Does anyone have an example? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
C Upgrading from ISO 9001:2015 to IATF 16949:2016 - Anyone have a gap analysis tool? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
C Does anyone have an AS9100:2015 audit schedule template? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 1
S Has anyone completed IATF 16949 Certification - Share your Audit Experience? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
S Has anyone created a Turtle Diagram reflecting the new ISO 9001:2015 Structure? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
R Does anyone have example test report of defibrillator IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 0
R Can anyone tell me requirements standards for insufflator? Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
Q Is anyone using MasterControl Spark? I have a question ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom