Prepare rights of reference and cross-references to prior FDA submissions

What is the difference between a right of reference and a submission cross-reference?

A right of reference establishes the applicable permission to rely on identified information. A cross-reference tells FDA exactly where that information can be found. Review permission, relying entity, scope and document location separately. An accurate application number or hyperlink does not establish authorization, and a valid authorization does not make a vague reference retrievable.

Before you begin

FDA Module 1 references, including applicant statements, DMF authorized-person lists and prior-submission maps. The existing DMF letter-of-authorization guide covers holder letter preparation separately.

What you will prepare: A reference matrix that establishes both permission and an exact retrievable dossier location.

For 1.4.2, document the basis of the right to reference

Create two separate columns: “What may FDA rely on?” and “Where is it?” A correct location does not grant permission. Part 312 §312.23(b) and Part 314 §314.50(g) address incorporation of previously submitted information and authorization for information submitted by another person.

An applicant’s statement of right of reference should identify the relying application, the information owner, source application/file, scope of information and the actual permission or other applicable basis. Attach or locate the authorization where needed. A corporate relationship, public DMF number or supplier invoice is not automatically a right to reference confidential data. If the owner or permission scope is unknown, the disposition is undetermined.

For 1.4.3, maintain the DMF holder’s authorized-person list

The DMF guideline §VII.B describes a list of persons authorized to incorporate DMF information by reference, updated in the annual update, identifying the holder, DMF, update date, authorized person and the location of the covered information. Keep authorization dates in the internal reconciliation as well. Build it from the holder’s actual authorization records; it is not a marketing prospect list.

Reconcile each row to its authorization and any withdrawal or amendment. Track legal-name changes and transferred applications with the affected parties. A name on an internal spreadsheet cannot expand the executed permission. Keep the holder’s list distinct from the applicant’s copy of a letter and from the applicant’s own statement of reliance.

For 1.4.4, make previously submitted information findable

For prior non-eCTD material, TCG §3.1.3 calls for a cross-reference document identifying application number, submission date, file name where applicable, page where necessary, and submission identification such as volume or electronic folder. A useful table adds document title, version and the current dossier question it supports.

For electronic material, use the applicable format’s supported referencing and lifecycle mechanics; do not invent filesystem links to files FDA does not possess. Confirm that the referenced version is the intended evidence and that a replacement has not changed the relevant claim. Baseline resubmission is a separate decision under TCG §2.4, including division consultation; do not routinely duplicate the entire historical dossier.

Worked check: correct location, wrong authorized company

Fictional exercise: the cross-reference map accurately identifies a supplier report, but the authorization names the former applicant. The navigation check passes; the permission check does not. Obtain a documented determination or corrected authorization before relying on the reference.

Now remove the page and submission date from a paper-era report reference. Permission may be valid, but the location is too vague. Reconstruct it from the retained submission index. These are separate defects with separate owners and remedies.

Review each reference in two independent passes

Use one working record for every material reference. Keep the legal permission and the location fields distinct so reviewers can identify which part remains unresolved.

Have one reviewer assess scope and another attempt retrieval using only the record. The second reviewer should not need the author’s memory or access to the author’s private file path. If the evidence was previously submitted outside eCTD, use the location elements in technical-guide §3.1.3. For electronic references, have the publisher verify the applicable referencing mechanics.

Version exercise: the authorization covers a named report, but the narrative now cites a revised report with a different conclusion. Confirm whether the authorization covers the intended revision and whether FDA has the referenced version. A valid permission for one item cannot be silently stretched to another, and an internal revised copy is not proof of agency possession.

For an NDA relying on a right of reference to an investigation, §314.50(g)(3) also addresses the data owner’s written statement supporting reliance and FDA access to the underlying raw data. Resolve that evidentiary-access requirement; a bibliography or a copy of the final report alone does not establish it.

For a DMF, reconcile the holder’s authorized-person list with the letter of authorization. If the relying entity changes, connect the review to the ownership-transfer work. Explain important references in the submission reviewer guide without treating its navigation table as the grant of permission.

Frequently asked questions

Sources and revisions

Requirements, source recommendations and editorial preparation advice have different roles. Review the scope and revision of the source you use.

Related guides