June 5, 2018
Authored and Edited by Paula E. Miller; Shana K. Cyr, Ph.D.
On May 15, 2018, FDA issued a proposed rule amending its regulations in 21 CFR Part 3 on the classification of products as biological products, devices, drugs, or combination products, and their assignment to the Agency Centers for premarket review and regulation. The purposes of the amendments are to clarify the procedures and harmonize the regulations with recent changes to the relevant statutes and FDA policies.
Product classification is already part of determining which Agency Center will have primary jurisdiction. The proposed rule would amend 21 CFR 3.3 to clarify that the procedures for product jurisdiction apply when the classification of a product is unclear or in dispute, where the current rule states that the procedure is for when the Agency Center with primary jurisdiction is unclear or in dispute.
Currently, if a sponsor disagrees with determination of product jurisdiction made by the Office of Combination Products, it can request reconsideration under section 3.8(c), and if it disagrees with that decision, it can make an additional supervisory appeal to the Office of Special Medical Programs under section 10.75. Because the initial determination is made after a thorough review, and the reconsideration process does not allow for new information to be presented, the determination is unlikely to change under this process. If finalized, the proposed rule would remove the request for reconsideration step and allow sponsors to directly appeal a decision on jurisdiction.
In harmonizing the regulation with relevant statutes, the proposed rule would modify 21 CFR 3.4 to align with 21 USC 353(g) and specify that FDA will assign a combination product to the Center that regulates the constituent part providing the primary mode of action. The definition of “biological product mode of action” in 21 CFR 3.2 would be amended to align with the definition of “biological product” in 42 USC 262(i) and specify that proteins (except chemically synthesized polypeptides) are classified as biological products. The proposed rule would also exclude advisory content, providing such content instead in FDA guidance documents, such as “How to Write a Request for Designation (RFD).”
Readers are encouraged to read the proposed rule, also available on Federal Register’s website. Comments on the proposed rule are due by July 16, 2018.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Webinar
September 10, 2024
Webinar
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in June 2024
August 22, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.