510(k) Third-Party Review Program

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

510(k) Third Party Review Program
and Third Party Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) Review
Guidance for Industry,
Food and Drug Administration Staff,
and Third Party
Review Organizations
Document issued on November 21, 2024.
The draft of this document was issued on December 21, 2023.
This document supersedes “510(k) Third Party Review Program; Guidance
for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Third Party Review
Organizations” issued on March 12, 2020.
For questions about this document, contact ORP: Office of Regulatory Programs/DRP1: Division
of Submission Support at 301-796-5640.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
OMB Control No. 0910-0491
Current expiration date available at https://www.reginfo.gov.
See additional PRA statement in Section VI of this guidance.

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

Preface
Public Comment
You may submit electronic comments and suggestions at any time for Agency consideration to
https://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Staff, Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, (HFA-305), Rockville, MD 208521740. Identify all comments with the docket number FDA-2016-D-2565. Comments may not be
acted upon by the Agency until the document is next revised or updated.

Additional Copies
Additional copies are available from the Internet. You may also send an email request to
CDRH-Guidance@fda.hhs.gov to receive a copy of the guidance. Please include the document
number GUI01500013 and complete title of the guidance in the request.

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

Table of Contents
I.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

II.

Background ............................................................................................................................ 2
A.

Basis for 3P510k Review Program .................................................................................. 2

B.

Basis for Third Party EUA Review ................................................................................. 3

C.

General Overview of 3P510k Review Program............................................................... 4

D.

General Overview of 3PEUA Review ............................................................................. 5

III. Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 7
IV. Definitions.............................................................................................................................. 8
V.

Third Party Review of 510(k) Submissions and EUA Requests ......................................... 10
A.

Factors Used in Determining Device Type Eligibility in the 3P510k Review Program 10

B.

Review of 510(k) Submissions or EUA Requests by Third Party Review Organizations
12
(1)

Determine device eligibility..................................................................................... 14

(2) Assign a Product Specialist(s), Final Reviewer, and Technical Expert(s) to conduct
the substantive review of a submission............................................................................. 15
(3)

Obtain relevant FDA guidance(s) and information ................................................. 16

(4)

Early Interaction with FDA ..................................................................................... 17

(5)

Ensure a submission is administratively complete .................................................. 19

(6)

Conduct the substantive review of a submission ..................................................... 20

(7)

Identify deficiencies in a submission ....................................................................... 21

(8)

Document a review .................................................................................................. 21

(9) Organize and submit a submission including associated Third Party Review
Organization review documentation ................................................................................. 23
(10) Submit additional information upon FDA’s request ................................................ 25
(11) Submission dispute resolution ................................................................................. 26
C. FDA Expectations of Third Party Review Organizations and for Recognition and
Rerecognition of 3P510k Review Organizations.................................................................... 27
(1)

Operational considerations....................................................................................... 28

(2)

Management of impartiality..................................................................................... 28

(3)

Personnel involved in reviewing activities .............................................................. 29

(4)

Use of external Technical Experts ........................................................................... 30

(5)

Confidential information.......................................................................................... 31

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
(6)

Complaints regarding Submitters ............................................................................ 32

(7)

Third Party Review Organization recordkeeping .................................................... 32

D. Content and Format of an Application for Initial Recognition and Rerecognition as a
3P510k Review Organization ................................................................................................. 33

E.

(1)

Initial Recognition ................................................................................................... 33

(2)

Rerecognition ........................................................................................................... 37

(3)

Recognition or Rerecognition Denial ...................................................................... 37

Suspension or Recognition Withdrawal......................................................................... 37

F. Leveraging the International Medical Device Regulators Forum’s (IMDRF’s)
documents ............................................................................................................................... 38
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ....................................................................................... 39

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

510(k) Third Party Review Program
and Third Party Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) Review
Guidance for Industry,
Food and Drug Administration Staff,
and Third Party Review Organizations
This guidance represents the current thinking of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or
Agency) on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on
FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statutes and regulations. To discuss an alternative approach, contact the FDA staff
or Office responsible for this guidance as listed on the title page.

I.

Introduction

The 510(k) Third Party (3P510k) Review Program (formally known as the Accredited Persons
(AP) Program) is authorized under section 523 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FD&C Act). 1 Under the authority in section 523 of the FD&C Act, FDA recognizes third parties
to review premarket notification (“510(k)”) submissions and recommend the initial classification
of certain devices. 2 FDA’s implementation of section 523 of the FD&C Act establishes a process
1

Section 523 of the FD&C Act uses the terms “accredited persons,” “accredit,” “accredited,” “accreditation,”
“reaccredit,” “reaccredited,” and “reaccreditation.” The guidance does not use those statutory terms but rather
defines such terms as “recognition,” and “rerecognition” as synonymous terms. These alternative terms are used in
this guidance to harmonize the terms used by FDA and in the FD&C Act with those in the International Medical
Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) Good Regulatory Review Practices (GRRP) documents and are defined in
Section IV of this guidance.
2
Section 201(h)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that the term “device” is defined as follows:
“an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related
article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is-(A) recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to
them,
(B) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or
prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or
(C) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not
achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and
which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes. The term
‘device’ does not include software functions excluded pursuant to section 520(o)” of the FD&C Act.

1

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
for recognition of qualified third parties to conduct the initial review of 510(k) submissions for
certain low-to-moderate risk devices eligible for review under the 3P510k Review Program
within the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) that are submitted directly to a
3P510k Review Organization (3P510k RO). 3
FDA may contract with third party review organizations to perform reviews of Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) requests (3PEUA review) when appropriate emergency declaration
authorities are active under section 564 of the FD&C Act. FDA has previously contracted with
third party review organizations to perform reviews for 3PEUA review when appropriate
emergency declaration authorities are active under section 564 of the FD&C Act.
For the current edition of the FDA-recognized standards referenced in this document, see the
FDA Recognized Consensus Standards Database. 4 For more information regarding use of
consensus standards in regulatory submissions, please refer to the guidance “Appropriate Use of
Voluntary Consensus Standards in Premarket Submissions for Medical Devices.”
The objectives of this guidance are:
x To describe and distinguish FDA’s expectations for the 3P510k Review Program and for
3PEUA review;
x To describe the factors FDA will use in determining device type eligibility for review by
3P510k ROs;
x To outline FDA’s process for the recognition, rerecognition, suspension, and withdrawal
of recognition for 3P510k ROs;
x To clarify FDA’s expectations for review under both 3P510k review and 3PEUA review
for all stakeholders to ensure confidence and consistent quality of work by Third Party
Review Organizations to eliminate the need for routine, substantive re-review by FDA;
x To outline FDA’s expectations to prevent conflicts of interest between the Third Party
Review Organization(s) and other entities; and
x To describe FDA’s expectations regarding the compensation process between the Third
Party Review Organization(s) and other entities.
In general, FDA’s guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities.
Instead, guidances describe the Agency’s current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only
as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of
the word should in Agency guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but
not required.

II. Background
A.

Basis for 3P510k Review Program

On August 1, 1996, FDA launched a voluntary third party 510(k) review pilot program for
3

Devices of the types eligible for 3P510(k) review are not currently being reviewed in the Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research.
4
Available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm

2

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
selected medical devices. Under this pilot program, all class I devices that were not 510(k)
exempt at that time, and 30 class II devices were eligible for 3P510k review.
On November 21, 1997, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) 5 was
signed into law. Section 210 of FDAMA codified and expanded the pilot program by
establishing section 523 of the FD&C Act.
On July 9, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) 6 was
signed into law and required FDA to establish and publish criteria to accredit, reaccredit, and
deny reaccreditation of 3P510k ROs that perform 510(k) reviews of eligible devices.
On August 18, 2017, the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA) 7 was signed into law and
required FDA to issue guidance on the factors FDA will use in determining whether a class I or
class II device type, or subset of such device types, is eligible for review by 3P510k ROs,
including the risk of the device type and whether the device type is permanently implantable, life
sustaining, or life supporting, and whether there is a detailed public health justification for
permitting the review by an accredited person of such device type. This guidance also addresses
several Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA) IV 8 and V 9 commitments by including
an early interaction (EI) consult policy; clarifying criteria for rerecognition of 3P510k ROs and
the suspension or withdrawal of recognition; encouraging thorough review memoranda to reduce
the need for FDA re-review; and discussing how FDA will audit the 3P510k Review Program as
part of ongoing audit plans under the Quality Management and Organizational Excellence
(QMOE) Program.

B.

Basis for Third Party EUA Review

In 2019, an outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus began. The virus has
been named “SARS-CoV-2,” and the disease it causes has been named “Coronavirus Disease
2019” (COVID-19). The COVID-19 pandemic presented FDA with an unprecedented workload
across many device areas, including and perhaps especially, in vitro diagnostics to detect SARSCoV-2. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented number of manufacturers
came forward to request EUAs for in vitro diagnostic products for detection of SARS-CoV-2.
The manufacturers included those familiar and unfamiliar with FDA regulation. As scientific
understanding advanced, FDA was able to offer templates to developers outlining FDA’s
expectations for the development of prescription tests for SARS-CoV-2 across different
technologies, including molecular, antigen, and serology tests. As the number of tests that were
5

Pub. L. 105-115.
Pub. L. 112-144.
7
Pub. L. 115-52.
8
Through the MDUFA IV Commitment Letter, FDA commits to improving the Third Party Review Program with a
goal of eliminating routine re-review by FDA of 3P510k reviews: See 163 CONG. REC. S4729-S4736 (daily ed.
August 2, 2017) (Food and Drug Administration User Fee Reauthorization), also available at
https://www.fda.gov/media/102699/download
9
As described in Section V.D. of the MDUFA V Commitment Letter, FDA will continue to support the Third Party
Review program, with the objective of eliminating routine re-review by FDA of Third Party reviews: See 168
CONG. REC. S5195-S5200 (daily ed. September 28, 2022) (Food and Drug Administration User Fee
Reauthorization), also available at https://www.fda.gov/media/158308/download
6

3

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
issued EUAs related to COVID-19 grew to meet demand, FDA focused on reviewing EUA
requests for tests with new intended uses, such as over-the-counter tests for home use. At the
same time, FDA continued to receive a large volume of EUA requests for tests with intended
uses and technologies with which FDA had performed sufficient reviews such that it generally
understood the information needed to support such an EUA request. Consequently, FDA
contracted with a qualified third party organization to provide 3PEUA review, including
recommendations, on over one hundred in vitro diagnostic device EUA requests. The
organization contracted was not an existing 3P510k RO.
On December 29, 2022, the Prepare for and Respond to Existing Viruses, Emerging New
Threats, and Pandemics Act (PREVENT Pandemics Act) was signed into law as part of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (hereafter referred to as the “FY 2023 Omnibus”). 10
Section 2502 of the FY 2023 Omnibus amends section 565 of the FD&C Act to add subsection
(i), which clarifies FDA’s authority regarding use of third party review organizations to conduct
initial reviews of EUA requests for in vitro diagnostic products. It further directs FDA to issue
guidance on such third party review, including considerations on compensation, information
sharing, and conflicts of interest. This guidance update is intended to satisfy FDA’s obligation to
issue a final guidance on consultations with persons under section 565(i) of the FD&C Act and
also to provide clarity on use of 3PEUA review for devices other than in vitro diagnostic
products.

C.

General Overview of 3P510k Review Program

The 3P510k Review Program is intended to support FDA’s mission to protect and promote
public health by enabling the Agency to focus its internal scientific review resources on higherrisk and complex devices, while maintaining a high degree of confidence in the review of low-tomoderate risk and less complex devices by 3P510k ROs, and to provide manufacturers of
eligible devices a voluntary alternative review process that may yield more rapid decisions on
510(k)s. 11 Figure 1 below provides a schematic overview of the 3P510k Review Program. 12
Figure 1 – A General Overview of the 3P510k Review Program
510(k) Submitter
sends submission to
3P510k RO
3P510k RO
reviews
submission

3P510k RO submits
recommendation &
documentation to
FDA

FDA reviews
recommendation
and makes final
decision

FDA informs
3P510k RO of
final decision

3P510k RO
informs 510(k)
Submitter of final
decision

Submission
review is
complete

End

Reminder: Flowcharts are provided as a visual aid, but do not capture all appropriate
considerations. Refer to accompanying text in the guidance when using this flowchart.

10
See Pub. L. No. 117-328, available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3799/text#tocid4337B43372204E669A25EB3B18C8F11F
11
See section 523(a)(3) of the FD&C Act.
12
Figure 1 uses IEC/IEC 19510: Information technology – Object Management Group Business Process Model and
Notation (2013).

4

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
Under the 3P510k Review Program, 3P510k ROs review a 510(k) submission and then forward
their review, the 510(k) submission, and a recommendation to FDA (i.e., substantially equivalent
(SE) or not substantially equivalent (NSE) as defined under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act) as
described in more detail in Section VI.B.6 of this guidance. FDA reviews the 3P510k RO’s
memo and recommendation and makes a final decision on the submission. Section 523(a)(2) of
the FD&C Act requires FDA to make a determination with respect to the initial classification
within 30 calendar days 13 after receiving a recommendation from a 3P510k RO. In this pathway,
the 510(k) Submitter pays the 3P510k RO directly; no user fee is due to FDA for the 510(k)
reviewed by the 3P510k RO. 14 A general principle of the 3P510k Review Program is that the
3P510k RO is the conduit for communication to and from the 510(k) Submitter and to and from
the FDA. This ensures the 3P510k RO is fully informed and that communications between FDA
and the 510(k) submitter do not undermine the role of the 3P510k RO.
A 3P510k RO must be recognized by FDA under section 523(b) of the FD&C Act to be eligible
to participate in the 3P510k Review Program. FDA recognizes 3P510k ROs 15 to review 510(k)s
for certain device types eligible for the 3P510k Review Program. 16
Participation by 510(k) Submitters in the 3P510k Review Program is voluntary. Manufacturers
who do not wish to use a 3P510k RO may submit their 510(k)s directly to the FDA for review,
through either the Traditional, Special, or Abbreviated Programs, as appropriate, and pay the
appropriate FDA user fee. 17
As described in this guidance, the 3P510k Review Program includes features designed to ensure
a high level of quality in the review of 510(k)s by a 3P510k RO and to minimize risks to public
health. In evaluating a 3P510k RO for recognition or rerecognition, FDA will consider not only
the application, as outlined in Section V.D of this guidance, but may also consider past
premarket review performance of the 3P510k RO as described in Section V.D.2 of this
guidance. 18

D.

General Overview of 3PEUA Review

3PEUA review is intended to support FDA’s mission to protect and promote public health by
enabling the Agency to “surge” or rapidly expand its resources for reviewing EUA requests
relating to medical devices. Under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may, after the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (HHS) has made a declaration of emergency or threat justifying
authorization of emergency use (an “EUA declaration”), authorize the emergency use of an
13

FDA uses calendar days when measuring on-time performance of user-fee supported premarket medical device
submission reviews. For more information, see “MDUFA Performance Goals and Procedures, Fiscal Years 2023
through 2027,” available at https://www.fda.gov/media/158308/download
14
See section 738(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the FD&C Act.
15
A current list of recognized 3P510k ROs is available at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfThirdParty/Accredit.cfm
16
A current list of eligible devices for review under the 3P510k Review Program is available at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfThirdParty/current.cfm
17
See the guidances “The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications
[510(k)],” “The Abbreviated 510(k) Program,” and “The Special 510(k) Program.”
18
See sections 523(b)(2) and 523(b)(3) of the FD&C Act.

5

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
unapproved product 19 or an unapproved use of an approved product for certain emergency
circumstances. FDA may issue an EUA to allow a product to be used to diagnose, treat, or
prevent a serious or life-threatening disease or condition referenced in the EUA declaration,
when certain statutory criteria are met, including FDA’s determination under section 564(c)(2) of
the FD&C Act that, based on the totality of scientific evidence, the product may be effective for
such use, the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks for such use,
and, under section 564(c)(3) of the FD&C Act, that there are no adequate, approved, and
available alternatives. 20
To assist FDA in reviewing EUA requests in a timely manner, FDA may establish a contractual
relationship with one or more qualified 3PEUA ROs to conduct such reviews. FDA will seek
3PEUA ROs with appropriate skills and expertise to conduct such reviews; such organizations
may be but need not be existing 3P510k ROs. In general, FDA intends for EUA requests to be
submitted directly to FDA and FDA may, at our discretion, then forward the EUA request to
3PEUA ROs, as appropriate. 21 The 3PEUA RO should work with the submitter to address any
deficiencies identified by the 3PEUA RO, document its review, and forward its recommendation
to FDA in writing. FDA will conduct the final review and may issue an EUA, as appropriate.
More specifically, FDA will consider recommendations from 3PEUA ROs related to whether the
standard under section 564(c)(2) of the FD&C Act is met, as well as recommendations pertaining
to the scope of authorization under section 564(d) of the FD&C Act and conditions of
authorization under section 564(e) of the FD&C Act. FDA does not intend to consider
recommendations from 3PEUA ROs relating to other criteria for issuance of an EUA, such as
whether there are adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Typically, FDA will likely have
more information on these issues than the 3PEUA RO. Figure 2 below provides an overview of
3PEUA review. 22
Accurate and reliable diagnostic tests are critical to the tracking, treatment, and suppression of
transmission during an emergency. In order to respond quickly and increase access in certain
emergency situations, for in vitro diagnostic products, 23 FDA may determine that public health
would be better served by having submitters send certain EUA requests for in vitro diagnostic
products directly to a 3PEUA RO. In such case, FDA plans to include information on the FDA
Third Party public website regarding submission of EUA requests directly to specified 3PEUA
ROs. 24 Relevant in vitro diagnostic product codes and other device specifics (e.g., specimen type,
19

For purposes of this document, the term ‘unapproved product’ refers to a product that is not approved, licensed, or
cleared under section 505, 510(k), 513 or 515 of the FD&C Act; an ‘unapproved use of an approved product’ refers
to a product that is approved, licensed, or cleared under such a provision but for which the specific use is not an
approved, licensed, or cleared use of the product. See ‘unapproved product’ and ‘unapproved use of an approved
product’ in section 564(a)(2) of the FD&C Act.
20
For more information on FDA’s emergency use authorities under section 564 of the FD&C Act, see the guidance
“Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities.”
21
FDA generally intends to contract with 3PEUA ROs when there are, or are anticipated to be, a large volume of
EUA requests or certain types of EUA requests and, based on the circumstances of an emergency, the Agency
determines that help with review would be beneficial.
22
Figure 2 uses IEC/IEC 19510: Information technology – Object Management Group Business Process Model and
Notation (2013).
23
See 21 CFR 809.3.
24
For a list of relevant devices for 3PEUA review, please visit FDA’s website at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfThirdParty/current.cfm

6

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
use setting) will also be listed on that website. The same review process is intended to apply for
EUA requests sent directly to a 3PEUA RO.
Note that for review of EUA requests, FDA may contract with 3PEUA ROs when appropriate
emergency declaration authorities are active under section 564 of the FD&C Act. Given that the
needs of an EUA declaration and the scientific expertise appropriate to reviewing EUA
submissions will typically not be known prior to an emergency, FDA does not anticipate
identifying potential 3PEUA ROs in advance. The terms of a contract between FDA and a
3PEUA RO will control over this guidance.
Figure 2 – A General Overview of 3PEUA Review

EUA Submitter
submits
request to FDA

FDA determines
3P appropriate
and send to
3PEUA RO

3PEUA RO
conducts review,
interacting with
EUA Submitter to
address
deficiencies

3PEUA RO
documents and
sends
recommendation
to FDA

FDA reviews and
informs 3PEUA
RO of decision

FDA issues
authorization letter
if appropriate

Review
Complete

Reminder: Flowcharts are provided as a visual aid, but do not capture all appropriate
considerations. Refer to accompanying text in the guidance when using this flowchart.

3PEUA review differs from the 3P510k Review Program in several ways. Some of the main
differences are:
x
x

x
x

3PEUA review may only occur following a relevant declaration under section 564 of the
FD&C Act justifying emergency use authorization of a product. Assignment of a EUA
request will be determined at FDA’s discretion.
EUA Submitters should send EUA requests directly to FDA, and FDA may decide to
send certain EUA requests to a 3PEUA RO for review. For in vitro diagnostic products,
FDA may determine that the public health would be better served by having submitters
send EUA requests directly to a 3PEUA RO.
FDA may contract with 3PEUA ROs directly. This includes the review of EUA requests
for in vitro diagnostic products where FDA determines it would be appropriate to send
EUA requests directly to a 3PEUA RO.
3PEUA ROs will be identified based on expertise and skills needed in anticipation of or
at the time of an emergency declaration; FDA does not anticipate selecting 3PEUA ROs
in advance of an emergency declaration under section 564 of the FD&C Act.

Section V of this guidance clarifies FDA’s expectations for the 3P510k Review Program and for
3PEUA review, as applicable. As noted in Section IV of this guidance, references to “Third Party
Review Organization” indicate an expectation for both 3P510k ROs and 3PEUA ROs.

III. Scope
This guidance outlines FDA’s current thinking on key aspects of the 3P510k Review Program
7

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
and 3PEUA review, including:
x Factors used to establish device type eligibility in the 3P510k Review Program (see
Section V.A);
x FDA’s expectations for third party reviews of 510(k) and EUA submissions, including
the policy for EI consults on 3P510k submissions (see Section V.B);
x Requirements and considerations for recognition and rerecognition of 3P510k ROs under
the 3P510k Review Program (see Section V.C);
x Content and format of a 3P510k RO’s application for initial recognition and rerecognition
(see Section V.D);
x Process for suspension or withdrawal of recognition for 3P510k ROs (see Section V.E);
and
x Leveraging the International Medical Device Regulators Forum’s (IMDRF’s)
requirements for Regulatory Reviewers under the Good Regulatory Review Practices
(GRRP), as appropriate (see Section V.F).

IV. Definitions
The definitions provided below explain the terms used by FDA in the context of this guidance.
These terms are not intended to be applied in any context beyond this document, the 3P510k
Review Program, and 3PEUA review.
Device Type: A device type or category as set forth in a section of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as well as a subset of such device type, such as that set forth in a product code.
EUA Submitter: An entity or person that submits a request for Emergency Use Authorization
under section 564 of the FD&C Act.
510(k) Submitter: An entity or person that submits a 510(k) submission to a 3P510k Review
Organization for the purposes of demonstrating substantial equivalence (SE) of that device to a
legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval (PMA).
Final Reviewer: An individual within the Third Party Review Organization who oversees the
review of a 510(k) submission or EUA request throughout the entire review process. The Final
Reviewer is a regulatory reviewer who meets the criteria of an IMDRF Regulatory Reviewer
(defined below) and who is responsible for ensuring that final recommendations regarding the
device made by the Product Specialist (defined separately) are appropriately evaluated,
organized, and documented before documents are sent to FDA. This individual has sufficient
authority and competence within the Third Party Review Organization to independently evaluate
the quality and acceptability of the Third Party review documentation. The Final Reviewer is a
separate individual from the Product Specialist.
IMDRF Regulatory Reviewer: An individual meeting and fulfilling the competencies,
commitments, training, and conduct described in IMDRF/GRRP WG/N40 FINAL:2017 –

8

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
“Competence, Training, and Conduct Requirements for Regulatory Reviewers” 25 produced by
IMDRF. This is IMDRF’s Good Regulatory Review Practices (GRRP) document describing
criteria “for individuals who perform regulatory reviews of medical devices for marketing
authorization,” whether those individuals work for governmental regulatory authorities or
Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) 26 that FDA believes 3P510k ROs and 3PEUA ROs
should follow, where applicable, and to the extent such criteria are appropriate and consistent
with the FD&C Act and other applicable laws and regulations.
Product Specialist: An individual within a Third Party Review Organization, who meets the
criteria of an IMDRF Regulatory Reviewer (defined above), and is qualified to review and
evaluate medical devices within specific device type(s), who may also be qualified for a specific
technical or clinical specialization (e.g., biocompatibility and sterilization), based on their
scientific background and competence. This individual is the primary reviewer responsible for
leading the organization’s review team on a given 510(k) submission or EUA request. The
Product Specialist submits their recommendation and all related documentation to the Final
Reviewer.
Recognition: The process of accrediting 3P510k Review Organizations under section 523 of the
FD&C Act to review premarket notifications submitted under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act of
certain eligible devices and make recommendations to FDA regarding the initial classification of
such devices under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act.
Rerecognition: The process of renewing the accreditation of 3P510k Review Organizations
under section 523 of the FD&C Act. Unless suspended or withdrawn, accreditation is valid for
three years. 27
Recognition Criteria: The applicable FD&C Act requirements, including the qualification
requirements set forth in section 523(b)(3) of the FD&C Act; FDA’s recommendations described
in this guidance document, including those criteria contained in IMDRF GRRP WG N59
Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory Authority Recognition of Conformity Assessment
Bodies Conducting Medical Device Regulatory Reviews,” where appropriate and applicable) and
IMDRF GRRP WG N40; 28 and the criteria to accredit or deny accreditation announced in the
Federal Register. 29
Recognition Denial: The process of denying an application for accreditation submitted by a
25

IMDRF/GRRP WG/N40 Final:2017: “Competence, Training, and Conduct
Requirements for Regulatory Reviewers” can be found at http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrftech-170316-competence-conduct-reviewers.pdf
26
“Conformity Assessment Body (CAB): A body other than a Regulatory Authority engaged in determining whether
the relevant requirements in technical regulations or standards are fulfilled (GHTF/SG1/N78:2012)”, IMDRF/GRRP
WG/N40FINAL:2017, section 3.6.
27
See section 523(b)(2)(D) of the FD&C Act.
28
IMDRF/GRRP WG/N40 Final:2017: “Competence, Training, and Conduct Requirements for Regulatory
Reviewers”, previously cited, available at http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-170316competence-conduct-reviewers.pdf
29
Medical Devices; Implementation of Third Party Review Under the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997; Emergency Processing Request Under OMB Review, 63 FR 28388, May 22, 1998,
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-05-22/pdf/98-13799.pdf

9

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
potential 3P510k Review Organization.
Rerecognition Denial: The process of denying an application for reaccreditation submitted by a
recognized 3P510k Review Organization.
Recognition Withdrawal: The process of withdrawing or suspending accreditation of a 3P510k
Review Organization in accordance with section 523(b)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Safety Signal: A signal that represents a new potentially causal association or a new aspect of a
known association between a medical device and an adverse event or set of adverse events. 30
Submission: As used in this document, “submission” refers to either a 510(k) submission or an
EUA request.
Technical Expert: An individual who provides specific knowledge or expertise. This individual
may be an employee of a 3P510k Review Organization or 3PEUA Review Organization or may
be external as described below in Sections V.B.2 and V.C.4 of this guidance, respectively.
Third Party 510(k) (3P510k) Review Organization (3P510k RO): An organization recognized
by FDA to review 510(k) submissions for certain eligible devices as authorized by section 523 of
the FD&C Act.
Third Party EUA (3PEUA) Review Organization (3PEUA RO): An organization under
contract with FDA to review EUA requests.
Third Party Review Organization: This phrase refers to either an 3PEUA Review Organization
or a 3P510k Review Organization.

V. Third Party Review of 510(k) Submissions and EUA
Requests
A. Factors Used in Determining Device Type Eligibility in
the 3P510k Review Program
The factors FDA considers in determining device type eligibility for the 3P510k Review
Program are as follows:
x The risk of the device type, or subset of such device type. 31 FDA generally classifies
medical devices based on risks associated with the device type and whether general
controls are sufficient to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of
the device or there is sufficient information to establish special controls to mitigate such
risks and provide such assurance. Devices are classified into one of three regulatory
30

See Signal Management Program in “Medical Device Safety Action Plan: Protecting Patients, Promoting Public
Health,” available at https://www.fda.gov/media/112497/download
31
See section 523(a)(3)(B)(i)(I) of the FD&C Act.

10

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

x

x
x

x

x

classes: class I, class II, or class III. 32 In accordance with the statute, class III devices are
not eligible for 3P510k review. 33
Whether the device type, or subset of such device type, is intended to be permanently
implanted in the human body, to sustain human life, or to support human life. Any
3P510k RO seeking recognition for review of such device types must provide a detailed
public health justification explaining why this device type should be eligible for 3P510k
review 34 and how this will positively impact public health.
The extent to which the device type is well understood. For example, devices with novel
technological characteristics, including some devices requiring complex special controls
initially classified through the De Novo process may be ineligible for 3P510k review. 35
The extent to which necessary information to make a well-informed recommendation is
available to 3P510k ROs. If information materially relevant to evaluating a device type
cannot be shared outside the agency (e.g., it is proprietary), the device type may be
ineligible for 3P510k review.
The extent to which the review of the device type does not require multifaceted,
interdisciplinary expertise. The following are examples of scenarios that would likely be
ineligible for 3P510k review due to the need for such expertise:
x The review of some kinds of clinical data or complex non-clinical data (e.g.,
computational modeling);
x A need for consultation across different FDA organizational components, or in
cross-modality topics (e.g., a multi-reader clinical study);
x A combination product or device type either of which requires review from
another Center in the Agency; and 36
x If a device type raises novel cross-labeling considerations, such as the potential
for off-label use of drugs (e.g., injector needles or syringes). “Cross-labeled”
products usually refer to any drug, device, or biological product packaged
separately that, according to its proposed labeling, is for use only with another
individually specified drug, device, or biological product where both are required
to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect. 37
x However, if a device type contains simple clinical data such as sample clinical
images or tests using banked specimens, it may be eligible for 3P510k review.
Most in vitro diagnostic products are eligible for 3P510k review as they typically
rely on simple clinical studies to demonstrate SE, provided that such devices also
meet the other factors listed in this section.
The availability of postmarket data suggesting that the device type is the subject of safety
signals. For example, if a device type is the subject of a safety communication, a high-

32

For more information on the classification of medical devices, please visit FDA’s website at
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/cdrh-transparency/overview-medical-device-classification-and-reclassification
33
See section 523(a)(3)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act.
34
See section 523(a)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the FD&C Act.
35
See the guidance “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation).”
36
For more information on combination products, please visit Frequently Asked Questions About Combination
Products, available at https://www.fda.gov/combination-products/about-combination-products/frequently-askedquestions-about-combination-products
37
See the guidance “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.”

11

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
risk recall (Class I) 38, or postmarket data that indicate a safety signal, this device type
may be ineligible for 3P510k review.
For example, duodenoscopes have a safety signal associated with their reprocessing. 39
Because of this safety signal, FDA removed duodenoscopes and accessories from
eligibility for the 3P510k Review Program.
FDA will consider each of the above factors in determining device type eligibility for 3P510k
review. Furthermore, if a device type is considered eligible for 3P510k review, but a proposed
modification to the device type for a specific submission raises different concerns related to the
factors listed above, upon receipt of completed review by a 3P510k RO or through the EI request
process outline in Section V.B.4 of this guidance, FDA may determine that a submission is
ineligible for 3P510k review.
If a submitter has previously submitted a 510(k) for a device that resulted in anything other than
an SE decision (e.g., withdrew after receiving FDA feedback or was NSE), then that device is
not eligible for the 3P510k pathway for that submitter. 40
The product code classification database 41 and FDA’s list of devices eligible for 3P510k review 42
were updated to reflect these eligibility factors to determine 3P510k eligibility for device types.
If eligible device types are determined to be ineligible for 3P510k review, or ineligible ones are
determined to be eligible for 3P510k review, FDA will change their status in the database and
FDA’s publicly available list. FDA will periodically review new device types using the factors
described above to determine whether they are appropriate for 3P510k review, and update the
database and list accordingly.

B. Review of 510(k) Submissions or EUA Requests by Third
Party Review Organizations
FDA believes that Third Party Review Organizations should conduct FDA-equivalent reviews of
appropriate devices. Third Party Review Organizations are responsible for reviewing and
analyzing scientific and technical data in a submission to make a recommendation to FDA
regarding the device. Third Party Review Organizations should conduct their review of
submissions in the manner described in the sections below and in accordance with their own
quality control practices. Figure 3 identifies the key steps in a 3P510k RO’s review of a 510(k)

38

For more information on classification of recalls, please visit Recalls, Corrections and Removals (Devices),
available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/postmarket-requirements-devices/recalls-corrections-andremovals-devices
39
Information on safety signals associated with duodenoscopes is available at https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/reprocessing-reusable-medical-devices/infections-associated-reprocessed-duodenoscopes
40
See section 523(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the FD&C Act.
41
The product code classification database is available at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
42
A current list of eligible devices for 3P510k review is available at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfThirdParty/current.cfm

12

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
submission, 43 while Figure 4 identifies the key steps in a 3PEUA RO’s review of an EUA
request.
Figure 3: Steps in a 3P510k Review Organization’s 510(k) Review
3P510k RO
refuses to accept
file for review
3P510k RO
receives
submission from
510(k) Submitter

Obtain early
interaction
consult
(as needed)

No

Determine
Device
Eligibility

Conduct &
document
substantive
review

Is the
device
eligible?

Yes

Is additional
info needed?

No

Yes

Receive additional
Request additional
information
information
from 510(k) Submitter from 510(k) Submitter

Assign a Product
Specialist and if
necessary, a
Technical Expert

Obtain
guidance and
relevant
information

Document the
review and
organize the
submission

Final Reviewer
conducts Final
Review to
finalize the
submission

Ensure
submission is
complete

End RO
3P510k
submits
recommendation
and submission
to FDA

Reminder: Flowcharts
are provided as a visual
aid, but do not capture
all appropriate
considerations. Refer to
accompanying text in
the guidance when
using this flowchart.

43

Figure 3 uses IEC/IEC 19510: Information technology – Object Management Group Business Process Model and
Notation (2013).

13

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
Figure 4: Steps in Establishing and Conducting EUA Review by a 3PEUA Review
Organization
Section 564
Authority
Granted

FDA
determines a
need for
3PEUA review
exists

FDA solicits
organizations
for potential
3PEUA review

Assign a
Product
Specialist, a
Final
Reviewer,
and, if
necessary, a
Technical
Expert

3PEUA RO
receives EUA
request

Confirm EUA
request within
contract scope

FDA and
3PEUA RO
establish
contract

Obtain latest
guidance and
templates

FDA
determines
which EUA
requests are a
fit for 3PEUA
review

Conduct &
document
substantive
review

FDA forwards EUA
request(s) to 3PEUA
RO

Clarify issues
by interacting
with EUA
Submitter as
needed

Clarify issues
by interacting
with FDA as
needed

Contact FDA if needed

Document the
review and
draft
appropriate
letter

E.g., Authorization,
additional
information, or
decline to issue

(1)

Final Reviewer
conducts final
review to
finalize the
review
products and
3PEUA RO sends
recommend- 2 Sets of documents
ation
to FDA for final review
and to determine
final action

Reminder: Flowcharts are
provided as a visual aid, but do
not capture all appropriate
considerations. Refer to
accompanying text in the
guidance when using this
flowchart.

Determine device eligibility

Before reviewing a 510(k) submission, a 3P510k RO should determine whether they have the
expertise to review the device type and whether that device type is eligible for 3P510k review
based on review of the product code classification database 44 or the FDA Third Party Review
public website. 45 If the 3P510k RO lacks the expertise or the device is not eligible for 3P510k
review, the 3P510k RO should not accept the 510(k) submission for review from the 510(k)
Submitter. If the 3P510k RO determines the device is ineligible for 3P510k review after they
have already accepted the 510(k) submission, the 3P510k RO should immediately inform the
510(k) Submitter and discontinue the review.
3P510k ROs should establish policies designed to identify, prevent, and ensure reporting to FDA
instances of forum shopping by 510(k) Submitters. 510(k) Submitters who consult with more
than one 3P510k RO in order to find a review organization that is most likely to recommend
44

The product code classification database is available at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
45
The list of eligible devices for third party review under the 3P510k Review Program is available at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfThirdParty/current.cfm

14

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
clearance of a 510(k) submission undermine the independence and integrity of the 3P510k
Review Program. 3P510k ROs should take steps to ensure that the submitters of the 510(k)s they
are reviewing have not previously presented the submission to another RO and have not
modified their device description or intended use to be reviewed by a different review office in
FDA.
If the 3P510k RO submits a 510(k) submission to FDA for an ineligible device, or a device the
3P510k RO is not recognized to review (see Section V.D.1 of this guidance), FDA will place the
submission on hold and notify the 3P510k RO of FDA’s eligibility assessment. Unless the
3P510k RO intends to address the eligibility concerns, they should promptly consult with the
510(k) Submitter and, if the 510(k) Submitter concurs, promptly send a 510(k) withdrawal
request to FDA. If the 3P510k RO does not address eligibility concerns or withdraw the
submission within 180 days, FDA will delete the file. A 510(k) Submitter cannot submit a 510(k)
for the same device directly to FDA or to another 3P510k RO until the file is withdrawn
voluntarily by the 3P510k RO or deleted automatically by FDA after 180 days. If a 3P510k RO
has questions about the eligibility status of a device, they should contact the 3P510k mailbox at
3P510K@fda.hhs.gov to seek clarification.
A 3PEUA RO should likewise review an EUA request to ensure that it is appropriate for 3PEUA
review regardless of whether the EUA request is sent from FDA or directly from the EUA
Submitter. This includes assessing whether the device is within the purview of the 3PEUA RO’s
contract with FDA (e.g., confirming the device type and intended use). If the EUA request is not
appropriate for third party review, the 3PEUA RO should inform FDA. 46 If the EUA request is
for an in vitro diagnostic product that was sent by the EUA Submitter directly to the 3PEUA RO,
the 3PEUA RO should inform FDA and the EUA Submitter’s designated correspondent. A
3PEUA RO may communicate with FDA to confirm its assessment before informing the EUA
Submitter.

(2)

Assign a Product Specialist(s), Final Reviewer, and
Technical Expert(s) to conduct the substantive review of a
submission

Third Party Review Organization personnel should have appropriate education, training, skills,
technical knowledge, qualifications, and experience to perform submission reviews for the
device type(s) their organization is recognized and/or contracted to review. For additional
discussion on FDA’s recommendations regarding qualifications of personnel, see Section V.C.2
of this guidance.
Each submission should be assigned to a Product Specialist with appropriate expertise for the
type of device under review. The Product Specialist may add qualified Technical Experts to the
review team to ensure sufficient competency in the review, if necessary. The Product Specialist
should document the competencies of, and the rationale for, choosing to use any Technical
Experts. Particular attention should be given to the expertise and impartiality of any external
Technical Experts. For more information on using external Technical Experts, please see Section
46

FDA will provide a designated email address in the contract with 3PEUA RO.

15

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
V.C.3 of this guidance.
Third Party Review Organizations should also identify at least one Final Reviewer within its
organization who is independent from prior review of the submission and is responsible for
providing a final supervisory assessment of the Product Specialist’s work before it is submitted
to FDA. This individual should have sufficient authority and competence to independently assess
the quality and acceptability of the Product Specialist’s review of the submission.

(3)

Obtain relevant FDA guidance(s) and information

Third Party Review Organizations should review and be familiar with publicly available
information relevant to their review. For example:
x Third Party Review Organizations should review FDA’s guidance database to obtain any
relevant final guidance documents 47 when conducting their reviews, including devicespecific and horizontal guidances (e.g., biocompatibility, software, sterility).
x 3P510k ROs should be aware of any special controls, which are regulatory
requirements for certain class II devices, that apply to that device type under
review. For information on whether a device type has applicable special controls,
3P510k ROs should review the regulation associated with the device’s proposed
classification under Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 48 which
will identify the mandatory special controls for a particular device type.
x For 3PEUA ROs conducting reviews specific to an applicable EUA declaration,
FDA’s Emergency Preparedness and Response website 49 may provide additional
information (e.g., EUA templates to assist EUA Submitters in preparing their
requests).
x 3P510k ROs should review FDA’s postmarket databases, including recalls, market
withdrawals, and safety reports; 50 Medical Device Reports; 51 and MedSun Reports 52 for
the predicate device and/or the device type to identify any issues with clinical use of
similar devices that should be considered and addressed in the review of the subject
device. If potential safety signals are identified by a 3P510k RO, they should contact
FDA for information on current review practice (see Section V.B.4 of this guidance).
x 3P510k ROs should review publicly available premarket review information in FDA’s
510(k) database for information about the legally marketed device (“predicate”) to which

47

The guidance database search engine allows users to search the inventory of guidances available by title, words,
or origin and is available at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents
48
The Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 database is available at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/ECFR?page=browse
49
Available at https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response
50
The recalls database allows users to search for recalls and correction or removal actions initiated by a firm prior to
recall classification and is available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
51
The MAUDE database allows users to search for Medical Device Reports and is available at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
52
The MedSun database allows users to search for adverse event reports from the Medical Product Safety Network
and is available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm

16

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

x

a Submitter is comparing its device, or other similar devices, 53 including Indications for
Use Statements, 510(k) Summaries, 54, 55 Decision Summaries, if available, and FDA
decision letters. In some instances, a device’s product code can also be used to identify a
generic category of a device and assist with the identification of similar devices. Product
codes can be found in FDA’s product code database. 56
If a submitter wishes to utilize standards, the Third Party Review Organization should
review FDA’s guidance document entitled “Appropriate Use of Voluntary Consensus
Standards in Premarket Submissions for Medical Devices.”

Third Party Review Organizations should request that submitters fully inform them of any prior
communications with FDA about a device under review, including but not limited to FDA
feedback obtained through the Q-Submission program, Pre-EUAs, unsuccessful marketing
applications, and other interactions. If applicable, 3P510k ROs should be familiar with the FDA
Q-Submission Program, including the Pre-Submission process, through the guidance document
entitled, “Requests for Feedback and Meetings for Medical Device Submissions: The QSubmission Program.” A 3P510k RO should request an authorization letter from the 510(k)
Submitter granting FDA permission to share information about or from previous submissions
with the 3P510k RO (e.g., Q-Submissions and 510(k)s) related to the device (see Section V.B.9
of this guidance). If applicable, the Third Party Review Organization should coordinate with the
submitter to obtain and review prior submission content for the device, any written feedback or
meeting minutes resulting from prior interactions, and any additional data, studies and/or study
protocols submitted in response to previous submissions prior to the current submission to FDA.
FDA will review only one submission for a device at a time. Therefore, 3P510k ROs should
confirm that 510(k) Submitters submit only one submission for a specific device at a time. If, as
discussed above, a 3PEUA RO receives an EUA request for an in vitro diagnostic device directly
from a submitter, they should similarly check with FDA, by contacting FDA at the 3PEUA
mailbox that will be included in the contract between the 3PEUA RO and FDA, to ensure that a
submission for the same device was not also submitted directly to FDA.

(4)

Early Interaction with FDA

Third Party Review Organizations should interact, as needed, with appropriate FDA staff prior to
and during the review of submissions. For 3P510k review, EIs – those between the 3P510k RO
and FDA prior to the substantive review – can be an important part of the 510(k) review process
(for potential topics, refer to Section V.B.4 of this guidance). These interactions help ensure
timely and consistent 510(k) reviews by assisting in device eligibility determinations and
identifying relevant issues and contemporary review criteria.

53

The 510(k) database search engine allows users to search all previously cleared 510(k) submissions by 510(k)
number, applicant name, device name, product code, etc., and is available on FDA’s website at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
54
See 21 CFR 807.92.
55
See also the guidance “The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications
[510(k)].”
56
The product code database is available on FDA’s website at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm

17

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
In their initial recognition applications, 3P510k ROs commit to EIs with FDA before reviewing a
device type they have not previously reviewed (see Section V.D.1 of this guidance). This
interaction ensures that the 3P510k RO has the latest FDA thinking on relevant guidance,
standards, and other considerations for that device type. FDA encourages EIs for all 3P510k
submissions, particularly for the first review of any device type by an individual Product
Specialist and for any subset of device type (i.e., device type by product code) they have not
recently reviewed. Generally, FDA considers a recent review to be within the last six months.
Procedures on how to obtain EI are available on FDA’s “510(k) Third Party Review Program”
website. The 3P510k Program Review Team intends to respond to 3P510k RO requests within 2
business days of receipt of an EI request. The 3P510k Program Review Team intends to triage
the EI request before sending to the appropriate review division. If that deadline cannot be met,
FDA intends to work with the 3P510k RO to establish a reasonable timeline for a response. Each
review division within FDA that receives an EI intends to respond within 7 calendar days.
Figure 5. 3P510k RO’s Steps to Interacting Early with the FDA

3P510k RO
receives a
510(k)
submission

3P510k RO
identifies
question(s) during
510(k) review

3P510k RO
contacts FDA with
question(s)

FDA triages
question(s)
received from
3P510k RO

3P510k RO
proceeds with
510(k) review or
contacts the
submitter to
determine next
steps
FDA responds to
3P510k RO

To enable FDA to provide timely feedback to 3P510k ROs through this process, the EI should be
succinct and focused on one or two key questions if possible. Focused key questions include
asking FDA to clarify a particular issue for the 3P510k RO, such as whether the software in a
device should include basic or enhanced documentation level, 57 or whether the product code in
the submission (include the device description) is correct or if FDA would expect the device to
be regulated under a different product code. The EI may ask whether FDA recommends
additional testing for a device beyond what is reflected in the 510(k) summary of the predicate
device. Please note that an EI should also include the 3P510k RO’s proposed resolution of the
issue. If an EI is overly broad or too detailed, FDA may be unable to provide feedback but will
try to work with the 3P510k RO to focus on the key issue in the organization’s review.
FDA recommends EIs if there are questions about whether the submission is for a known device
type with novel technology (e.g., addition of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) or
whether there are possible data integrity issues.
For 3PEUA questions, rather than resorting to the EI process, 3PEUA ROs should check in
regularly with FDA to remain up to date on any emerging understanding, templates, or
57

See the guidance “Content of Premarket Submissions for Device Software Functions,” for recommendations on
how FDA intends to take a risk-based approach to help determine the device’s documentation level.

18

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
expectations relevant to EUA review.

(5)

Ensure a submission is administratively complete

To ensure that a submission is administratively complete, 3P510k ROs should conduct a review
of the 510(k) submission based on 510(k) regulations from 21 CFR part 807 subpart E to assess
whether the 510(k) submission includes all the information necessary to conduct a substantive
review and to reach a recommendation (i.e., SE or NSE) to submit to FDA.
The 510(k) submitter should utilize the electronic Submission Template and Resource (eSTAR)
to facilitate the preparation of 510(k) submissions to make sure a submission is administratively
complete. For more information on eSTAR, please see Section V.B.9 of this guidance and the
“Electronic Submission Template for Medical Device 510(k) Submissions” guidance.
3PEUA ROs should likewise ensure that an EUA request has enough information to enable
review before conducting a substantive review. The exact type and amount of data needed to
support an EUA may vary depending on the nature of the declared emergency or threat of
emergency and the nature of the candidate product. 58 FDA anticipates that expectations of
requests will be detailed at the time a contract is awarded for 3PEUA review as well as where or
with whom to check for updates to that information. If the correspondent is not the manufacturer,
but is acting on behalf of the manufacturer, the submission should include authorization for the
correspondent to act on behalf of the manufacturer. This does not change who FDA considers to
be the EUA Submitter. 59 If FDA has posted on its website specific information recommended for
the device type being reviewed (e.g., FDA posted a template for EUA requests for SARS-CoV-2
antigen tests), it may be a helpful reference for this assessment.
Third Party Review Organizations should not act as a consultant for the submitter. It is the
responsibility of the submitter to be familiar with the content and format requirements of a
510(k) submission or EUA request prior to submitting to FDA or a Third Party Review
Organization. If a submitter is not familiar with the 510(k) regulatory pathway, 3P510k ROs
should direct them to resources such as FDA’s guidance documents entitled, “The 510(k)
Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)],” “The
Abbreviated 510(k) Program,” and “The Special 510(k) Program.” If an EUA Submitter is not
familiar with the process for obtaining authorization for emergency use of a device, the 3PEUA
RO should direct them to resources such as FDA’s guidance document entitled, “Emergency Use
Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities” or FDA’s Emergency Use
Authorization website. 60 Third Party Review Organizations might also direct submitters to the
Division of Industry and Consumer Education in the Office of Communication and Education. 61

58

See “Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities”
As discussed in Section IV of this guidance, FDA considers the EUA Submitter to be the entity or person that
submits a request for EUA under section 564 of the FD&C Act.
60
See FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization website at https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-andresponse/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization
61
The contact information for the Division of Industry and Consumer Education is available at
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/contact-us-divisionindustry-and-consumer-education-dice
59

19

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
If the Third Party Review Organization determines that a submission is administratively
complete, the organization should begin its substantive review of the submission. If the Third
Party Review Organization identifies any deficiencies in the submission, they should contact the
submitter to request the missing information.

(6)

Conduct the substantive review of a submission

Substantive review will be different for 510(k) submissions and EUA requests.
Substantive review for 510(k)s focuses on the evaluation of SE as defined in section 513(i) of the
FD&C Act. 21 CFR 807.100(b) sets forth the criteria that FDA uses to determine whether a
device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device. For information on making an SE
determination under the 510(k) program, please see FDA’s guidance document entitled “The
510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)].”
For information on Abbreviated and Special 510(k)s, see FDA’s guidance documents entitled
“The Abbreviated 510(k) Program” and “The Special 510(k) Program.”
Review of an EUA request assesses the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a
case-by-case basis using a benefit-risk analysis. 62 If, based on the totality of the scientific
evidence available, it is reasonable to believe that the product may be effective for the specified
use, FDA may authorize its emergency use, provided that other statutory criteria for issuing an
EUA also are met. To enable FDA to reach a determination on whether to issue an EUA, the
reviewer needs to document their assessment with particular attention to sections 564(c)(2)(A)
and 564(c)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act. The 3PEUA RO review and recommendation should include
those materials appropriate to the conditions of authorization discussed in Appendix A of the
“Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities” guidance. The
review and recommendation should also include a proposed indication for use. For example, an
in vitro diagnostic product indication would typically include the sample type, the disease or
condition being tested, when the test should be administered (e.g., within N days of symptoms or
to anyone suspected of exposure), and by whom it can be used (e.g., a laboratory that meets the
requirements to perform high or moderate complexity tests). FDA makes its own determinations
– and does not intend to seek recommendations from 3PEUA ROs – regarding whether other
criteria for issuance are satisfied, including whether the agent that is the subject of the EUA
declaration can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition under section 564(c)(1) of
the FD&C Act and whether there is an adequate, approved, and available alternative to the
product under section 564(c)(3) of the FD&C Act.
The Final Reviewer is responsible for providing a final supervisory assessment of the Product
Specialist’s work before it is submitted to FDA. This individual should have sufficient authority
and competence to independently assess the quality and acceptability of the Product Specialist’s
review of the 510(k) submission.
If Third Party Review Organizations identify any deficiencies during their substantive review,
they should contact the submitter with a request that the deficiencies be addressed. Section V.B.7
below provides further instruction on how to identify deficiencies in a submission. When the
62

See the guidance “Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities.”

20

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
substantive review is complete, the Product Specialist(s), Technical Expert(s), if applicable, and
Final Reviewer should reach an agreement on a final recommendation (e.g., SE or NSE to a
predicate device for a 510(k) or authorization for an EUA 63) before submitting the
recommendation to FDA.

(7)

Identify deficiencies in a submission

If a Third Party Review Organization identifies any deficiencies during their review, it should
contact the submitter. Third Party Review Organizations may use any form of communication
(e.g., telephone, email, or letter) to resolve the matter provided confidentiality is maintained and
the interaction is documented. Third Party Review Organizations should, however, avoid the
exchange of substantive data and information solely over the telephone to avoid errors that may
arise in the absence of a written request and response.
As part of providing an FDA-equivalent review, when requesting additional information from a
510(k) Submitter, 3P510k ROs should structure their additional information requests as
described in FDA’s guidance document entitled “Developing and Responding to Deficiencies in
Accordance with Least Burdensome Provisions.” This guidance document has examples of wellconstructed deficiencies and responses to FDA’s requests. Note that while the guidance cited
does not apply to EUAs, it is important that 3PEUA ROs also request additional information in a
clear and structured format.
Third Party Review Organizations should document the deficiencies, the submitter’s response to
the deficiencies, and the discussion on the adequacy of the response in the Third Party Review
Organization’s review memorandum sent to FDA. With the review memorandum, a copy of all
written communications related to resolving the deficiencies between the submitter and the Third
Party Review Organization (e.g., email, letters, summary of teleconferences) should also be
provided to the FDA. If the submitter made any modifications to the submission in response to a
deficiency (e.g., revised 510(k) summary), the Third Party Review Organization should
document this modification. Further, the Third Party Review Organization should request that
the submitter provide the latest version of the submission prior to the Third Party Review
Organization submitting to FDA. For example, if the Product Specialist requested an updated
device description, the latest version should be included when the Third Party Review
Organization sends the submission to FDA. However, the original device description text and the
deficiency requesting an updated device description should be provided with the review memo.
This will help ensure that FDA has the correct version of the submission on record. Proper
documentation can also help address any appearance of the Third Party Review Organization
having the role of a consultant.

(8)

Document a review

Once a Third Party Review Organization has made a final recommendation, they should prepare
their review documentation specifying the reasoning and steps that led to their final
recommendation. 21 CFR 10.70 (“Documentation of significant decisions in administrative file”)
provides a framework that should be utilized by Third Party Review Organizations. The content
63

See sections 564(e)(1) or 564(e)(2) of the FD&C Act.

21

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
of the review documentation will vary based on the type of submission and device.
Recommended review memorandum examples for documentation purposes are available on the
FDA Third Party public website. 64 The review memo should provide a clear narrative of: (1) how
the device works; (2) for a 510(k), what information the submitter provided to demonstrate the
device is SE to a legally marketed device, or, for an EUA request, based on the totality of the
scientific evidence available, the information the submitter provided to demonstrate it is
reasonable to believe that the product may be effective for the specified use, as well as
recommendations pertaining to the scope of authorization under section 564(d) of the FD&C Act
and conditions of authorization under section 564(e) of the FD&C Act; and (3) how the Third
Party Review Organization evaluated that information.
If standards are referenced in a submission, FDA recommends Third Party Review Organizations
discuss in their review memorandum how they were utilized in the submission. Submitters and
Third Party Review Organizations should consult the FDA guidance entitled, “Appropriate Use
of Voluntary Consensus Standards in Premarket Submissions for Medical Devices” for use of
FDA-recognized consensus standards and use of other standards.
In addition to noting whether or not the necessary information required in a submission was
included, 65 the review memorandum should also convey how a Third Party Review Organization
made their recommendation regarding the device. A thorough and substantive review
memorandum should discuss the adequacy of each section of the submission. In general, FDA
believes it will not be sufficient to state that a section of the submission or a response to a
deficiency was adequate without providing an explanation of how the Third Party Review
Organization came to that determination.
To facilitate FDA’s review process, Third Party Review Organizations should reference sections
and page numbers of the submission in their review memorandum where possible. Third Party
Review Organizations should also clearly document in the review memorandum any
deficiencies, the response to the deficiencies, and the Third Party Review Organization’s review
of the response as indicated in Section V.B.7 of this guidance.
The review memorandum is the only means by which FDA can understand how and why a Third
Party Review Organization recommended a device to be SE (or NSE) to the predicate device or
receive an EUA. It is anticipated that thorough and clear documentation will reduce the need for
FDA to re-review the submission itself and increase the efficiency of FDA’s final review. 66
64

See FDA’s third party website: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-submissions-selecting-andpreparing-correct-submission/510k-third-party-review-program
65
See 21 CFR 807 Subpart E.
66
Through the MDUFA IV Commitment Letter, FDA commits to improving the Third Party Review Program with
a goal of eliminating routine re-review by FDA of third party reviews: See 163 CONG. REC. S4729-S4736 (daily
ed. August 2, 2017) (Food and Drug Administration User Fee Reauthorization), also available at
https://www.fda.gov/media/102699/download. Through the MDUFA V Commitment Letter, FDA commits to the
continued improvement of the Third Party Review Program with a goal of eliminating routine re-review by FDA of
third party reviews: See 168 CONG. REC. S5195-S5200 (daily ed. September 28, 2022) (Food and Drug
Administration User Fee Reauthorization), also available at https://www.fda.gov/media/158308/download. See also
“Eliminating Routine FDA Re-Review of Third Party 510(k) Reviews,” available at
https://www.fda.gov/media/116168/download

22

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

(9)

Organize and submit a submission including associated
Third Party Review Organization review documentation

Upon completing the review of a submission, the Third Party Review Organization should
submit the following to FDA:
x The submission generated by the submitter, and
x The review documentation generated by the Third Party Review Organization.
Submissions will need to follow the appropriate submission process. 67
The 510(k) Submitter’s document and the 3P510k RO’s documents must be in electronic format
per section 745A(b)(2) of the FD&C Act unless it meets the criteria for exemptions and
waivers. 68 The electronic submission template, eSTAR, is the only currently available electronic
submission template to facilitate the preparation of 510(k) electronic submissions. The 510(k)
Submitter should take care to submit the latest version of the 510(k) submission to the 3P510k
RO. This version should include any documents that have been updated in response to
deficiencies from the 3P510k RO. The 3P510k RO will submit all documents to FDA via the
directions outlined on the CDRH Portal. 69
For 3PEUA submissions, unless otherwise requested by FDA, the 3PEUA RO should submit
files to the CDRH Portal or CDRH’s Document Control Center. 70 In the event that the EUA
Submitter has amended their original submission during the 3PEUA review, or the submission
was sent directly to the 3PEUA RO, the 3PEUA RO should submit two separate sets of files, one
set for the updated EUA request and one for the 3PEUA RO’s review of the EUA request. In the
case where the original EUA request was sent to FDA and it does not need amending, the
3PEUA Final Reviewer need only submit their review files. Please refer to FDA’s guidance
entitled “eCopy Program for Medical Device Submissions” for more information on how to
submit through the eCopy program.
To facilitate FDA’s review, we recommend that a Third Party Review Organization’s
documentation include the following:
For both 3P510k ROs and 3PEUA ROs:
x A cover letter signed by the Final Reviewer that clearly identifies:

67

For 510(k)s see FDA’s website on the 510(k) submission process, available at https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/premarket-notification-510k/510k-submission-process
68
As noted in the guidance “Electronic Submission Template for Medical Device 510(k) Submissions,” all 510(k)
submissions including original submissions for Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated 510(k)s, and subsequent
Supplements and Amendments and any other subsequent submissions to an original submission, unless exempted
in Section VI.A Waivers and Exemptions From Electronic Submission Requirements of the guidance, are required
to be submitted as electronic submissions.
69
The CDRH Portal is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/industry-medical-devices/send-and-trackmedical-device-premarket-submissions-online-cdrh-portal
70
CDRH’s Document Control Center is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/how-study-and-marketyour-device/ecopy-program-medical-device-submissions

23

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
x

x

x

x

The purpose of the submission, e.g., a new 3P510k review and submission, a new
3PEUA review and submission, a Third Party Review Organization’s review to an
existing 510(k) or EUA submission number provided by FDA–in this case clearly
indicate the 510(k) or EUA submission number;
x The name and address of the Third Party Review Organization and the contact
person;
x The name, email, and telephone number of the Final Reviewer;
x The name and address of the submitter;
x The name of the device (trade name, common or usual name, FDA classification
regulation name, classification regulation number, and product code, as
applicable);
x The Third Party Review Organization’s recommendation (SE or NSE,
authorization) with respect to the device; and
x For submissions sent directly to Third Party Review Organizations by submitters,
the date when the submission was judged administratively complete and ready for
substantive review.
A signed certification that the reported information accurately reflects the data reviewed
and that no material fact has been omitted. This certification should also state that the
Third Party Review Organization continues to meet personnel qualifications and
prevention of conflicts of interest criteria reviewed by FDA; that the Third Party Review
Organization’s review is based on the submission that is being submitted with the review;
and that the Third Party Review Organization understands that the submission of false
information to the government is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 21 U.S.C. 331(q).
The submitter’s complete submission. The submission should be prepared by the
submitter, not the Third Party Review Organization. This information should be separate
from the Third Party Review Organization’s documentation and should be the latest
version (see Section V.B.7 of this guidance for more information). Proper documentation
can help address any appearance of the Third Party Review Organization having the role
of a consultant.
x For 510k submissions: The submission should conform to FDA's requirements for
content and format as provided in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E and utilize eSTAR.
A review memorandum including complete documentation of the Third Party Review
Organization’s review of the submission as described in Sections V.B.7 and V.B.8 of this
guidance, signed by all personnel who conducted the review (generally the Product
Specialist(s), Technical Expert(s), when applicable, and Final Reviewer), with a decision
recommendation.

For 3P510k ROs:
x A review of the 510(k) submission contents that show the submission was
administratively complete and includes all of the information necessary for the 3P510k
RO to conduct a substantive review on FDA’s behalf. A summary of any EI consults that
occurred prior to the 510(k) submission to FDA with FDA staff, if appropriate (see
Section V.B.4 of this guidance).
For 3PEUA ROs:

24

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
x

A review of the EUA request contents to show that the EUA request includes all of the
information necessary for the 3PEUA RO to conduct a substantive review on FDA’s
behalf. If a template exists for the device type, it may be a helpful reference for this
assessment.

For submissions submitted directly to Third Party Review Organizations:
x For 510(k)s : A letter signed by the 510(k) Submitter authorizing the 3P510k RO to
submit the 510(k) to FDA on their behalf and authorizing the 3P510k RO to discuss the
contents of the 510(k) with FDA on their behalf. This letter should also authorize FDA to
discuss other, related submission(s) from the same 510(k) Submitter with the 3P510k RO
and should include a list of those submission numbers.
FDA will begin its review of the Third Party Review Organization’s recommendation only after
we receive all documentation we believe is needed to conduct its review.

(10) Submit additional information upon FDA’s request
After a Third Party Review Organization has submitted their recommendation to FDA, including
the associated Third Party Review Organization review documentation, FDA will begin to
review the Third Party Review Organization review documentation, and if necessary, the
submission. If FDA determines that additional information is needed to make a final decision
(i.e., an SE determination or authorization), we will contact the Third Party Review Organization
either by telephone or email. 71 Such requests will describe FDA’s concerns with a submission,
and identify the information needed to address those concerns.
If FDA places a submission “on hold” (i.e., officially suspends review of the submission pending
FDA’s receipt of additional information), we will send an email informing the Third Party
Review Organization of the “on hold” status and request additional information. For more
information on a request for additional information for a 510(k) submission, please see FDA’s
guidance entitled “FDA and Industry Actions on Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions:
Effect on FDA Review Clock and Goals.”
Upon receiving a request from FDA for additional information, the Third Party Review
Organization should:
x Promptly inform the submitter of FDA’s request for additional information relating to the
submission and request that the submitter provide responses to the Third Party Review
Organization in writing. The Third Party Review Organization should be involved in any
discussions with FDA regarding the request for additional information, such as if the
submitter seeks clarification from FDA or a 510(k) Submitter requests a Submission
Issue Meeting 72 with FDA;

71

Through the MDUFA V Commitment Letter, FDA will continue to support the Third Party Review program, with
the objective of eliminating routine re-review by FDA of Third Party reviews: See 168 CONG. REC. S5195-S5200
(daily ed. September 28, 2022) (Food and Drug Administration User Fee Reauthorization), also available at
https://www.fda.gov/media/158308/download
72
See the guidance “Requests for Feedback and Meetings for Medical Device Submissions: The Q-Submission
Program.”

25

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
x
x
x
x

Thoroughly review any additional information provided by the submitter to ensure that it
adequately responds to FDA’s concerns;
Document their review of the response to the deficiency by providing a clear and
thorough assessment of whether and how the response adequately addresses FDA’s
deficiency – this should include updating the review documentation accordingly;
Prepare a cover letter referencing the submission number previously assigned by FDA
(i.e., 510(k) number or EUA number) and identifying the purpose of the new submission
(i.e., response to deficiencies); and
For 510(k)s, send an updated eSTAR via the CDRH Portal, and for EUAs, send any
update to the CDRH Portal, the CDRH’s Document Control Center or as otherwise
indicated by FDA.

The Third Party Review Organization should provide to FDA the two separate sets of
documents 73 (the new submission document(s) generated by the submitter and the document
generated by the Third Party Review Organization). Each set of documents should be clearly
marked as belonging to the Third Party Review Organization or the submitter as appropriate. For
information on formatting requirements, see Section V.B.9 of this guidance.
FDA will resume its review after we receive the submitter’s response to the additional
information request, documentation of the Third Party Review Organization’s review, and the
Third Party Review Organization’s determination of the adequacy of the response to additional
information requests.

(11) Submission dispute resolution
Disputes may often be the result of misunderstanding or miscommunication, and FDA
encourages Third Party Review Organizations to seek clarification, as needed, from FDA or the
submitter during a review. In some cases, the misunderstanding may result from FDA making a
determination based in part on information that is available to FDA but is not available to the
Third Party Review Organization (e.g., other premarket submissions from the submitter). If the
submitter disagrees with an FDA decision or action, the Third Party Review Organization should
maintain impartiality and exercise care to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest that may
result from acting or appearing to act as an advocate on the submitter’s behalf.
For 510(k) submissions, FDA has developed guidance documents that provide an overview of
the appeals processes available for medical devices, see “Center for Devices and Radiological
Health Appeals Processes” and “Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes:
Questions and Answers About 517A.” The processes for reviewing and reconsidering FDA
decisions or actions on other 510(k) submissions are also available for 3P510k submissions when
a dispute between FDA and a 510(k) Submitter arises.
If a 510(k) Submitter would like to issue a complaint against a 3P510k RO, communication
should be sent to 3P510K@fda.hhs.gov.

73

See the guidance “eCopy Program for Medical Device Submissions.”

26

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

C. FDA Expectations of Third Party Review Organizations
and for Recognition and Rerecognition of 3P510k Review
Organizations
FDA considers criteria when deciding to recognize 3P510k ROs to conduct premarket reviews of
eligible 510(k)s.
In accordance with section 523(b)(3) of the FD&C Act, a 3P510k RO shall, at a minimum, meet
the following qualification requirements. Such person:
x May not be an employee of the Federal Government;
x Shall be an independent organization, which is not owned or controlled by a
manufacturer, supplier, or vendor of devices, and which has no organizational, material,
or financial affiliation with such a manufacturer, supplier, or vendor;
x Shall be a legally constituted entity permitted to conduct the activities for which it seeks
recognition;
x Shall not engage in the design, manufacture, promotion, or sale of devices;
x The operations of such person shall be in accordance with generally accepted
professional and ethical business practices; and
x Shall agree, at a minimum, to include in its request for accreditation a commitment to, at
the time of accreditation, and at any time it is performing any review pursuant to section
523:
x Certify that reported information accurately reflects data reviewed;
x Limit work to that for which competence and capacity are available;
x Treat information received, records, reports, and recommendations as proprietary
information;
x Promptly respond and attempt to resolve complaints regarding its activities for
which it is recognized; and
x Protect against the use, in carrying out the review of a 510(k) submission and
initial classification of a device, of any officer or employee of the person who has
a financial conflict of interest regarding the device, and annually make available
to the public disclosures of the extent to which the 3P510k RO, and the officers
and employees of the 3P510k RO, have maintained compliance with requirements
relating to financial conflicts of interest.
Congress directed FDA to issue guidance on consultations with third party reviewers of EUAs
under section 565(i) of the FD&C Act, “including considerations concerning conflicts of
interest.” 74 Consistent with this directive and existing policy with respect to 3PEUA review of
medical devices, including in vitro diagnostic products, FDA will take into consideration the
potential for financial conflicts of interest regarding the device.
In addition to these minimum requirements set forth in section 523(b)(3) of the FD&C Act, a
Third Party Review Organization should also consider any additional qualifications applicable to
its type of review that are announced in the Federal Register. For 3P510k ROs, these
qualifications include establishing policies designed to identify, prevent, and ensure reporting to
74

See section 2502(b) of the FY 2023 Omnibus.

27

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
FDA of instances where 510(k) Submitters submit substantially the same submission to multiple
3P510k ROs in order to find the one most likely to recommend a SE determination of the 510(k)
submission. Such forum shopping would undermine the independence and integrity of the
3P510k Review Program. 75

(1)

Operational considerations

All submissions and communications with FDA and all documentation pertaining to the review
of a 510(k) or EUA submission submitted to FDA should be in English.

(2)

Management of impartiality

FDA expects Third Party Review Organizations to be impartial and free from any commercial,
financial, and other pressures that might present a conflict of interest or an appearance of a
conflict of interest. Therefore, FDA will consider whether the potential Third Party Review
Organization has established, documented, and executed policies and procedures to prevent any
individual or organizational conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest,
including conflicts of interests pertaining to their external Technical Experts. Policies and
procedures intended to address this issue should be consistent with IMDRF GRRP WG N59
Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory Authority Recognition of Conformity Assessment
Bodies Conducting Medical Device Regulatory Reviews 76 and IMDRF GRRP WG/N40
FINAL:2017 – “Competence, Training, and Conduct Requirements for Regulatory Reviewers.” 77
For more information on IMDRF GRRP and MDSAP, see Section V.F of this guidance below.
FDA recommends that Third Party Review Organizations also address the following to prevent a
potential conflict of interest:
x Third Party Review Organizations, including their personnel, should not participate in the
preparation of submissions. For more information, see Section V.B.5 of the guidance.
x Third Party Review Organizations should not task an individual, whether employee or
contractor, with reviewing a submission, if that individual was employed within the last
twelve months by that submitter or by a firm who helped prepare that submission.
Personnel should not review a medical device that they developed, helped develop, or
prepared for submission.
x Third Party Review Organizations should not promise or advertise any guarantees for
FDA clearance or authorization.
Information on the conflict of interest standards FDA applies to its own review personnel is
included in the document entitled “Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
75

As noted in Medical Devices; Implementation of Third Party Review Under the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997; Emergency Processing Request Under OMB Review, 63 FR 28390, May 22, 1998,
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-05-22/pdf/98-13799.pdf
76
IMDRF GRRP WG N59 Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory Authority Recognition of Conformity
Assessment Bodies Conducting Medical Device Regulatory Reviews” can be found at
https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-200318-rrar-cab-cmdrr-n59.pdf
77
IMDRF GRRP WG/N40 Final:2017: "Competence, Training, and Conduct Requirements for Regulatory
Reviewers" can be found at http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-170316-competenceconduct-reviewers.pdf

28

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
Branch.” 78 Third Party Review Organizations are encouraged to refer to these standards in
safeguarding their operations against conflicts of interest.
The conflict of interest policies for a Third Party Review Organization should be fully
implemented and there should be an attestation that those policies have been implemented that is
signed by the most responsible individual at the organization before any submission is accepted
for review. When using external Technical Experts, see Section V.C.4 of this guidance for more
information on conflicts of interest safeguards.

(3)

Personnel involved in reviewing activities

Third Party Review Organizations and their personnel should demonstrate knowledge and
experience with the following, as applicable:
x The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
x The Public Health Service Act; and
x Regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations implementing these statutes, particularly
21 CFR Chapter I Subchapter H.
Additionally, the Third Party Review Organization should:
x Establish, document, and execute policies and procedures to ensure that submissions are
reviewed by qualified personnel.
x Maintain records on the relevant education, training, skills, and experience of all
personnel who contribute to the technical review of a submission.
x Make available to its personnel clear written instructions for duties and responsibilities
with respect to reviews conducted for FDA.
x Employ personnel who are qualified in all the scientific disciplines relevant to the
submission that the 3P510k RO accepts for review or that the 3PEUA RO is under
contract to review.
x Identify at least one individual who is responsible for providing supervision over reviews
and who has sufficient authority and competence to assess the quality and acceptability of
these reviews.
In addressing the items enumerated above in this section, Third Party Review Organizations
should be consistent with IMDRF GRRP WG N59 Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory
Authority Recognition of Conformity Assessment Bodies Conducting Medical Device
Regulatory Reviews,” including, but not limited to, maintaining a quality management system,
and IMDRF GRRP WG/N40 FINAL:2017: “Competence, Training, and Conduct
Requirements for Regulatory Reviewers.” For more information on IMDRF GRRP, see Section
V.F of this guidance below.
In addition, Third Party Review Organizations will be expected to consult national and/or
international standards recognized by FDA as well as FDA guidance documents. Third Party
78

Available at:
https://www.oge.gov/web/OGE.nsf/0/A8ECD9020E3E384C8525873C0046575D/$FILE/SOC%20as%20of%2085
%20FR%2036715%20FINAL.pdf

29

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
Review Organizations should have the capability to interface with FDA’s electronic data systems
and websites through which the Third Party Review Organization can search for relevant
guidance documents, recognized standards, predicate summaries where appropriate, and publicly
available information regarding adverse events and recalls when performing review of similar
devices. FDA may also provide additional guidances and templates in certain emergency
situations, including as an emergency evolves (e.g., FDA published templates on its website for
SARS-COV-2 tests).
3P510k ROs must certify in their application that designated personnel will attend FDA’s
training for recognition and rerecognition (see Section V.D.1 of this guidance and the Federal
Register notice published on May 22, 1998 (63 FR 28388)). 3P510k ROs are expected to
complete training before conducting any 510(k) reviews under the program. FDA will not accept
reviews and recommendations of 510(k) submissions from 3P510k ROs that have failed to have
at least one designated person attend an FDA training session for recognition.
3PEUA ROs personnel are also expected to be appropriately trained. 3PEUA ROs should
reference the resources available through CDRH Learn to ensure personnel are familiar with the
basics of FDA’s regulation of medical devices and CDRH’s structure prior to reviewing an EUA
request. Personnel reviewing in vitro diagnostic products should complete the in vitro diagnostic
product training prior to reviewing an EUA request for such product. 3PEUA ROs should also be
familiar with FDA’s guidance “Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related
Authorities.” When reviewing an EUA request that references standards, personnel should
complete the relevant CDRH training on the use of standards and the Accreditation Scheme for
Conformity Assessment (ASCA). Depending on the circumstances of an emergency, FDA may
also recommend other device-specific trainings prior to 3PEUA ROs reviewing EUA requests.
3P510k ROs should be prepared to conduct technically competent 510(k) reviews before
requesting recognition by FDA. FDA recommends persons reviewing 510(k) submissions review
at a 3P510k RO meet the appropriate qualifications (e.g., specialized education and experience)
provided in this guidance. When a 3P510k RO requests to expand the scope of device types for
which they may review 510(k) submissions, it should ensure through its policies and procedures
in place that its staff are qualified in the scientific disciplines for the new device types.

(4)

Use of external Technical Experts

The following are FDA’s recommendations when Third Party Review Organizations use an
external Technical Expert:
x The Third Party Review Organization should ensure that external Technical Experts meet
the same standards as those who work within the Third Party Review Organization, such
as freedom from conflicts of interest;
x The Third Party Review Organization should ensure that external Technical Experts are
discouraged from subcontracting parts of their contract to subcontractors, and if they do
so, then the external Technical Expert should ensure that the subcontractor meets all
requirements applicable to the external Technical Expert; and
x Third Party Review Organizations should maintain records of the qualifications of
external Technical Experts, in addition to evidence of regular monitoring of the
30

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
established competence, conflicts of interest and the degree of fulfillment of the
outsourced work.
For 3P510k ROs, since they request a list of product codes to be recognized to review, they
should ensure they have sufficient competence among their own staff to review the device types
covered by those product codes. There should be at least one qualified Product Specialist per
device type that the 3P510k RO is recognized to review. This is to ensure that there is not
excessive reliance on external expertise by a 3P510k RO and to enable appropriate oversight of
the qualifications of external Technical Experts by 3P510k ROs. For 3PEUA ROs, FDA may
request information in the form of curricula vitae (CVs) or resumes to ensure sufficient expertise
and identify key personnel in contracts.
In addressing the items above, Third Party Review Organizations should be consistent with
IMDRF GRRP WG N59 Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory Authority Recognition of
Conformity Assessment Bodies Conducting Medical Device Regulatory Reviews 79 and
IMDRF GRRP WG/N40 FINAL:2017: “Competence, Training, and Conduct
Requirements for Regulatory Reviewers.” 80 For more information on IMDRF GRRP and
MDSAP, see Section V.F of this guidance below.

(5)

Confidential information

A Third Party Review Organization is required to treat information received in submissions, as
well as certain information contained in records, reports, and recommendations as proprietary
information (for 3P510k review, see section 523(b)(3)(F)(iii) of the FD&C Act) and generally
may not publicly disclose confidential commercial information or any trade secret (for 3P510k
review, see also section 301(y)(2) of the FD&C Act). 81 Also, in accordance with 21 CFR 807.95,
when a 510(k) is submitted by a device manufacturer to FDA, FDA will not publicly disclose
that submission if certain conditions are met. Similarly, FDA will generally not publicly disclose
that an EUA request has been submitted prior to issuing an EUA authorization. Thus, a Third
Party Review Organization should not publicly disclose a submission for a device that is not
currently on the market and where the intent to market the device has not been disclosed.
FDA will determine whether information submitted to FDA by a Third Party Review
Organization can be released in accordance with the Trade Secrets Act, Freedom of Information
Act, 21 CFR part 20 and 21 CFR 807.95, regarding confidentiality of information in 510(k)s. In
general, submissions submitted by Third Party Review Organizations and associated review
documentation will be available for disclosure by FDA after the agency has issued an SE or
authorization decision for a device, unless the information is exempt or prohibited from public
disclosure under 21 CFR part 20 or 21 CFR 807.95, among other relevant authorities. FDA may
seek predisclosure notification input from 510(k) and EUA submitters consistent with 21 CFR
79

IMDRF GRRP WG N59 Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory Authority Recognition of Conformity
Assessment Bodies Conducting Medical Device Regulatory Reviews” can be found at
https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-200318-rrar-cab-cmdrr-n59.pdf
80
IMDRF GRRP WG/N40 FINAL:2017: "Competence, Training, and Conduct
Requirements for Regulatory Reviewers" can be found at http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrftech-170316-competence-conduct-reviewers.pdf
81
For contracts, see section 708(a) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 20.90.

31

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
20.61, as appropriate.
In addition, information submitted by a 3P510k RO to obtain recognition or rerecognition from
FDA is available for public disclosure unless exempt or prohibited from public disclosure.

(6)

Complaints regarding Submitters

The 3P510k RO should send to FDA via email to 3P510K@fda.hhs.gov information on any
complaint (e.g., whistleblowing) it receives about a 510(k) Submitter that could indicate an issue
related to the safety or effectiveness of a medical device or a public health risk.
A 3PEUA RO should send such a complaint about an EUA submitter via email to the contact
provided in its contract with FDA.

(7)

Third Party Review Organization recordkeeping

Pursuant to section 704(f) of the FD&C Act, a 3P510k RO must maintain records that support its
initial and continuing qualifications to receive FDA recognition. These records must include the
following:
x Documentation of the training and qualifications of the Third Party Review Organization
and its personnel;
x The procedures used by the Third Party Review Organization for handling confidential
information;
x The compensation arrangements made by the 3P510k RO; and
x The procedures used by the Third Party Review Organization to identify and avoid
conflicts of interest.
3PEUA ROs would maintain records as described in the contract between FDA and the 3PEUA
RO, as applicable.
In addition, FDA recommends that Third Party Review Organizations retain the following
records for at least three years (3) following the submission of a submission for review to FDA:
x Copies of all submission reviews and associated correspondence;
x Information on the identity and qualifications of all personnel who contributed to the
technical review of each submission; and
x Other relevant records.
In addressing the items enumerated above, Third Party Review Organizations should be
consistent with IMDRF GRRP WG N59 Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory Authority
Recognition of Conformity Assessment Bodies Conducting Medical Device Regulatory
Reviews” 82, including records consistent with their quality management system, and IMDRF
GRRP WG/N40 FINAL:2017: “Competence, Training, and Conduct
82

IMDRF GRRP WG N59 Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory Authority Recognition of Conformity
Assessment Bodies Conducting Medical Device Regulatory Reviews” can be found at
https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-200318-rrar-cab-cmdrr-n59.pdf

32

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
Requirements for Regulatory Reviewers.” 83 For more information on the IMDRF documents, see
Section V.F of this guidance.
In accordance with section 704(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, 3P510k ROs must make the records
specified in that section available upon request by FDA. 3P510k ROs shall permit an FDA
officer or employee at all reasonable times to have access to, copy, and/or verify these records.
Within 15 days of receipt of a written request from FDA, 3P510k ROs must make copies of the
requested records available at the place FDA designates. 84 If FDA’s monitoring of the 3P510k
Review Program, such as a review of compensation arrangements between 3P510k ROs and
510(k) Submitters, reveals that 510(k) Submitters are developing business relationships with
3P510k ROs that call into question the independence or objectivity of a 3P510k RO, FDA will
consider limiting a Submitter’s choice of 3P510k ROs. Business relationships that may
undermine the independence or objectivity of a 3P510k RO include, for example, contracts
between a manufacturer and a 3P510k RO that represent a significant share of the 3P510k RO’s
income.
3PEUA ROs would make records available as described in the contract between FDA and the
3PEUA RO, as applicable.
Section 523(b)(3)(F)(iv) of the FD&C Act requires 3P510k ROs to agree that they will promptly
respond and attempt to resolve complaints regarding the activities for which they are accredited.
FDA recommends that 3P510k ROs establish a recordkeeping system for tracking the
submission of those complaints and how those complaints were resolved, or attempted to be
resolved. FDA recommends that 3PEUA ROs maintain similar records.

D. Content and Format of an Application for Initial
Recognition and Rerecognition as a 3P510k Review
Organization
This section of the guidance provides FDA’s recommendations on what should be included in an
application to FDA for recognition as a 3P510k RO. 85 The 3P510k RO should inform FDA
promptly if they would like to suspend, withdraw, cancel or reduce the scope of their program.
FDA will adjust recognition or rerecognition as appropriate.

(1)

Initial Recognition

Organizations that wish to become recognized as 3P510k ROs under section 523 of the FD&C
Act should send their applications to FDA as a single portable document format (PDF) file to:

83

IMDRF GRRP WG/N40 FINAL:2017: “Competence, Training, and Conduct
Requirements for Regulatory Reviewers” can be found at http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrftech-170316-competence-conduct-reviewers.pdf
84
See section 704(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
85
As discussed in Section II.B of this guidance, for 3PEUA ROs, FDA intends to contract with them directly based
on the circumstances of an emergency, including when the Agency determines that help with review would be
beneficial.

33

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
3P510k@fda.hhs.gov
Attention: CDRH Third Party Premarket Review Program
Alternatively, applications can be sent by mail to the following address:
CDRH Third Party Premarket Review Program
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Document Control Center (DCC) – WO66-G609
10903 New Hampshire Avenue,
Silver Spring, Maryland 20993 USA.
3P510K@fda.hhs.gov
To facilitate review of the application, FDA strongly encourages submission of an eCopy. 86
FDA will acknowledge receipt with an email to the applicant’s designated contact person when
the application is received. FDA will review these materials and respond within 60 calendar
days 87 of the date of the receipt of the application with a decision to recognize or deny
recognition, or a request for additional information. FDA may deem the application incomplete
and deny recognition if the applicant fails to respond to FDA’s request for additional information
in a timely manner.
To facilitate review, the following information should be submitted in an application for FDA’s
consideration:
a)
x
x

x
x

x

Administrative information

The name and mailing address of the 3P510k RO seeking recognition;
The telephone number, email address, and fax number of the contact person. The contact
person should be the person to whom questions about the content of the application may
be addressed and the person to whom a letter of determination and general
correspondence will be directed;
The name and title of the most responsible individual at the 3P510k RO;
A brief description of the 3P510k RO, including: type of organization (e.g., not-for-profit
institution, commercial business, other type of organization); size of organization
(number of employees); number of years in operation; nature of work (e.g., testing or
certification laboratory); and information regarding ownership (i.e., name of owner(s)
and extent of ownership), operation, control of organization, and other related
information sufficient for FDA to assess its degree of independence from entities such as
device manufacturers and distributors;
A listing of any national, state, local, or other recognition; and

86

For information on the eCopy program, please see FDA’s guidance entitled “eCopy Program for Medical Device
Submissions.”
87
See section 523(b)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act.

34

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
x

A list of the device types the applicant seeks to review by product codes or classification
regulation name and regulation. Please refer to the FDA Third Party public website 88 for
devices that are eligible for 3P510k review.
b)

Prevention of conflicts of interest

A copy of the written policies and procedures established by the 3P510k RO to ensure that the
3P510k RO and its employees, external Technical Experts, contractors and individual contract
employees involved in the evaluation of 510(k)s are free from conflicts of interest, and to prevent
any individual or organizational conflict of interest, or appearance of conflict of interest that
might affect the review process.
c)

Personnel qualifications

A list of personnel who will be involved in the preparation of the 3P510k RO’s 510(k)
recommendations, including Product Specialists, Technical Experts, external Technical Experts,
and Final Reviewers. Applicants should demonstrate that these personnel are technically
competent to conduct 510(k) reviews and should document the following in their application:
x The written policies and procedures established to ensure 510(k)s are reviewed by
qualified personnel;
x The written instructions for the duties and responsibilities of personnel with respect to
510(k) reviews;
x The written personnel standards established to ensure that designated personnel are
qualified in all of the scientific disciplines presented by the 510(k)s for devices for which
the 3P510k RO is applying for its review;
x The documentation (e.g., CVs) to establish that the reviewers of 510(k)s (i.e., Product
Specialists and Technical Experts) and other involved non-supervisory personnel meet
the Recognition Criteria for qualified personnel. This includes documentation of
education, training, skills, abilities, and experience, including specialized education and
experience needed for the review of devices for which the 3P510k RO is applying for its
review;
x The documentation (e.g., CVs) to establish that the supervisor(s) of 510(k) reviewers
(i.e., Final Reviewer) have sufficient authority and meet the Recognition Criteria for
qualified supervisory personnel. This includes documentation of education, training,
skills, abilities, and experience, including specialized education and experience needed
for the review of class II devices for which the 3P510k RO is applying for its review; and
x A description of the management structure, or, if an external technical expert is used for
510(k) reviews, the external Technical Expert’s management structure. The application
should describe the position of the individual(s) providing supervision within the
management structure and explain how that structure provides for the supervision of
510(k) reviewers and other personnel involved in the review process.
Throughout the period of recognition, a 3P510k RO should ensure its personnel remain
technically competent and only conduct 510(k) reviews for which they have the technical
88

Information on third party eligible device types is available on FDA’s website:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfThirdParty/current.cfm

35

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
competency to do the review. If a 3P510k RO does not continue to demonstrate its personnel
remain technically competent and only conduct 510(k) reviews for which they have technical
competency to do the review, FDA may take action at any time to ensure that the 3P510k RO is
only reviewing 510(k) submissions for which it has the technical competency to review.
d)

Certification statements

As required by statute, and to support FDA’s plan to eliminate routine re-review of 3P510(k)
submissions, 89 the applicant must provide a statement in their application, signed by the most
responsible individual at the organization, certifying that the 3P510k RO has committed at the
time of accreditation and at any time it is performing any 3P510k review that it:
x Will report information that accurately reflects data reviewed;
x Will limit work and reviews to that for which competence and capacity are available,
including conducting 510(k) reviews in accordance with the policies and procedures it
has established regarding review of 510(k)s by qualified personnel;
x Will treat any information, records, reports, and recommendations that it may receives as
proprietary and confidential information;
x Will promptly respond and attempt to resolve complaints regarding the activities for
which it is recognized;
x Will protect against conflicts of interests in accordance with policies and procedures it
has established relating to prevention of financial conflicts of interests, and annually
make available to the public disclosures of the extent to which the person, and the
officers and employees of the person, have maintained compliance with requirements
relating to financial conflicts of interest;
FDA also encourages the applicant to certify in its application that at all times, it:
x Will demonstrate conformity while recognized by FDA with the requirements of section
523 of the FD&C Act;
x Will maintain records in a manner consistent with Section V.C.7 of this guidance;
x Will comply with the eCopy requirements for premarket submissions as described in the
guidance document entitled, “eCopy Program for Medical Device Submissions;”
x Will comply with eSTAR requirements for 510(k) submissions as described in the
guidance document titled, “Electronic Submission Template for Medical Device 510(k)
Submissions;”
x Commits that its most responsible person or designee(s) will have completed FDA
training prior to performing any reviews by the 3P510k RO, and agrees that its most
responsible person or designee(s) will attend such training when offered and applicable;
x Will contact FDA for EI before reviewing any subset of device type (by respective
product code) that it has not reviewed as encouraged in Section V.B.4 of this guidance;
and
x Will commit to only accepting reviews where the 510(k) Submitters certified that any
relevant prior communications with FDA are disclosed.

89

See Eliminating Routine FDA Re-Review of Third Party 510(k) Reviews, available at
https://www.fda.gov/media/116168/download

36

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

(2)

Rerecognition

In accordance with section 523(b)(2)(D) of the FD&C Act, a 3P510k RO’s recognition by FDA
will sunset 3 years from the date the recognition was granted. To continue conducting 3P510k
reviews beyond 3 years from the date of the last recognition or rerecognition, the 3P510k RO
must obtain rerecognition. 3P510k ROs should apply for rerecognition a minimum of 60
calendar days before their recognition status expires to prevent any lapse in recognition. A
3P510k RO may request a rerecognition earlier if it so chooses.
Requests for rerecognition will be handled in the same manner as initial recognition requests.
Accordingly, rerecognition applications should follow the format described in Section V.C.1 of
this guidance. For rerecognition, FDA may also consider the past premarket review performance
of the 3P510k RO and any information that comes to FDA’s attention about the status of the
3P510k RO’s recognition, including information from an audit. 90 Through rerecognition, FDA
may also modify the product codes which personnel are reaccredited to review. 91

(3)

Recognition or Rerecognition Denial

A 3P510k RO that wishes to request a reconsideration of a recognition denial or rerecognition
denial should appeal under 21 CFR 10.75 as a request for supervisory review following the
appeals process outlined in FDA’s guidance entitled “Center for Devices and Radiological
Health Appeals Processes.” 92

E.

Suspension or Recognition Withdrawal

Section 523(b)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act authorizes FDA to suspend or withdraw recognition of
any 3P510k RO, after providing notice and an opportunity for an informal hearing, when the
3P510k RO is substantially not in compliance with the requirements of section 523 of the FD&C
Act, poses a threat to public health, or fails to act in a manner that is consistent with the purposes
of section 523.
Under section 301(y)(1) of the FD&C Act, the following actions are prohibited by a 3P510k RO:
x Submission of a report or recommendation that is false or misleading in any material
respect;
x Disclosure of confidential information or any trade secrets without the express written
consent of the person who submitted such information or secrets to the 3P510k RO; and
x Receipt of a bribe in any form or doing any corrupt act associated with a responsibility
delegated to the 3P510k RO under the FD&C Act.
In general, 3PEUA ROs should also refrain from the above activities substituting 3PEUA RO for
3P510(k) RO in the last two bullets and look to the contract between FDA and the 3PEUA RO
for specific requirements.
90

See section 523(b)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act.
See section 523(b)(2)(D)(iii) of the FD&C Act.
92
See also the guidance “Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Appeals Processes: Questions and
Answers About 517A.”
91

37

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

Furthermore, FDA intends to periodically evaluate completed premarket reviews of 510(k)s and
authorized EUAs submitted to FDA under the 3P510k Review Program or reviewed by a 3PEUA
RO and intends to provide feedback to Product Specialists and the Final Reviewer following
evaluation.
FDA intends to perform an assessment of each 3P510k RO on a periodic (at least once every
three years) 93 or “for cause” basis as part of its auditing to ensure 3P510k ROs continue to meet
the standards of recognition (see section 523(b)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act). As resources allow,
assessments will involve inspecting a 3P510k RO’s facility and/or records to ensure that the
3P510k RO is operating in accordance with the procedures, qualifications, and certifications
specified in the 3P510k RO’s application and the FD&C Act.
3P510k ROs should continue to demonstrate technical competency to maintain recognition. If
monitoring of a 3P510k RO reveals nonconformity with section 523 of the FD&C Act, a threat
to the public health, or a failure to act in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of section
523, FDA may take steps to suspend or withdraw recognition of the 3P510k RO, after providing
notice and an opportunity for an informal hearing. 94

F. Leveraging the International Medical Device Regulators
Forum’s (IMDRF’s) documents
In February 2011, the IMDRF was convened to discuss future directions in medical device
regulatory harmonization. The IMDRF is a voluntary group of medical device regulators from
around the world, including representatives from the FDA, who collaborate to build on the strong
foundational work of the Global Harmonization Task Force on Medical Devices. The purpose of
the IMDRF is to accelerate international medical device regulatory convergence.
The IMDRF Good Regulatory Review Practices (GRRP) working groups developed documents
that provide the fundamental building blocks of third party review that can be applicable to
submissions such as 510(k) submissions and EUA requests by providing criteria for reviewer
competence, training, and conduct, and, for organizations, the expectations for entities
(“Conformity Assessment Bodies” or CABs) that perform regulatory reviews. Details are
outlined in a collection of documents finalized from 2017 through 2023 and available on the
IMDRF website. 95
There are many shared elements in FDA’s statutory and regulatory criteria for Third Party
93

See section 523(b)(2)(D)(i) of the FD&C Act.
See section 523(b)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act.
95
The IMDRF published eight documents related to GRRP. All the IMDRF documents are available on the IMDRF
website at: https://www.imdrf.org/working-groups/good-regulatory-review-practices. This guidance references
IMDRF GRRP WG N40 Final:2017, “Competence, Training, and Conduct Requirements for Regulatory
Reviewers,” IMDRF GRRP WG N59 Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory Authority Recognition of
Conformity Assessment Bodies Conducting Medical Device Regulatory Reviews,” and IMDRF GRRP WG N66
“Assessment and Decision Process for the Recognition of a Conformity Assessment Body Conducting Medical
Device Regulatory Reviews.

94

38

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
Review Organizations and IMDRF GRRP WG N40 FINAL:2017: “Competence, Training, and
Conduct Requirements for Regulatory Reviewers,” 96 IMDRF GRRP WG N59 Final:2020
“Requirements for Regulatory Authority Recognition of Conformity Assessment Bodies
Conducting Medical Device Regulatory Reviews.” 97 These documents focus on expectations for
CABs and the individuals CABs engage to perform regulatory reviews and other related
functions under the respective medical device legislation, regulations, and procedures required in
its regulatory jurisdiction.
Due to these similarities, FDA believes that potential Third Party Review Organizations in
compliance with the GRRP documents cited, as appropriate, are likely to be in alignment with
most FDA 3P510k RO requirements and 3PEUA RO recommendations outlined in this guidance
document. Such organizations do not necessarily need to generate new documentation for FDA,
but rather can leverage existing documents in their applications to FDA and for ongoing
recordkeeping.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to be 24 hours to submit
requests for accreditation, 24 hours to submit requests for reaccreditation, 40 hours to submit
510(k) reviews by 3P510k Review Organizations to FDA, and 15 minutes to submit complaints
to FDA. In addition, the time required to complete this information collection with respect to
recordkeeping is estimated to be 10 hours for maintaining records of 510(k) reviews and 1 hour
for maintenance of records regarding qualifications to receive FDA recognition as a 3P510k RO,
and 2 hours for maintenance of a recordkeeping system regarding complaints. Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or suggestions for reducing this burden to:
FDA PRA Staff,
Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration,
PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov

96

IMDRF/GRRP WG/N40 FINAL:2017: “Competence, Training, and Conduct Requirements for Regulatory
Reviewers,” previously cited, can be found at http://www.imdrf.org/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-170316competence-conduct-reviewers.pdf
97
IMDRF GRRP WG N59 Final:2020 “Requirements for Regulatory Authority Recognition of Conformity
Assessment Bodies Conducting Medical Device Regulatory Reviews” can be found at
https://www.imdrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/imdrf/final/technical/imdrf-tech-200318-rrar-cab-cmdrr-n59.pdf

39

Contains Nonbinding Recommendations

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control
number for this information collection is 0910-0375 (To find the current expiration date, search
for this OMB control number available at https://www.reginfo.gov).

40