WARNING LETTER
BYD Precision Manufacture Co., Ltd
MARCS-CMS 666250 —
September 05, 2023
Product:
Medical Devices
Recipient:
Recipient Name
Liu Xiaoling
Recipient Title
General Manager
BYD Precision Manufacture Co., Ltd
Baolong Industrial, No. 3001 Baohe Road; Longgangjiedao
Longgang Qu
Shenzhen Shi
Guangdong Sheng
,
518116
China
Issuing Office:
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
United States
WARNING LETTER
September 5, 2023
Dear Liu Xiaoling:
During an inspection of your firm located in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China on May 22, 2023 through May 26, 2023, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures BYD Surgical Mask Model FE2111, BYD Surgical Mask Model FE2311B, and BYD N95 Respirator Model DE2322. Under section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 321(h), these products are devices because they are intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or function of the body.
This inspection revealed that these devices are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(h) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351(h), in that the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, their manufacture, packing, storage, or installation are not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the Quality System regulation found at Title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 820.
We received a response from Shen Haigen, R&D Engineer and Management Representative dated June 12, 2023 concerning our investigator’s observations noted on the Form FDA 483 (FDA 483), List of Inspectional Observations, which was issued to your firm. We address this response below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failure to establish and maintain procedures to control the design of the device in order to ensure that specified design requirements are met, as required by 21 CFR 820.30.
For example:
Your firm has not established procedures for design controls and was unable to provide records demonstrating conformance with design input, design output, design review, design verification, design validation, design transfer, design changes, and design history file for the surgical N95 respirators (Model DE2322) and surgical masks (Model FE2311 and Model FE2311B).
We reviewed your firm’s response and concluded that it is not adequate. Your firm did not provide procedures for design controls for surgical N95 respirator model DE2322 or surgical mask models FE2311 and 2311B. Your firm indicated that it had a “design control program file” approved December 30, 2019 but only provided design history file for surgical N95 respirator model DE2322.
2. Failure to validate with a high degree of assurance and approve according to established procedures, processes where the results cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspections and tests. Failure to document validation activities and results, as required by 21 CFR 820.75(a).
For example:
Process Validation records were requested for the following processes that are used for manufacturing surgical N95 respirators and surgical masks:
(b)(4)
- automated elastic cutting machines,
(b)(4)
- automated elastic-stapler machines,
(b)(4)
- automated stapler machines,
(b)(4)
- automated metal nose piece attachment machines,
(b)(4)
- semi-automated stapler machines,
(b)(4)
individual mask package sealer machines, and elastic band pull test. However, your firm was unable to provide records demonstrating where the results of a process cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspection and test, the process is validated with a high degree of assurance and approved according to established procedures.
Your firm provided IQ/OQ/PQ reports for the
(b)(4)
semi-automated face mask production machines used for manufacturing surgical N95 respirators and surgical masks; however, your firm was unable to provide a rationale for the sample size used during testing. Additionally, the validation reports were not dated and signed by the individual approving the validation.
We reviewed your firm’s response and conclude that it is not adequate. Your firm provided validation documents for the
(b)(4)
machine (equipment number: 40002059),
(b)(4)
machine (40001993),
(b)(4)
machine (40001169), belt cutting machine (40002176),
(b)(4)
machine (40001971), and
(b)(4)
machine processes (40001984). However, the equipment numbers in the validation documents do not match the equipment numbers of those used in the manufacturing process. In addition, validation documents were not provided for all pieces of manufacturing equipment where there are multiple units. Your firm also did not propose a retrospective review to determine which pieces of manufacturing equipment needed validation.
3. Failure to maintain Device Master Records (DMR’s), as required by 21 CFR 820.181.
For example:
Device Master Records (DMRs) for N95 respirator mask or the single-use surgical mask were requested; however, your firm was unable to produce these records for review. Your firm’s Quality Manager stated that the DMR for N95 respirator mask or the single use surgical mask will need to be prepared.
We reviewed your firm’s response and concluded that it is not adequate. Your firm provided a DMR for surgical N95 respirator model DE2326. However, your firm stated during the inspection that only model DE2322 was manufactured and shipped for the U.S. market. A DMR was not provided for surgical N95 respirator model DE2322 or any of the surgical masks. In addition, your firm did not indicate how it would handle products that were released without a DMR and whether there would be training on new procedures.
4. Failure to establish procedures for receiving, reviewing and evaluating complaints by a formally designated unit, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(a)
For example:
Your firm‘s Customer Feedback Procedure, No. MSP-20-D23-009, Rev. A/0, dated 2020-March-28, does not include a process for determining whether a complaint represents an event which is required to be reported to FDA under part 803, Medical Device Reporting.
We reviewed your firm’s response and concluded that it is not adequate. You stated that you have modified the customer feedback procedure to “
improve the missing content of the program file
.” However, no documentation was provided for FDA to evaluate. In addition, you did not indicate whether there will be a retrospective review to determine if any old complaints needed to be reported as MDRs and whether there will be training on the new procedure.
Our inspection also revealed that your firm’s devices are misbranded under section 502(t)(2) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(t)(2), in that your firm failed or refused to furnish material or information respecting the device that is required by or under section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360i, and 21 CFR Part 803 - Medical Device Reporting. Significant violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
Failure to develop, maintain, and implement written Medical Device Reporting (MDR) procedures, as required by 21 CFR 803.17.
For example, during the inspection, your firm identified a partially English-translated version of the document titled “Procedure for the Control of Advisory Notifications and Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Device Products”, MSP-20-D23-006, Ver. A/1, dated 5/11/2020, as its MDR procedure. After reviewing the document, we conclude that it does not contain information that would indicate that it is an MDR procedure created in accordance with the requirements in 21 CFR 803.17. Specifically,
1. The document does not establish internal systems that provide for timely and effective identification, communication, and evaluation of events that may be subject to MDR requirements, as required by 21 CFR 803.17(a)(1). For example:
a. There are no definitions of what your firm will consider to be a reportable event under 21 CFR Part 803. The exclusion of definitions from 21 CFR 803.3 for the terms “become aware”, “caused or contributed”, “malfunction”, “MDR reportable event”, and “serious injury”, and the definition for the term “reasonably suggests”, found in 803.20(c)(1) may lead your firm to make an incorrect reportability decision when evaluating a complaint that may meet the criteria for reporting under 21 CFR 803.50(a).
b. The document does not include instructions for how your firm will evaluate information about an event to make MDR reportability determinations in a timely manner.
2. The document does not establish internal systems that provide for a standardized review process to determine when an event meets the criteria for reporting under this part, as required by 21 CFR 803.17(a)(2). For example,
a. There are no instructions for conducting an investigation of each MDR reportable event and evaluating the cause of the event.
b. The document, as written, does not specify who makes the decision for reporting events to FDA.
3. The document does not establish internal systems that provide for timely transmission of complete medical device reports, as required by 21 CFR 803.17(a)(3). Specifically, the document does not include:
a. Instructions for how to obtain and complete the FDA 3500A form.
b. The circumstances under which your firm must submit initial 30 days, supplement or follow-up, 5 day report and the requirements for such reports.
c. A process for submitting initial and supplement or follow-up reports to FDA in an electronic format that FDA can process, review and archive in accordance with 21 CFR 803.12(a);
d. How your firm will ensure that all information reasonably known to you is submitted for each event. Specifically, which sections of the Form 3500A will need to be completed to include all information found in your firm’s possession and any information that becomes available as a result of a reasonable follow-up within your firm.
4. The document does not describe how your firm will address documentation and recordkeeping requirements, as required by 21 CFR 803.17(b), including:
a. Documentation of adverse event related information maintained as MDR event files.
b. Information that was evaluated to determine if an event was reportable.
c. Documentation of the deliberations and decision-making processes used to determine if a device-related death, serious injury, or malfunction was or was not reportable, as required under 21 CFR 803.18(b)(1)(i).
Additionally, based on our records, as of July 13, 2023, there is no evidence that your firm established an active Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG) production account for the electronic submission of MDR reports.
The adequacy of your firm’s response cannot be determined at this time. You noted that you are working with your U.S. subsidiary to develop and implement an MDR reporting process. However, there is no procedure available for the FDA to assess its adequacy.
Other federal agencies may take your compliance with the FD&C Act and its implementation regulations into account when considering the award of federal contracts. Additionally, should FDA determine that you have Quality System regulation violations that are reasonably related to premarket approval applications for Class III devices, such devices will not be approved until the violations have been addressed.
Please notify this office in writing within fifteen business days from the date you receive this letter of the specific steps your firm has taken to address the noted violations, including an explanation of how your firm plans to prevent these violations, or similar violations, from occurring again. Include documentation of the corrections and/or corrective action (which must address systemic problems) that your firm has taken. If your firm’s planned corrections and/or corrective actions will occur over time, please include a timetable for implementation of those activities. If corrections and/or corrective actions cannot be completed within fifteen business days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which these activities will be completed. Please provide a translation of documentation not in English to facilitate our review. We will notify you regarding the adequacy of your firm’s response(s) and the need to re-inspect your firm’s facility to verify that the appropriate corrections and/or corrective actions have been made. If you believe that your products are not in violation of the FD&C Act, include your reasoning and any supporting information for our consideration as part of your response.
Your firm’s response should be sent via email to CDRHWarningLetterResponses@fda.hhs.gov or by mail to Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Regulatory Programs, Division of Regulatory Programs 2, FDA Regulatory Inspections and Audits Team, White Oak Building 66, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993. Refer to CMS case # 666250 when replying. If you have any questions about the contents of this letter, please contact: Bifeng Qian, M.D., Ph.D. at 301-796-2261.
Finally, you should know that this letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations at your firm’s facility. It is your firm’s responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA. The specific violations noted in this letter and in the Inspectional Observations, FDA 483, issued at the close of the inspection may be symptomatic of serious problems in your firm’s manufacturing and quality management systems. Your firm should investigate and determine the causes of any violations and take prompt actions to address any violations and bring the products into compliance.
Sincerely yours,
/S/
Binita S. Ashar, M.D., M.B.A., F.A.C.S.
Director
OHT4: Office of Surgical and Infection Control
Devices
Office of Product Evaluation and Quality
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
CC:
Lisa Van
Nova Clinical Solutions
4455 Eastgate Mall, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92121
Content current as of:
09/12/2023
Regulated Product(s)
Medical Devices