FDA 510(k) Pathway Selection: Evidence, Review Clocks and Costs in 2026

A useful US launch plan starts by deciding whether a 510(k) is required, then choosing an eligible evidence pathway, a review channel, and a budget. “Special,” “Abbreviated,” and “third-party” describe different choices; they are not interchangeable promises of faster clearance. This analysis combines FDA's current rules and guidance with 21,250 published clearances decided from January 2020 through October 11, 2026. Its practical purpose is to help regulatory teams challenge schedule and cost assumptions before committing to a submission strategy ^{1 2}.

First check the device's classification, exemption limits, intended use, and proposed changes. Some Class II devices are exempt from premarket notification; some changes do not require a new submission. A device without a suitable predicate may require consideration of De Novo or another pathway. The track comparison below applies only after that applicability decision. For a modification, document the change assessment before asking whether the resulting submission can use the Special program ^{1 3 4}.

The central planning distinction is between eligibility, FDA review time, and elapsed project time. A shorter historical median cannot make an ineligible product qualify. FDA's performance commitments do not include every day spent preparing evidence or responding to questions. Annual establishment registration is also a separate obligation from the application fee. These distinctions determine whether an apparently economical route remains economical after the full evidence and response workload is included ^{5 6 7}.

Across the complete openFDA premarket notification bulk export (176,415 total decision records spanning May 1976 through October 11, 2026 across 34,690 distinct applicant names), separating K-prefix premarket notification clearances (175,925 all-time rows) from DEN-prefix De Novo classification grants embedded in the same bulk export (490 all-time rows, 225 decided in 2020–2026) yields a modern analytical cohort of 21,250 decided K-number clearances with decision dates between January 1, 2020 and October 11, 2026 ^{2 3}. Across those 21,250 cleared K-numbers, the overall median observed calendar elapsed time from FDA receipt (date_received) to substantial equivalence decision (decision_date) is 132.0 calendar days (interquartile range [IQR] 76.0–232.0, mean 163.1 days, 90th percentile [p90] 297.0 days), with 34.48% (7,326 / 21,250) decided within 90 calendar days and 36.27% (7,707 / 21,250) requiring more than 180 calendar days ².

Because the public openFDA 510(k) file records only published clearances (date_received and decision_date) and omits Additional Information hold start/end dates, active FDA Days, and submissions that were withdrawn, deleted, or found Not Substantially Equivalent (NSE), observed calendar elapsed days must be interpreted strictly as descriptive distributions among cleared submissions rather than all-submission clearance probabilities or causal treatment effects ^{2 7}. Within those descriptive bounds, four empirical patterns stand out across the 21,250 clearances (Table 1):

• Abbreviated 510(k)s share the same 90-FDA-day statutory deadline and nearly the same observed calendar distribution as Traditional 510(k)s: Traditional 510(k)s account for 83.11% (17,660 / 21,250) of modern clearances and exhibit a median observed elapsed time of 151.0 calendar days (IQR 90.0–248.0, mean 181.5 days, p90 316.0 days) ². Abbreviated 510(k)s — which rely on FDA device-specific guidance documents, special controls, or voluntary consensus standards under FD&C Act Section 514(c) — represent 1.50% (318 / 21,250) of clearances and post a median of 146.5 calendar days (IQR 93.0–244.5, mean 175.5 days, p90 301.6 days) ^{2 8}. As FDA's September 13, 2019 Abbreviated 510(k) Program final guidance (Document 905, page 6) states, FDA reviews Abbreviated 510(k)s under the same 90-day statutory deadline (Section 510(n)(1)) and MDUFA performance goals as Traditional 510(k)s ⁸.
• Special 510(k)s exhibit a 30.0-day observed median for qualifying modifications to a manufacturer's own device: Special 510(k)s represent 15.11% (3,210 / 21,250) of modern clearances and show an observed median of 30.0 calendar days (IQR 28.0–64.0, mean 57.8 days, p90 131.0 days), with 62.43% (2,004 / 3,210) cleared in ≤30 calendar days and 83.21% (2,671 / 3,210) cleared in ≤90 calendar days ². Under FDA's September 13, 2019 Special 510(k) Program final guidance (Document 18008, updated with a February 2, 2024 cover note mapping design control terminology to ISO 13485:2016 Clause 7.3 under the Quality Management System Regulation [QMSR, 89 FR 7496, effective February 2, 2026]), this optional pathway is recommended when a manufacturer modifies its own legally marketed device, well-established methods are available to evaluate the change, and all performance data necessary to support substantial equivalence can be reviewed in a summary or risk-analysis format ^{9 10}.
• The 28.0-day Third Party Review (3P510k) median in FDA's file captures only Phase 2 (post-recommendation FDA review): Clearances routed through an FDA-recognized Third Party Review Organization (third_party_flag = Y, n = 443, or 2.08% of 21,250 clearances) display a 28.0-day median (IQR 19.5–47.5, mean 53.1 days, p90 142.0 days) between date_received and decision_date ². Under FDA's November 21, 2024 final guidance 510(k) Third Party Review Program and Third Party Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Review (Document GUI01500013), the submitter sends the dossier to the 3P510k RO first; date_received in FDA's database records the date FDA receives the 3P510k RO's recommendation package, which starts FDA's statutory 30-calendar-day final determination window under FD&C Act Section 523(a)(2) ⁶.
• Pre- vs. post-eSTAR elapsed-time comparisons are confounded by right-truncation and case mix: Since October 1, 2023, original Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated 510(k) submissions and responses to Additional Information requests must be submitted electronically using FDA's interactive PDF template (eSTAR, Forms FDA 4062 and 4078) unless exempted under FD&C Act Section 745A(b)(3) and FDA's October 2, 2023 final guidance (Document GUI00019006) ^{11 12}. Comparing decided Traditional 510(k)s received in 2020-01 through 2023-09 (n = 9,857) against those received from 2023-10 onward (n = 6,651 decided through October 11, 2026) shows an observed median of 155.0 days before versus 135.0 days after the implementation date and a >365-day share of 9.96% (982 / 9,857) before versus 1.76% (117 / 6,651) after, while the 10th percentile (59.0 days vs. 59.0 days) and 25th percentile (90.0 days vs. 90.0 days) are identical ². Because submissions received in late 2025 or 2026 that remain pending on hold had not yet reached a decision by October 11, 2026, and because unsuccessful submissions are absent from the public file, causal speed effects of eSTAR cannot be estimated from these data ^{2 7}.

Table 1: Clearance-only timing by track, January 2020–October 11, 2026

These are observed receipt-to-decision intervals, not active FDA days, all-submission success rates, or promised completion times. Track totals include the third-party channel where present; channel-specific comparisons appear below ².

---

1. Track Selection Mechanics: Traditional (83.11%), Special (15.11%), Abbreviated (1.50%), and Dual Track (0.29%)

Under 21 CFR 807.81, the filing decision depends on the device and the contemplated introduction or change, subject to applicable exemptions and limitations. Where a 510(k) is required, it must address substantial equivalence and the applicable content requirements, including the truthful-and-accurate statement and a Summary or Statement disclosure election. Most Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated submissions incur the same application fee; exceptions include qualifying accredited third-party submissions, solely pediatric devices, and specified noncommercial government submissions. The selected evidence format does not itself determine whether a fee exemption applies ^{1 13}.

Why Abbreviated 510(k)s Share the Traditional 510(k) Review Clock

Regulatory teams sometimes assume that filing an Abbreviated 510(k) (clearance_type = Abbreviated) places the submission into an accelerated review queue analogous to a Special 510(k). Both FDA's September 13, 2019 final guidance (The Abbreviated 510(k) Program, Document 905) and the empirical record across 21,250 clearances show that Abbreviated and Traditional 510(k)s operate under the same statutory review clock ^{2 8}.

Under Section III of Document 905 (pages 4–5), a manufacturer may choose to submit an Abbreviated 510(k) when the submission relies on one or more of three mechanisms: (1) FDA device-specific guidance document(s), (2) demonstration of compliance with special controls established under FD&C Act Section 513(a)(1)(B) (either in a device-specific classification regulation or a special controls guidance document), and/or (3) FDA-recognized voluntary consensus standard(s) under FD&C Act Section 514(c) supported by a Declaration of Conformity and a summary report ⁸. The guidance applies the same 90-day statutory deadline and MDUFA performance goals as Traditional submissions, and describes conversion to Traditional when Abbreviated review is unsuitable ⁸.

Traditional eSTAR submissions can also use recognized standards and declarations of conformity. An Abbreviated submission's distinctive feature is how its evidence relies on guidance, special controls, or standards, rather than an entitlement to a shorter review goal. The dataset describes filing patterns but cannot establish why manufacturers selected one track or why annual volumes changed ^{8 11}.

• Across the full 2020–2026 cohort, Abbreviated 510(k)s (n = 318, 1.50%) recorded a median elapsed time of 146.5 calendar days (IQR 93.0–244.5, mean 175.5 days, p10 57.0 days, p90 301.6 days), with 24.21% (77 / 318) cleared in ≤90 days and 43.71% (139 / 318) requiring >180 days ².
• Over the same period, Traditional 510(k)s (n = 17,660, 83.11%) recorded a median elapsed time of 151.0 calendar days (IQR 90.0–248.0, mean 181.5 days, p10 59.0 days, p90 316.0 days), with 25.91% (4,576 / 17,660) cleared in ≤90 days and 41.54% (7,336 / 17,660) requiring >180 days ².
• When 3P510k submissions are excluded to isolate direct-to-FDA reviews (3P=N), Abbreviated (3P=N) clearances (n = 307) had a median of 155.0 calendar days (IQR 94.5–246.5, ≤90d = 22.48%, >180d = 44.95%), compared with 154.0 calendar days (IQR 91.0–250.0, ≤90d = 24.55%, >180d = 42.33%) for Traditional (3P=N) clearances (n = 17,245) ².
• Annual Abbreviated decisions numbered 51 in 2020, 62 in 2021, 35 in 2024, 41 in 2025, and 27 through October 11, 2026. The partial 2026 year should not be compared with complete years as an annual filing rate. A verified example is Eizo's K262783, RadiForce MX247W, a direct Abbreviated submission received August 6 and decided September 1, 2026: 26 calendar days. By contrast, K260322, Acorn 3D Software/Acorn 3DP Model, from Mighty Oak Medical, is a Traditional submission, received January 30 and decided June 11, 2026: 132 days. Examples illustrate records, not typical performance or causal track effects ².

Table 2: Annual FDA Decisions (2020–2026) by Track, third_party_flag, statement_or_summary, and Median Elapsed Calendar Days

The Four-Question Framework for a Special 510(k) and FDA's Conversion Policy

In contrast to Abbreviated filings, Special 510(k)s (n = 3,210, 15.11%) exhibit a much shorter observed calendar distribution: median 30.0 calendar days (IQR 28.0–64.0, mean 57.8 days, p10 23.0 days, p90 131.0 days), with 62.43% (2,004 / 3,210) cleared within 30 calendar days and 93.99% (3,017 / 3,210) cleared within 180 calendar days ². For direct-to-FDA Special 510(k)s (Special (3P=N), n = 3,193), the median is 30.0 calendar days (IQR 28.0–64.0, mean 58.0 days, p10 24.0 days, p90 131.8 days, 62.26% ≤30d, 83.12% ≤90d) ². Across every decision year from 2020 through 2026, the annual Special 510(k) median has remained between 29.0 and 30.0 calendar days (30.0d in 2020–2022, 29.0d in 2023–2024, and 30.0d in 2025–2026) ².

Under FDA's September 13, 2019 Special 510(k) Program final guidance (Document 18008, Figure 1 flowchart and Sections III.A–III.E, pages 9–14), FDA describes nonbinding recommendations and a four-question decision framework for evaluating whether a design or labeling change (including certain changes to indications for use) is appropriate for review as a Special 510(k) ⁹:

1. Question A — Is it a change to the manufacturer's own device? (Section III.A, page 10): To be within the scope of the Special 510(k) Program, the submission should be for a change to the submitter's own legally marketed predicate device (authorized via 510(k) clearance, preamendments status, reclassification, or a granted De Novo request under Section 513(f)(2)) ⁹. FDA intends to convert a Special 510(k) to a Traditional 510(k) when the submitter is not the manufacturer legally authorized to market the predicate device ⁹.
2. Question B — Are performance data needed to evaluate the change? (Section III.B, page 10): Under design controls (ISO 13485:2016 Clause 7.3 as incorporated into 21 CFR Part 820 by the QMSR final rule 89 FR 7496, effective February 2, 2026, corresponding to former 21 CFR 820.30), the manufacturer evaluates whether verification or validation performance data are needed ^{9 10}. Where no additional testing is needed (such as changing labeling from "Safety in MR Imaging Not Evaluated" to "MR Unsafe" based on a scientific rationale), the change may be submitted as a Special 510(k) with a clear supporting rationale ⁹.
3. Question C — Is there a well-established method to evaluate the change? (Section III.C, pages 11–12): When performance data are needed, well-established methods should be available to evaluate the change ⁹. Document 18008 notes that well-established methods may include: (a) the submitter's own methods, protocols, and acceptance criteria used to support the previously cleared 510(k), (b) methods in an FDA-recognized voluntary consensus standard or FDA guidance document, (c) qualified Medical Device Development Tools (MDDTs), or (d) widely available and accepted methods published in the public domain, scientific literature, or found acceptable through the submitter's own prior 510(k), De Novo, or PMA ⁹. In Appendix B Example B.2 (pages 18–19), adding wireless control capabilities to a BiPAP device is described as inappropriate for a Special 510(k) because, although IEC 60601-1-2 and AAMI TIR69 address EMC and wireless coexistence, there were no well-established methods in a consensus standard or the manufacturer's previous 510(k) to evaluate the specific wireless quality of service needed for that BiPAP device ⁹.
4. Question D — Can the data be reviewed in a summary or risk-analysis format? (Section III.D, pages 12–13): Complete test reports should not be submitted in a Special 510(k) ⁹. Instead, the results of risk management (ISO 14971 / DFMEA / fault-tree analysis) and verification/validation activities should be placed in a summary or risk-analysis format (describing for each change the specific verification/validation activities, why the methods are appropriate, acceptance criteria, any deviations from prior protocols, and a summary of results, plus the signed design-control statements in Appendix A, pages 16–17) without losing information necessary to support substantial equivalence ⁹. FDA notes that data generally cannot be summarized when the substantial equivalence determination depends on FDA's interpretation of underlying images, raw graphs, or line-item data ⁹.

In Section III.E (pages 13–14) and Appendix B (Examples B.1–B.15, pages 18–29) of Document 18008, FDA outlines additional nonbinding considerations and common scenarios where FDA generally believes it is not appropriate to submit a Special 510(k) because review within 30 days is not feasible or complete test reports are anticipated ⁹:

• When evaluation of the change(s) generally involves greater than three scientific disciplines (e.g., biocompatibility, sterility, electromagnetic compatibility) ⁹;
• For multiple devices with unrelated changes as described in FDA's bundling guidance ⁹;
• When a recent quality system inspection has resulted in a violative inspection report identifying design-control observations relevant to the design changes under review (unless the manufacturer provides a rationale explaining why the violations are unrelated to the subject 510(k)) ⁹;
• Changes to indications for use supported by clinical, animal, or cadaver data (whereas IVD method-comparison or OTC lay-user studies that follow protocols already found acceptable in the submitter's own predicate 510(k) and rely on well-defined acceptance criteria may still be summarized, as illustrated in Examples B.11 and B.12 on pages 26–27) ⁹;
• Use of novel sterilization methods or changes affecting reprocessing of reusable devices required under FD&C Act Section 510(q) (82 FR 26807) to include reprocessing validation reports ⁹;
• Changes to introduce initial MR Conditional labeling, or significant deviations from the test methods used to establish MR Conditional labeling in the original 510(k) (Example B.9, pages 24–25; whereas a 1 mm size increase from 4 mm to 5 mm on an already cleared MR Conditional dental implant with no material or protocol change is shown as appropriate in Example B.10, pages 25–26) ⁹;
• Change from single-use to reusable when reprocessing validation or human factors data should be provided ⁹; and
• Use of analytical chemistry testing under ISO 10993-18 and/or toxicological risk assessment under ISO 10993-17 to address biocompatibility (page 14; whereas standard ISO 10993-5 cytotoxicity and ISO 10993-10 irritation/sensitization pass/fail testing or 29 CFR 1910.1200 Safety Data Sheet rationales that do not involve a toxicological risk assessment are illustrated as appropriate in Example C.2, pages 32–35) ⁹.

As explained in both the Special 510(k) Guidance (page 7) and the Review Clock Guidance (Document 1219, Section III, page 5), if initial verification during the RTA/technical screening period reveals that a Special 510(k) should be converted to a Traditional 510(k), FDA places the submission on hold to allow the appropriate Traditional submission (including complete test reports) to be submitted, and the review clock begins only on the date the correct submission type is received ^{9 7}. Moreover, even among cleared Special 510(k)s, 6.01% (193 / 3,210) recorded total calendar elapsed times exceeding 180 days (p90 = 131.0 days) ².

Dual Track (510(k) + CLIA Waiver) Submissions

Dual Track clearances (clearance_type = Dual Track, n = 62, 0.29% of 21,250 clearances), where an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) manufacturer simultaneously seeks 510(k) clearance and a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) waiver, occur exclusively in four IVD panels: Microbiology (45 / 62, 72.58%), Clinical Chemistry (9 / 62, 14.52%), Hematology (6 / 62, 9.68%), and Immunology (2 / 62, 3.23%) ². Across 2020–2026, Dual Track clearances show an observed median elapsed time of 232.0 calendar days (IQR 178.2–357.0, mean 306.6 days, p90 629.1 days), with 62.90% (39 / 62) exceeding 180 calendar days and 20.97% (13 / 62) exceeding 365 calendar days ². A verified Dual Track example is K254264, Sofia 2 SARS Antigen+ FIA/Sofia 2 Lyme FIA, recorded for Ortho Clinical/QuidelOrtho: receipt December 30, 2025, decision September 4, 2026, 248 calendar days. This is a single observation, not a planning commitment ².

Dual submissions have a separate MDUFA V performance commitment: 90% within 180 FDA days. If unresolved 20 days after the applicable goal, written feedback identifies outstanding issues and action items for discussion. Small cohorts may be combined across years. Do not apply the ordinary 90/100-FDA-day milestones automatically to this group. FDA recommends discussing the planned combined studies through a Pre-Submission; that recommendation comes from the Dual Submission guidance, not the clearance dataset ^{14 15}.

---

2. The Third-Party Review (3P510k) Paradox: Deconstructing the 28.0-Day FDA Finalization Clock

Across the 21,250 K-number clearances in 2020–2026, the 443 clearances routed through an FDA-recognized Third Party Review Organization (third_party_flag = Y, 2.08%) exhibit an observed median elapsed_days (decision_date - date_received) of 28.0 calendar days (IQR 19.5–47.5, mean 53.1 days, p10 1.0 day, p90 142.0 days), with 67.27% (298 / 443) decided in ≤30 calendar days and 83.07% (368 / 443) decided in ≤90 calendar days (Table 1) ². Within Traditional 510(k)s alone, Traditional (3P=Y) clearances (n = 415) post a 29.0-day median (IQR 20.0–49.5, mean 54.5 days), compared with 154.0 calendar days (IQR 91.0–250.0, mean 184.5 days) for direct-to-FDA Traditional (3P=N) clearances (n = 17,245) ². Similarly, Abbreviated (3P=Y) clearances (n = 11) post a 27.0-day median (IQR 11.5–84.5, mean 55.2 days) versus 155.0 days for Abbreviated (3P=N) (n = 307), and Special (3P=Y) clearances (n = 17) post a 12.0-day median (IQR 1.0–28.0, mean 16.1 days, 100.00% ≤90d) ².

However, comparing elapsed_days between 3P=Y and 3P=N records as if both measured full start-to-finish submission review time misinterprets what date_received represents in FDA's database.

Two-Phase Workflow Under FD&C Act Section 523 and GUI01500013

As detailed in FDA's November 21, 2024 final guidance 510(k) Third Party Review Program and Third Party Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Review (Document GUI01500013, Section II.C Figure 1 on page 4 and Section V.B Figure 3 on page 13), a 3P510k submission moves through two sequential stages ⁶:

1. Phase 1 — Private 3P510k RO Intake, Early Interaction (EI), Substantive Review, and Deficiency Resolution (Unrecorded in OpenFDA elapsed_days):
   • The 510(k) submitter sends the eSTAR dossier directly to an FDA-recognized 3P510k RO and pays the organization's negotiated commercial review fee; under FD&C Act Section 738(a)(2)(B)(iv), no user fee is due to FDA for a 510(k) reviewed by a 3P510k RO ^{16 6}.
   • Under Section V.B.(1)–(8) of GUI01500013 (pages 14–22), the 3P510k RO determines device eligibility, assigns a Product Specialist (and Technical Expert if needed) plus an independent supervisory Final Reviewer, reviews the eSTAR for administrative completeness under 21 CFR Part 807 Subpart E, and conducts the substantive equivalence review ⁶. FDA encourages early interaction. The guidance distinguishes a recognition commitment to seek interaction before reviewing a device type the organization has never reviewed from the broader encouragement to contact FDA when more than six months have elapsed since its last review of that type. These are not a universal six-month reapproval requirement ⁶.
   • If the 3P510k RO identifies deficiencies during its substantive review (Section V.B.(7), page 21), it contacts the submitter to request additional information, reviews the submitter's written response and updated eSTAR files, and documents the deficiencies, responses, and adequacy evaluation in its review memorandum ⁶.
   • Although Section V.B.(9) (page 24) recommends that the 3P510k RO's cover letter to FDA identify "the date when the submission was judged administratively complete and ready for substantive review" at the third party, FDA's public 510(k) database does not include that Phase 1 date ^{2 6}.
2. Phase 2 — FDA Final Determination Window (date_received to decision_date in OpenFDA):
   • Only after the 3P510k RO's Product Specialist and Final Reviewer reach an agreement on a final recommendation (SE or NSE) and submit the submitter's complete latest eSTAR together with the 3P510k RO's signed cover letter, certification, review memorandum, and deficiency correspondence via the CDRH Portal does FDA record date_received ⁶.
   • Under FD&C Act Section 523(a)(2) (GUI01500013 Section II.C, page 5), FDA is required by statute to make a determination with respect to the initial classification within 30 calendar days after receiving a recommendation from a 3P510k RO ⁶.

The third-party records show 67.27% (298 of 443) decided within 30 calendar days of FDA receipt. Verified examples demonstrate the range: K261356, Dura-Crown from Hangzhou SHINING 3D, was received April 24 and decided April 27, 2026 (three days); K253448, Sonosite MT from FUJIFILM Sonosite, was received October 2 and decided November 3, 2025 (32 days); and K253236, G-BLOCK from Graphenano Dental, has September 29, 2025 as both dates (zero elapsed days). Zero-day records are retained as recorded; they do not imply that the complete technical assessment took no time ².

At the same time, 32.73% (145 of 443) took more than 30 calendar days after FDA receipt, and 8.58% (38 of 443) exceeded 180 days. FDA can request further information through the review organization. The public records do not contain hold dates or the organization's earlier review history, so they cannot allocate the observed interval among active review, holds, and administration or measure end-to-end third-party project duration ^{2 6}.

Statutory Eligibility Restrictions and Panel Concentration (81.26% in Five Panels)

Under FD&C Act Section 523(a)(3) and GUI01500013 Section V.A (pages 10–12), FDA considers specific statutory and public-health factors when determining whether a device type (product code) is eligible for 3P510k review ⁶:

1. Class III and CBER Exclusion: Class III devices are statutorily ineligible (Section 523(a)(3)(A)(i)), and devices of the types eligible for 3P510k review are not currently reviewed in CBER (GUI01500013 page 2, footnote 3, and page 11) ⁶;
2. Permanent Implants and Life-Sustaining/Life-Supporting Devices: Under Section 523(a)(3)(B)(i)(II), any 3P510k RO seeking recognition to review permanently implanted, life-sustaining, or life-supporting device types must provide a detailed public health justification explaining why the device type should be eligible (GUI01500013 page 11) ⁶;
3. Novel Technology, Multifaceted Expertise, and Safety Signals: FDA considers the extent to which the device type is well understood (noting that novel technological characteristics or complex De Novo special controls may be ineligible), whether proprietary information outside the agency is needed, whether review requires multifaceted interdisciplinary expertise (such as certain clinical data, computational modeling, multi-reader studies, cross-Center combination products, or novel cross-labeling), and whether postmarket safety signals or Class I recalls exist (for example, FDA removed duodenoscopes and accessories from 3P510k eligibility due to reprocessing safety signals, GUI01500013 pages 11–12) ⁶; and
4. Previous unsuccessful submissions and forum shopping: FDA's 2024 guidance states its eligibility policy for a device previously submitted by the same submitter without an SE decision, including withdrawal or an NSE outcome. This is a guidance eligibility policy; it should not be described as a statutory prohibition in section 523(a)(3)(B)(iii). Review the prior submission history with the organization and FDA before relying on this route ⁶.

Empirically, 3P510k clearances are highly concentrated across CDRH review panels (Table 5 in Section 4) ²:

• Radiology (113 3P=Y clearances, 25.51% of all 443 third-party clearances; 3.82% of Radiology's 2,957 clearances) and Dental (95 3P=Y clearances, 21.44% of all 3P=Y; 5.85% of Dental's 1,624 clearances) together account for 46.95% (208 / 443) of all Third Party clearances in 2020–2026 ².
• Adding Cardiovascular (63 3P=Y, 14.22% of all 3P=Y), General & Plastic Surgery (48 3P=Y, 10.84%), and General Hospital (41 3P=Y, 9.26%) brings the top five panels to 81.26% (360 / 443) of all Third Party clearances ².
• By contrast, Orthopedic (3,088 total clearances) recorded only 1 3P510k clearance (0.03%) across 2020–2026, while Clinical Chemistry (0 / 423), Hematology (0 / 115), Immunology (0 / 141), Clinical Toxicology (0 / 116), and Medical Genetics (0 / 6) recorded zero 3P510k clearances ².

---

3. Mandatory eSTAR, Technical Screening, and Review Clock Limitations

On October 1, 2023, FDA implemented mandatory electronic submission via the electronic Submission Template And Resource (eSTAR) under the binding statutory authority of FD&C Act Section 745A(b)(3) and FDA's final guidance Electronic Submission Template for Medical Device 510(k) Submissions (Document GUI00019006, issued October 2, 2023; originally issued September 22, 2022) ¹¹. Under Section VI of GUI00019006 (pages 11–13), all original Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated 510(k) submissions and subsequent Supplements and Amendments (including formal responses to Additional Information requests) must be submitted as an eSTAR PDF (Form FDA 4062 for non-IVD devices and Form FDA 4078 for IVDs) through the CDRH Portal (or the Electronic Submission Gateway for CBER), with FDA stating that it does not intend to grant waivers under this guidance ^{11 12}. Only specific post-receipt submission categories — interactive review email responses, appeals/requests for supervisory review under 21 CFR 10.75, substantive summary requests, change-in-correspondent amendments, post-decision add-to-files, and withdrawal requests — are exempted from eSTAR (GUI00019006 Section VI.A, page 12) ¹¹.

How eSTAR Replaced Refuse to Accept (RTA) with 15-Day Technical Screening — and FDA's PRA Burden Estimate

Prior to October 1, 2023, 510(k) submissions underwent a manual 15-calendar-day Acceptance Review under FDA's Refuse to Accept Policy for 510(k)s guidance ⁷. Under Section V of GUI00019006 (page 6) and Section V.B of FDA's Review Clock Guidance (Document 1219, page 12), because an eSTAR file indicates "eSTAR Complete" at the top of the PDF only after all required sections and attachment prompts (structured to mirror CDRH's internal "SMART" review memo template) are completed, eSTAR submissions are not anticipated to undergo an RTA process ^{11 7}.

FDA anticipates technical screening within 15 calendar days of receiving the 510(k) eSTAR (for submissions where the user fee has been paid), using a virus scanning and technical screening process (GUI00019006 page 6; Document 1219 page 12) ^{11 7}. Technical screening verifies that eSTAR responses accurately describe the device (for example, confirming that there are no tissue-contacting components if indicated as such) and that there is at least one relevant attachment per applicable attachment-type question (for example, a Software Description attachment when software is applicable) ¹¹.

• For a submission that passes technical screening, the 15-day screening window leaves the review clock unchanged: the FDA review clock starts on the day the submission was received by FDA (GUI00019006 page 6; Document 1219 page 12) ^{11 7}.
• If the eSTAR fails technical screening (or if initial verification during the RTA/technical screening period reveals that a submission is an incorrect type, such as a Special 510(k) that should be converted to a Traditional 510(k)), FDA notifies the submitter via email, identifies the incomplete information, and places the 510(k) on hold until a complete replacement eSTAR is submitted (GUI00019006 page 6; Document 1219 pages 5, 12) ^{11 7}. If a replacement eSTAR is not received within 180 days of the technical screening deficiency notification, FDA considers the 510(k) withdrawn and closes the submission ¹¹.

In its July 22, 2026 Federal Register Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) notice (91 FR 46123, Document 2026-14707, OMB Control No. 0910-0120), FDA published its administrative burden estimates across 3,800 estimated annual 510(k) submissions: FDA estimates an average burden of 79.25 hours per response (301,150 total annual hours) for traditional 21 CFR Part 807 Subpart E premarket notification submissions (Form FDA 3881), compared with an estimated average burden of 40 hours per response (152,000 total annual hours, plus an estimated 0.08 hours for one-time eSTAR setup across 80 respondents) for premarket notifications submitted via eSTAR (Forms FDA 4062/4078) ¹². Note that these figures (79.25 hours vs. 40 hours) represent FDA's OMB information-collection burden estimates for administrative submission preparation rather than an empirically measured productivity study.

Distinguishing FDA Days, Total Time to Decision, and 21 CFR 807.87(m) Holds

FDA's October 3, 2022 final guidance FDA and Industry Actions on Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions: Effect on FDA Review Clock and Goals (Document 1219, Sections III–VI, pages 5–15) defines how FDA actions and industry actions affect the review clock (Table 3) ⁷:

1. Active FDA Days (60-Day Substantive Interaction and 90-Day MDUFA Decision Goals):
   • Under MDUFA V (FY 2023–FY 2027, Document 1219 Section V, Table 2, page 13), performance goals for Substantive Interaction and MDUFA Decision are measured in FDA Days (calendar days when an accepted submission is considered to be under active review at the Agency) ⁷. FDA's MDUFA V goals are to issue a Substantive Interaction (SI) within 60 FDA days for 95% of submissions and reach a MDUFA Decision (SE or NSE) within 90 FDA days for 95% of submissions ⁷. For any 510(k) pending beyond 100 FDA days (10 calendar days after the 90-FDA-day goal) without a MDUFA decision, FDA provides a written Missed MDUFA Decision (MMD) communication to be discussed in a meeting or teleconference (Document 1219 Section V.E, page 13) ⁷.
2. Additional Information (AI) Requests (21 CFR 807.87(m)) and Total Time to Decision:
   • When a 510(k) submission lacks the information necessary for FDA to complete its review and determine whether the device is SE or NSE (21 CFR 807.87), and the needed information is not suitable for Interactive Review, FDA issues a Request for Additional Information (AI request) by email (Document 1219 Section III.C, page 7) ⁷.
   • An AI request is an interim action that stops the FDA review clock on the issue date of the AI request and places the submission on hold until FDA receives a complete response addressing all identified deficiencies (Document 1219 pages 7, 14) ⁷. Although 21 CFR 807.87(m) states that FDA may consider a 510(k) withdrawn if additional information is not provided within 30 days, Document 1219 (Section III, page 6; Section III.E, page 9; and Section VI.C, page 15) states that FDA's current policy automatically grants submitters a maximum of 180 calendar days from the date of the AI request to submit a complete response, without requiring a written extension request ^{7 1}. Absent a complete response to all deficiencies within 180 calendar days of the AI request date, FDA considers the 510(k) withdrawn and issues a notice of withdrawal ("deletion letter") under 21 CFR 807.87(m) (Document 1219 pages 6, 9, 14–15) ⁷.
   • The shared Average Total Time to Decision metric includes FDA and industry response time, but differs from the untrimmed clearance-only statistics in this article. MDUFA V uses a 99%-closed cohort. For FY 2023, cases with a hold exceeding 180 days are excluded before removing the highest 5%; for FY 2024–2027, the highest and lowest 2% are trimmed. A specified volume increase adds one percentage point of upper trimming. The 108-day improved goal depends on specified prior-year performance and additional revenue; its applicability is not established merely by the FY 2027 fee notice's separate performance adjustment ¹⁴.

Table 3: Ordinary 510(k) commitments, excluding the separate Dual Track goal; 108-day goals are conditional. MDUFA IV (FY 2020–FY 2022) and MDUFA V (FY 2023–FY 2027) 510(k) Performance Goals (Document 1219, Tables 1 and 2)

Pre-eSTAR vs. Post-eSTAR Cohort Comparison and Observational Limitations

Partitioning the 21,250 decided K-numbers in 2020–2026 by receipt period (Table 4 below — comparing the pre-eSTAR receipt cohort [date_received from 2020-01-01 through 2023-09-30, n = 11,812] against the post-eSTAR receipt cohort [date_received from 2023-10-01 through 2026-10-07 and decided by 2026-10-11, n = 8,174], while excluding 1,264 clearances decided in 2020–2026 that were received before 2020-01-01) reveals both stable lower percentiles and compressed upper percentiles ²:

• Identical p10 and p25 Values (59.0d and 90.0d in Traditional; 23.0d and 28.0d in Special): For Traditional 510(k)s, the 10th percentile of observed calendar elapsed time is 59.0 days in the pre-eSTAR cohort (n = 9,857) and 59.0 days in the post-eSTAR cohort (n = 6,651), and the 25th percentile (p25) is 90.0 calendar days in both cohorts ². For Special 510(k)s, p10 (23.0 days vs. 23.0 days) and p25 (28.0 days vs. 28.0 days) are likewise identical across both receipt periods ². (Note that while 25.91% of Traditional 510(k)s clear in ≤90 calendar days, the public dataset does not record whether an individual ≤90-day clearance involved zero AI holds or a short hold resolved within 90 total calendar days ².)
• Upper-Percentile Differences and Observational Limitations (p50, p75, p90, and >365d): In the post-eSTAR Traditional receipt cohort (n = 6,651), the observed median is 135.0 days (vs. 155.0 days pre-eSTAR), p75 is 220.0 days (vs. 256.0 days), p90 is 267.0 days (vs. 365.0 days), and the share of decided clearances exceeding 365 calendar days is 1.76% (117 / 6,651, vs. 9.96% [982 / 9,857] pre-eSTAR) ². These differences cannot be interpreted as a causal speed effect of eSTAR, nor can the exact fraction attributable to right-truncation versus template quality be isolated from public records. Because submissions received in late 2025 or 2026 that remain pending on hold had not reached a decision_date by the October 11, 2026 snapshot cutoff, long-duration post-eSTAR submissions are right-truncated in the decided cohort; moreover, unaccepted, withdrawn, deleted, and NSE submissions are absent from the dataset, and device case mix varies over time ^{2 7}. Consistent with this limitation, when Traditional 510(k)s are tabulated by decision year (Table 2, which includes older receipts clearing in 2026), the 2026 YTD Traditional median (n = 2,158) is 151.5 calendar days (IQR 94.0–243.0), matching the full 2020–2026 Traditional median of 151.0 calendar days ².

Table 4: Pre-eSTAR (2020-01 to 2023-09) vs. Post-eSTAR (2023-10 Onward) Decided K-Numbers by Receipt Period

---

4. Advisory Panel Heterogeneity and Origin-Country Dynamics (US vs. NON_US)

Observed calendar elapsed times vary substantially across CDRH advisory panels (review_advise_comm) and applicant origin countries (country_code) (Table 5 and Table 6) ².

Advisory Panel Dispersion Across 21 Review Committees (90.0 Days to 258.0 Days)

Across the 21 advisory panel categories in the 2020–2026 cohort (Table 5 below), panel-level all-K median elapsed times range from 90.0 calendar days in Orthopedic to 231.0–258.0 calendar days in Anesthesiology and several diagnostic panels ²:

• High-Volume Surgical and Imaging Panels (Orthopedic, Radiology, General & Plastic Surgery, Cardiovascular):
  • Orthopedic (n = 3,088, 14.53% of all K clearances) has an all-K median of 90.0 calendar days (IQR 55.0–178.0, mean 128.5 days, 50.45% ≤90d, 24.61% >180d), alongside a 21.86% (675 / 3,088) Special 510(k) share ².
  • General & Plastic Surgery (n = 2,658, 12.30% Special, 1.81% 3P=Y) posts an all-K median of 119.0 calendar days (IQR 77.2–212.0, 38.41% ≤90d) ².
  • Radiology (n = 2,957, 15.42% Special, 3.82% 3P=Y) posts an all-K median of 122.0 calendar days (IQR 60.0–196.0, mean 137.6 days, 28.81% >180d) ².
  • Cardiovascular (n = 2,378, 23.09% Special [549 / 2,378], 2.65% 3P=Y [63 / 2,378]) posts an all-K median of 139.0 calendar days (IQR 67.0–228.0, mean 159.6 days) ².
• Panels with Longer Observed Elapsed Distributions (Anesthesiology, Clinical Chemistry, Hematology, Immunology, Pathology):
  • Anesthesiology (n = 573, 8.03% Special) records an all-K median of 231.0 calendar days (IQR 142.0–271.0, mean 234.4 days, p90 401.0 days), with 64.22% exceeding 180 calendar days and 11.17% clearing within 90 days ².
  • Among diagnostic panels, Clinical Chemistry (n = 423, median 214.0 days, IQR 98.0–292.5, p90 495.6 days, 57.68% >180d), Hematology (n = 115, median 214.0 days, IQR 87.5–333.5, p90 524.0 days, 54.78% >180d), Immunology (n = 141, median 237.0 days, IQR 90.0–410.0, p90 622.0 days, 61.70% >180d), Pathology (n = 49, median 246.0 days, 63.27% >180d), and Medical Genetics (n = 6, median 258.0 days, 83.33% >180d) show substantially higher upper-quartile durations ². While differences in Special 510(k) and 3P510k shares account for part of the cross-panel spread, other potential contributors — such as product-code complexity, frequency of AI requests, or division workload — are not recorded in the openFDA file and remain untested hypotheses ².

Table 5: Advisory Panel Distribution of Decided K-Numbers (2020–2026, n = 21,250)

Domestic (US) vs. Non-US (NON_US) Applicant Origin Distributions (Table 6)

In 2020–2026, non-US applicants (NON_US, n = 10,826, 50.95%) accounted for slightly more decided K-numbers than domestic US applicants (US, n = 10,424, 49.05%) ². The top non-US applicant country codes were China (CN = 3,555, 16.73% of all K clearances), South Korea (KR = 1,186, 5.58%), Germany (DE = 724, 3.41%), Israel (IL = 549, 2.58%), Japan (JP = 450, 2.12%), France (FR = 428, 2.01%), Switzerland (CH = 423, 1.99%), United Kingdom (GB = 367, 1.73%), Taiwan (TW = 364, 1.71%), Italy (IT = 356, 1.68%), Canada (CA = 336, 1.58%), and Netherlands (NL = 217, 1.02%) ².

Across all tracks combined (Table 6 below), NON_US clearances had an observed median elapsed time of 144.0 calendar days (IQR 86.0–244.0, mean 173.3 days, 30.53% ≤90d, 40.17% >180d), compared with 121.0 calendar days (IQR 60.0–214.0, mean 152.5 days, 38.57% ≤90d, 32.21% >180d) for US clearances — a descriptive overall difference of 23.0 calendar days ². Stratifying by clearance_type clarifies how pathway mix and within-track distributions contribute to that gap:

1. Pathway Composition (19.00% vs. 11.35% Special Share): Domestic US applicants filed 19.00% (1,981 / 10,424) of their cleared submissions as Special 510(k)s and 79.25% (8,261 / 10,424) as Traditional 510(k)s, whereas NON_US applicants filed 86.82% (9,399 / 10,826) as Traditional 510(k)s and 11.35% (1,229 / 10,826) as Special 510(k)s ².
2. Within-Track Distributions (159.0d vs. 143.0d in Traditional; 144.0d vs. 161.0d in Abbreviated): Within Traditional 510(k)s (including both 3P=N and 3P=Y clearances), US clearances (n = 8,261) have p10 = 58.0d, p25 = 90.0d, median 143.0d, p75 = 238.0d, and p90 = 304.0d, whereas NON_US clearances (n = 9,399) have p10 = 60.0d, p25 = 91.0d, median 159.0d, p75 = 255.0d, and p90 = 329.0d ². Conversely, within Abbreviated 510(k)s, NON_US clearances (n = 190, median 144.0 days, IQR 93.2–239.8) had a 17.0-day shorter median than US clearances (n = 128, median 161.0 days, IQR 92.5–249.5) ². Although the dataset contains panel and product-code fields, this analysis does not fit panel/product-code regression controls. Because it also lacks AI hold logs, or U.S. agent communication records (21 CFR 807.40), whether the 16.0-day within-Traditional median difference reflects device mix, test-report formatting, or cross-border response logistics remains an untested hypothesis ^{2 1}.

Table 6: Domestic (US) vs. Non-US (NON_US) Applicant Origin Elapsed Calendar Days by Track (2020–2026)

---

5. Build an applicable FY 2027 budget

The FDA schedule for October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027 sets a standard 510(k) fee of $28,653 and a qualified small-business fee of $7,163. The annual establishment registration fee is $13,785. These are different obligations: an application is not an establishment, an annual registration payment should not be counted again for every submission, and a third-party review channel does not remove a separately applicable establishment registration obligation ^{5 16}.

The prior fiscal year's standard 510(k) fee was $26,067 and its establishment fee was $11,423. Thus the respective increases are $2,586 (approximately 9.92%) and $2,362 (approximately 20.68%). Use the fee applicable to the submission and fiscal year, rather than carrying an older quote forward. The operative amounts are the published rates; manufacturers do not need to reconstruct the government's revenue-setting formula to budget a filing ^{5 17}.

Small-business qualification is not automatic because the company considers itself small. FDA evaluates gross receipts or sales including affiliates. The ordinary qualification threshold is $100 million. Current operational instructions use Form 3602N through the CDRH Portal; mailed applications are not accepted. Include applicable US returns or foreign National Taxing Authority evidence and affiliate documentation. The statute's requirement to provide supporting information at least 60 days before the fee is due is distinct from FDA's goal of reviewing a request within 60 calendar days. Neither is a guarantee of approval by a chosen submission date ^{18 19}.

For FY 2027, current FDA instructions give the regular request window as August 2, 2026–August 1, 2027. Approval takes effect on October 1 or the approval date, whichever is later, and expires September 30. An actively registered firm seeking the FY 2027 registration waiver has the shorter August 2–November 1, 2026 window. This distinction matters for the week beginning October 26: a team considering that waiver should check the supporting-information requirements immediately, rather than assuming that the ordinary SBD window also governs renewal relief ¹⁸.

Two other thresholds should not be confused with the ordinary discount. A group with receipts or sales no greater than $30 million can potentially qualify for the first qualifying premarket-application waiver. The applicant and affiliates must not previously have submitted a qualifying PMA (including Modular PMA), BLA, PDP, or PMR. Prior submission history matters, not merely whether a previous application succeeded or used a waiver. This is not a first-510(k) waiver ²⁰.

The registration hardship waiver is a separate determination for a business with no more than $1 million in group receipts or sales that previously registered and paid the fee and demonstrates financial hardship acceptable to FDA. Initial registration is excluded. FDA identifies active bankruptcy as a clear, publicly verifiable example. US and foreign documentation routes differ: foreign firms can supply applicable National Taxing Authority returns and evidence of an equivalent active bankruptcy proceeding in their jurisdiction, along with prior-payment evidence. A US tax return is not a universal prerequisite, and a low revenue figure alone does not establish eligibility ²⁰.

Most direct 510(k)s incur the published fee, but the fee guidance identifies exceptions, including qualifying accredited third-party submissions accompanied by a recommendation, solely pediatric devices, and qualifying noncommercial state or federal government submissions. Determine applicability before treating any figure as unavoidable. For a qualified small business considering third-party review, compare the private review quote against $7,163, not automatically against the standard $28,653. Also compare the full scope, response handling, and both stages of the timeline. A zero FDA application fee is not a zero-cost regulatory project ^{13 6}.

A bounded US service-cost example

Pure Global's US planning price sheet, version 1.1 updated January 12, 2026, lists US-agent service at $1,000 per year and 510(k) compilation at $15,000–$20,000 per submission, subject to scope confirmation. The public pricing page describes the agent service as starting at $1,000 annually under a standard three-year arrangement; a one-year arrangement adds 50% to the first year's agent fee, and early termination can trigger a charge of 50% of remaining contract value. These service terms must be confirmed in the actual proposal. The price-sheet update date is not a guaranteed price-validity period Pure Global pricing.

Consider a foreign manufacturer with one fee-paying establishment, one direct 510(k), a separately required annual registration fee not already paid, and the standard agent arrangement. Adding the standard FDA application fee, registration, one year of agent service, and the stated compilation range gives a partial first-year budget of $58,438–$63,438: $28,653 + $13,785 + $1,000 + $15,000–$20,000. With approved small-business status, replacing $28,653 with $7,163 gives $36,948–$41,948. A one-year agent arrangement would add $500 to these illustrations. These are arithmetic scenarios, not complete quotations or total three-year contractual commitments ⁵ Pure Global pricing.

The example excludes laboratory testing, translations, third-party review, and any separately scoped work, including post-submission support whose price is to be determined. It also does not assume that pathway analysis or a Pre-Submission is included in compilation. A manufacturer that already paid the establishment fee should remove that line from incremental filing costs. If a fee exemption or waiver applies, recalculate rather than presenting the unadjusted total as mandatory. This separation makes the budget useful: government fees, commercial services, testing, and contingent responses can each be assigned an owner and a decision date.

6. Plan disclosure and reusable evidence before assembly

Under 21 CFR 807.87(h), a submitter may elect a 510(k) Summary or a 510(k) Statement. A Summary contains the information required by section 807.92, including device identification, predicate, intended use, and technological comparison. The performance-data discussion in subsection (b) applies when the substantial-equivalence determination is also based on performance data. Section 807.95(d) provides for public availability within 30 days after an SE determination; this should not be described as immediate publication or attributed to 807.92(d) ¹.

A Statement creates an on-request disclosure obligation following the SE determination, not only after commercial distribution. Within 30 days of a written request, the submitter must provide the relevant safety and effectiveness information, including adverse information, while excluding patient identifiers, trade secrets, and confidential commercial information as provided by the rule. Describing the obligation as a promise to provide only favorable supporting evidence would misstate it. Both options remain lawful; choosing a Statement is not a way to avoid the corresponding disclosure responsibility ¹.

The reproduced cohort records 20,313 Summary elections (95.59%), 931 Statements (4.38%), and six blank values (0.03%). By track, Statements account for 805 of 17,660 Traditional records, 95 of 3,210 Special records, 28 of 318 Abbreviated records, and three of 62 Dual records. These are recorded elections among clearances, not evidence that one choice produces better review outcomes. Missing values are reported rather than assigned to either category ².

A practical implementation is to identify the public-facing evidence package early. A Summary can give commercial and technical teams a common, verifiable description of the cleared device once publicly available. A Statement requires an operational process for receiving requests, preparing permitted redactions, and responding on time. Neither option authorizes promotional claims beyond the device's cleared scope. A reusable evidence index should identify which claims, configurations, and tests belong to the cleared version and which concern later development. This index is an editorial and project-management recommendation, not an additional FDA-mandated format.

QMSR has applied since February 2, 2026 and incorporates ISO 13485:2016 and specified ISO 9000 terminology through 21 CFR 820.7. The Special program guidance's cover note maps its earlier design-control references to ISO 13485 clause 7.3 and subclauses. A team should therefore reconcile older guidance terminology with its current quality-system records without assuming that the quality-system change alters every substantive pathway criterion. A risk-control summary table may be useful, but a particular table layout is not the only permissible means of presenting summary-review evidence ^{10 9}.

For international expansion, retain a clearly versioned US dossier and verify each destination's current classification, registration, and conformity-assessment requirements. US clearance, a public registry entry, and QMS certification answer different questions. This US pathway analysis does not establish eligibility for an overseas reliance route or substitute for that jurisdiction's operative rules. The useful cross-border deliverable is a consistent evidence package whose scope and provenance can be inspected, rather than a count of registrations in unrelated markets.

7. Turn the comparison into a submission decision

Start with the applicability gate: document why the device or change needs a 510(k). Then select the evidence pathway by its criteria. A modification to the manufacturer's own legally marketed device may fit Special when the guidance's evaluation and summary-review conditions are met. A standards-based submission may fit Abbreviated, but standards can also support a Traditional submission. If no suitable predicate exists, examine the appropriate alternative pathway rather than forcing a 510(k) analogy. These decisions should precede selecting a preferred median from the historical table ^{9 8 1 3}.

For an eligible third-party candidate, verify the product code, the organization's recognition scope, the device's prior submission history, and the applicable FDA guidance conditions. Ask for a schedule covering the organization's review as well as FDA's later determination. Ask who prepares responses, which work is included, what causes additional fees, and how scientific questions requiring FDA input will be handled. The dataset cannot answer those contractual questions. A 28-day observed FDA interval is useful only when its starting point is explicit ⁶.

For a direct submission, use the applicable active-review commitments as regulatory milestones while separately budgeting evidence preparation, internal approval, technical screening, and response time. Dual Track requires its own commitment and study-planning discussion. Do not use a cohort median as the date on which commercial inventory must ship. A defensible internal schedule states its assumptions, the uncertainty attached to each, and which missing evidence could move the critical path ^{7 14 15}.

Before submission, inspect the eSTAR's answers and attachments, not just its completion indicator. FDA anticipates technical screening, and a complete indicator does not guarantee that descriptions are accurate, that attachments are relevant, or that a Special submission is appropriate. Reserve engineering and regulatory capacity for questions. A contemplated response should address all identified deficiencies; the 180-day response policy is a maximum window, not a recommended delay or an assurance that a late response will be adequate ^{11 7}.

Finally, reconcile the financial and evidence plans. Record the fiscal year, fee applicability, SBD approval, establishment obligations, commercial scope, and disclosure election. The resulting decision record should explain why the selected route fits this product and what remains unresolved. Pure Global can use that record to scope pathway assessment, submission compilation, and US-agent support against the manufacturer's actual configuration and target date. Request a written scope and current quotation rather than treating the illustrative budget as a clearance or timing guarantee Pure Global pricing.

Analytical methods and limits

The analysis uses a preserved openFDA export containing 176,415 unique identifiers: 175,925 K records and 490 DEN records. The modern clearance cohort selects K identifiers with decision dates from January 1, 2020 through October 11, 2026, yielding 21,250 records. No duplicate identifiers, missing country values, or invalid receipt/decision dates were found in that selected cohort. Recorded decision codes comprise 21,173 SESE, 31 SESU, two SESD, 43 SESK, and one SEKD; the cohort is not described as SESE-only ².

Elapsed days are decision date minus receipt date. Zero-day values remain in the analysis. Track, third-party flag, panel, country, and disclosure elections use the source fields, without deducing unrecorded applicant characteristics. Percentiles use linear interpolation at (n−1)p and are rounded to one decimal place; percentages use the stated record denominator and two decimal places. The retained tables were regenerated from the preserved source, and a separate recomputation of 94 distribution groups agreed. Six illustrative records were also reconciled against the preserved source and official FDA record pages.

The analytical limits remain material. Only published clearances are present; unaccepted, withdrawn, deleted, unsuccessful, and still-pending submissions do not form an all-submission denominator. Later receipt cohorts are right-truncated. Hold histories and third-party pre-FDA review time are unavailable. Panel and product-code fields exist, but this descriptive analysis does not perform a multivariable adjustment. Country differences cannot establish a causal role for language, agent quality, or geography. Neither observed proportions nor nominal performance commitments should be presented as an individual manufacturer's probability of clearance by a particular date ^{2 7}.

---

References

1. National Archives and Records Administration / U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Part 807 — Establishment Registration and Device Listing for Manufacturers and Initial Importers of Devices (Subparts B, C, and E — Premarket Notification Procedures, 21 CFR §§ 807.20–807.100) (Current through October 20, 2026). ecfr.gov ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. openFDA Device 510(k) Clearances. Preserved export analyzed October 2026; selected decision cutoff October 11, 2026. Dataset documentation. open.fda.gov ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
3. National Archives and Records Administration / U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Part 860, Subpart D — De Novo Classification (21 CFR §§ 860.200–860.260) (Current through October 20, 2026). ecfr.gov ↩ ↩ ↩
4. FDA. Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device. October 25, 2017. fda.gov ↩
5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Medical Device User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2027. Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 146, July 30, 2026, pp. 48134–48142 (Document No. 2026-15335, Docket No. FDA-2026-N-7492; effective October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027). federalregister.gov ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (CDRH). 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 No. GUI01500013, Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2565, OMB Control Nos. 0910-0491 & 0910-0375; issued November 21, 2024). fda.gov ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (CDRH / CBER). FDA and Industry Actions on Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions: Effect on FDA Review Clock and Goals — Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (Document No. 1219, Docket No. FDA-2003-D-0033; issued October 3, 2022; originally issued May 21, 2004). fda.gov ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (CDRH / CBER). The Abbreviated 510(k) Program: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (Document No. 905, Docket No. FDA-2019-D-4015; issued September 13, 2019). fda.gov ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (CDRH / CBER). The Special 510(k) Program: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (Document No. 18008, Docket No. FDA-2018-D-3304; issued September 13, 2019, with February 2, 2024 QMSR cover note referencing 89 FR 7496). fda.gov ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
10. National Archives and Records Administration / U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Part 820 — Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR, 89 FR 7496, effective February 2, 2026, 21 CFR §§ 820.1–820.45) (Current through October 20, 2026). ecfr.gov ↩ ↩ ↩
11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (CDRH / CBER). Electronic Submission Template for Medical Device 510(k) Submissions: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (Document No. GUI00019006, Docket No. FDA-2021-D-0872; issued October 2, 2023; originally issued September 22, 2022). fda.gov ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Premarket Notifications Submission (OMB Control No. 0910-0120). Federal Register, Vol. 91, No. 140, July 22, 2026, pp. 46123–46125 (Document No. 2026-14707, Docket No. FDA-2026-N-1849). federalregister.gov ↩ ↩ ↩
13. FDA. 510(k) User Fees and Refunds. October 5, 2022. fda.gov ↩ ↩
14. FDA. MDUFA Performance Goals and Procedures, Fiscal Years 2023 Through 2027. fda.gov ↩ ↩ ↩
15. FDA. Recommendations for Dual 510(k) and CLIA Waiver by Application Studies. February 26, 2020. fda.gov ↩ ↩
16. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA): Fees — User Fees for FY 2027 (October 1, 2026 – September 30, 2027) (Content current as of October 1, 2026). fda.gov ↩ ↩
17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Medical Device User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2026. Federal Register, Vol. 90, No. 144, July 30, 2025, pp. 35895–35903 (Document No. 2025-14412, Docket No. FDA-2025-N-2522; effective October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026). federalregister.gov ↩
18. FDA. Reduced or Waived Medical Device User Fees: Small Business Determination Program. Current FY 2027 application instructions. fda.gov ↩ ↩
19. United States Code. 21 USC 379j: Authority to assess and use device fees. govinfo.gov ↩
20. FDA. Small Business Qualification and Determination. July 31, 2025. fda.gov ↩ ↩