The MDUFA V 60-Day Meeting Materials Rule
Updated: 2026-11-11 · GRZAN Regulatory Team · Verification date 2026-10-20
1. Key takeaways
MDUFA V contains a 60-day rule: applicants must submit their meeting materials within the 60 days preceding the meeting request. According to the MDUFA V terms set out in 90 FR 35895, where the materials are not submitted within that deadline, the relevant fee reduction does not apply. The rule converts early material preparation from good advice into a financial necessity: a meeting that proceeds on late materials can still take place, but the company pays for it without the reduction it might otherwise have obtained.
- Meeting materials must be submitted within the 60 days before the meeting request, under the MDUFA V terms.
- The consequence of late materials is loss of the applicable fee reduction, not cancellation of the meeting.
- The governing document is Medical Device User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2026, 90 FR 35895, published 2025-07-30.
- The rule is distinct from the 90-day submission-to-distribution interval that governs 510(k) planning.
2. Legal basis
The 60-day rule sits inside the MDUFA V terms published with the annual user fee notice, alongside the program pages that describe the submission formats used to prepare and file Q-Sub materials. The references below cover the rule itself, the PreSTAR vehicle, and the statutory framework.
| Medical Device User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2026 | MDUFA V 60-day meeting material submission rule | 90 FR 35895, 2025-07-30 | Federal Register |
| FDA eSTAR Program page | Q-Sub types supported by PreSTAR (including Pre-Submission and PMA Day 100 Meeting) | Verified October 2026 | fda.gov |
| FD&C Act | Section 738A user fees | Current | eCFR |
| 21 CFR Part 807 Subpart E | 510(k) | Current | eCFR |
3. Expert insights
Insight 1: The 60-day rule affects fee reduction eligibility, not whether the meeting can be held.
The legal consequence of the rule falls on the applicability of the fee reduction. In other words, even where materials are submitted late, the communication itself can still proceed, but the relevant fee reduction no longer applies. This is precisely why the rule belongs in the category of fee compliance rather than procedural compliance: the sanction is monetary, delivered through the fee schedule, rather than the refusal of a meeting. Companies that treat the deadline as an administrative detail may find that their meetings happen as planned while their fee savings quietly disappear, which makes the rule easy to miss in a retrospective cost review and difficult to recover once the fiscal year has closed.
Insight 2: The 60-day rule couples directly with Q-Sub scheduling.
A Q-Sub meeting request requires a complete package of materials prepared in advance. Working backwards from the 60-day requirement, the actual preparation work must be finished two months before the date of the meeting request. For high-risk projects such as De Novo requests and PMAs, this means that material preparation and Q-Sub scheduling must be managed in parallel rather than sequentially: the project plan needs a material completion date that is independent of the submission milestones, because the fee consequences attach to the material date, not to the filing date of the underlying submission. Companies running several Q-Subs in the same quarter should stagger their material completion dates so that every meeting request is supported by a package that finished inside its own 60-day window, with the timestamp evidence archived at the moment of submission.
Insight 3: PreSTAR can serve as the vehicle for preparing the materials.
According to FDA’s eSTAR Program page, PreSTAR covers six types of Q-Sub. Preparing materials through PreSTAR aligns them directly with FDA’s internal templates, which reduces the volume of deficiencies and supplemental requests during review. For companies that file Q-Subs regularly, standardizing on the PreSTAR format shortens internal drafting cycles as well, since the template imposes a stable structure on the material package before the 60-day clock starts running. Teams that draft directly against the template also spend less time reworking sections that FDA reviewers would otherwise return, and the material package reaches its final form earlier in the window.
Insight 4: The 60-day rule and the 90-day submission period are two different time references.
The 90-day period attached to the 510(k) is the interval from submission to planned commercial distribution, under FD&C Act Section 510(k). The 60-day rule, by contrast, is the interval between the meeting materials and the meeting request. The two clocks constrain different stages of the regulatory pathway and cannot be merged into one calculation. A project plan that tracks only the 90-day period will leave the 60-day material deadline unmanaged, and the fee reduction attached to timely materials will be lost even though the submission timeline itself looked healthy.
4. Practical recommendations
The measures below embed the 60-day rule into project planning so that fee reduction eligibility is protected by design.
- Start material preparation 60 days before the meeting request, and set the material completion date as an independent project milestone.
- Use the current version of PreSTAR (3.1) to prepare Q-Sub materials.
- List the 60-day rule and the 90-day submission period separately in the project Gantt chart, marked in different colors.
- Organize the material package according to FDA’s internal templates to reduce pre-meeting deficiencies.
- Retain timestamp evidence of the material submission as support for fee reduction eligibility.
5. Verification checklist
Confirm each item below before filing a meeting request that is intended to carry a fee reduction.
- □ The material preparation plan has been scheduled backwards from the 60-day requirement.
- □ The material completion date has been set as an independent milestone.
- □ The current version of PreSTAR (3.1) has been used for preparation.
- □ The 60-day rule and the 90-day submission period have been entered separately in the Gantt chart.
- □ Timestamp evidence of the material submission has been retained.
- □ It has been confirmed whether the meeting qualifies for the applicable fee reduction.
Regulatory information verified as of October 28, 2026.
How GRZAN can help. GRZAN provides medical device and IVD registration, quality system, US Agent and local testing support for the United States market. Our team manages FDA establishment registration and listing, 510(k)/De Novo/PMA submissions, and supports post-market reporting obligations. Business enquiries: info@grzanglobal.com
Disclaimer
Prepared by GRZAN from publicly available regulation. It is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Legislation and official fees are subject to change by the competent authority.
About GRZAN
GRZAN (Global Regulatory Zone Access Navigator) — the global market-access navigator for medical devices and IVDs.
GRZAN is a specialist consultancy for medical device and IVD market access, providing end-to-end regulatory solutions across the product lifecycle and making international market entry simpler and faster.
Key figures. More than 25 wholly owned subsidiaries worldwide covering 50+ countries and regions; chosen by 100+ listed and leading Chinese device manufacturers, with 4,000+ successful cases; 12+ years in the sector and 200+ regulatory training sessions and seminars delivered.
What we do. Global market access: multi-country registration programmes, technical documentation, regulatory advice. Clinical evidence: clinical evaluation reports (CER), usability studies, overseas clinical investigations. Quality systems: ISO 13485, MDSAP, FDA QMSR and BGMP implementation and audit readiness. Authorised representative and licence-holder services across Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and North America.
Why GRZAN. A real operating entity, with the certificate held by the manufacturer: our direct overseas subsidiaries act as the compliant local holder, so the regulatory relationship stays clear and you keep control rather than being tied to a distributor. Direct access to the team: no time-zone gap, no language barrier, no cultural gap. Review points anticipated: we know what FDA 510(k), EU MDR, Southeast Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern reviewers look for, which shortens timelines and reduces deficiency letters. Pathway planning: pre-decision analysis and risk assessment before you commit.
Every engagement rests on three commitments: efficiency through pre-submission review, certainty through a clear pathway, and stability through a licence-holder that stays in place.
Take your devices global with GRZAN
We work with manufacturers worldwide to open new markets with a clear regulatory pathway.
Contact us