Guidance for Industry

Major, Minor, and Telephone

Amendments to Abbreviated New

Drug Applications

Comments and suggestions regarding this document should be submitted within 90 days of

publication in the Federal Register of the notice announcing the availability of the guidance. 

Submit comments to Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,

5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the

docket number listed in the notice of availability that publishes in the Federal Register.

For questions regarding this document contact Rita Hassall (301)827-5845

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)

December 2001

Revision 2

OGD
Guidance for Industry

Major, Minor, and Telephone

Amendments to Abbreviated New

Drug Applications

Additional copies are available from:

Office of Training and Communications

Division of Drug Information, HFD-240

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Food and Drug Administration

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

(Tel) 301-827-4573

http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Food and Drug Administration

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)

December 2001

Revision 2

OGD
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................1

II. POLICY........................................................................................................................................................................2

III. REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................................................4
1

GUIDANCE FOR INDUSTRY1

Major, Minor, and Telephone Amendments

to Abbreviated New Drug Applications

I. INTRODUCTION

This guidance is intended to document the Office of Generic Drugs’ (OGD’s) policy regarding the

determination of major, minor, and telephone amendments to original and supplemental

abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs).2 The guidance was originally entitled Major,

Minor, FAX, and Telephone Amendments to Original Abbreviated New Drug Applications

(revised May 2000). This guidance is a revision of the May 2000 guidance. Revision 2 of the

guidance (1) deletes the FAX amendment designation, which was found to be unnecessary,

(2) now applies to supplemental applications as well, and (3) changes the criteria for determining

the type of amendment. The changes in criteria should result in more amendments being

categorized as minor and fewer as major. A minor amendment request (generally reviewed within

30 to 60 days) has a higher priority than a major amendment. Since the review of a minor

amendment takes place sooner than a major amendment after the original review, there is not a

long break in the review process for a minor amendment. The response to a major amendment

request, however, goes into the 180-day queue. This process causes a greater time lapse from

when the original review was done and results in reviewers having to refamiliarize themselves

with the application. It is expected that the new policy will help in moving applications through

the approval process more quickly than under the previous policy. Thus the total time for approval

of ANDAs will be reduced.

 

1 This guidance has been prepared by the Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

(CDER). 

2 This includes revision and clarification of the policy stated in Policy and Procedure Guide (PPG) 38-93, “Restatement of the

Office of Generic Drugs’ ‘First-In, First-Reviewed’ Policy and Modification of the Exceptions to the Policy Regarding Minor

Amendments,” relating to original ANDAs and the policy stated in the guidance to industry Major, Minor, FAX and Telephone

Amendments to Original Abbreviated New Drug Applications.

This guidance represents the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) current thinking on this

topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind

FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the

requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
2

II. POLICY

A. How does the Office of Generic Drugs classify amendments?

Generally, the considerations used to categorize amendments requested by OGD are

determined by the nature of the chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC),

microbiology, labeling, and/or bioequivalence deficiencies.

OGD classifies amendment requests to ANDAs as major, minor, or telephone. Major

amendments have the same review priority as original, unreviewed ANDAs and are

reviewed in accordance with OGD’s first in-first reviewed procedure. Minor amendments

have a higher priority than major amendments because they often mean an application is

close to approval and should, therefore, be given priority. The issuance of major or minor

amendment requests stops the review clock while the applicant addresses the deficiencies

noted by OGD, but telephone amendment requests do not stop the clock unless the applicant

does not respond within the specified time. Telephone amendments represent the

reviewer’s highest priority work assignments. Minor amendments are reviewed when the

reviewer completes his or her current assignment. 

B. When is an amendment classified as major?

Responses to the following examples of deficiencies would result in a major amendment.

This should not be considered an all-inclusive listing.

1. Manufacture of a new batch of drug product (with supporting information) for any

reason; for example:

• Composition change or reformulation

• Change in the source of a drug substance

• Change in manufacturing site

• Need for a new bioequivalence study (21 CFR 320.21)

• New in vitro study for a specific product (e.g., metered dose inhalers)

• Change in major manufacturing process

• New strength of the product

• Unacceptable impurities or impurity levels (21 CFR 314.94(a)(9))

• Unacceptable excipients found during the review (21 CFR 314.94(a)(9))

• Failed stability data

• Change in the container-closure system (other than solid oral dosage forms)

2. New bioequivalence study (21 CFR 320.21) that is not related to manufacture of a

new batch of the drug product
3

3. New analytical methods and full validation data (21 CFR 314.94(a)(9))

Any other circumstances that might be considered to be a major amendment should get

division level concurrence, including an assessment that the application is of such overall

poor quality that substantive review is not possible.

Many of the deficiencies that would be categorized as a major amendment for chemistry

would also pertain to the sterility assurance and/or microbiology review (i.e., change in

facility or container-closure system). Generally, the microbiology review would not affect

the designation determined through the CMC review. However, in rare instances, the

sterility assurance and/or microbiology reviews, rather than chemistry, may determine the

major amendment designation. This could occur, for example, when extensive validation

work is necessary (21 CFR 314.94(a)(9)).

C. When is an amendment classified as minor?

Except for those amendments that are classified as major or telephone, amendments will

be designated as minor. Minor amendments often consist of deficiencies that are outside

the control of the applicant or deficiencies that are more easily addressed than those in a

major amendment. Though most amendments will likely be minor, some examples include,

but are not limited to:

1. Deficiencies in the drug master file (DMF)

2. Problems regarding good manufacturing practices (GMPs)

3. Incomplete dissolution data

4. Labeling deficiencies that have not been adequately addressed

Sterility assurance and/or microbiology issues that would likely take less than a full day to

review would generally fall into the minor amendment category. However, as stated

previously, the microbiology designation is determined by the chemistry review.
4

D. When is an amendment classified as a telephone amendment?3

If an amendment would otherwise be classified as minor, but the deficiencies are of a

limited number or complexity, it can be classified as a telephone amendment at the

discretion of the reviewer’s team leader. Should this determination occur with the first

review cycle of a new application, the division director’s or the deputy division director’s

concurrence will be sought.

The applicant should provide a complete and satisfactory response within 10 calendar

days of the call. Such deficiencies include:

1. Clarification of data already submitted

2. Request for a postapproval commitment

3. Final resolution of technical issues, such as finalization of specifications

To expedite the review, telephone amendments can also be requested during the final

division or office level administrative review of an ANDA, immediately before tentative

or final approval.

III. REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS

A. What are the timeframes for handling amendments?

OGD attempts to review major amendments within 180 days and to review minor

amendments within 30 to 60 days. However, not all minor amendments can be reviewed

within 60 days. The response to a telephone amendment is reviewed upon receipt.

B. When is an amendment redesignated?

There could be situations during the review of an ANDA that result in the redesignation of

an amendment and consequently the status of the ANDA. For example, the chemistry

review and the microbiology review of an ANDA can be completed in different

timeframes. If the chemistry review is completed first and it is appropriate, OGD will

issue a request for a minor amendment response to the deficiencies. If the microbiology

review subsequently reveals major deficiencies, these will be communicated to the

applicant as a request for a major amendment response. This action will also change the

chemistry response to a major amendment.

In some cases, the results of a bioequivalence or labeling review will result in the

redesignation of an amendment. For example, if an ANDA is in minor status for chemistry

and it is subsequently determined that an in vivo bioequivalence study fails, a

 

3

 OGD will accept only hard copies (2) of major and minor amendments for review (21 CFR 314.94). However, OGD will

review responses to telephone amendments transmitted by facsimile provided the applicant also submits hard copies (2).
5

redesignation to major will occur. Redesignation to a minor amendment might also occur

when a chemistry or microbiology telephone amendment request has not been responded to

within 10 days of OGD’s request.

C. What is the process for classifying an amendment?

Reviewers will conduct their reviews according to OGD policies. The reviewer makes

the initial recommendation to the team leader regarding classification of the amendment to

be requested. The team leader will conduct the secondary review and concur with the

amendment classification, if appropriate. Division directors (or deputies) will complete

any tertiary reviews indicated. If an applicant requests reclassification of an amendment,

the director or deputy will review that request. Applicants should respond to all requests

for amendments on time and ensure that two hard copies are submitted (21 CFR 314.94) of

any material communicated to OGD by facsimile or telephone.

Labeling reviewers will transmit labeling deficiencies directly to the applicant via

facsimile in the absence of any CMC, microbiology, or bioequivalence deficiencies, or in

the event the labeling review is completed after the remaining deficiencies have been

communicated to the applicant. Unless otherwise specified, labeling deficiencies will be

issued by facsimile.