2014 > Ambco Electronics, A California Corp 9/26/14

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 6 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Protecting and Promoting Your Health Ambco Electronics, A California Corp 9/26/14 Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Los Angeles District Pacific Region Fairchild Irvine, CA Telephone: FAX: WARNING LETTER VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE SIGNATURE REQUIRED September 26, 2014 WL Dennis L Daniels, President and CEO Ambco Electronics Red Hill Ave, Suite D Tustin, CA, Dear Mr. Daniels: During an inspection of your firm located in Tustin, California,from July 8, 2014 through July 27, 2014, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures Audiometers, Models: , 650A, 650AB, and 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 are intended to affect the structure or function of the body.

2 Page 2 of 6 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 controls used for their manufacture, packing, storage, or installation are not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements of the Quality System (QS) regulation found at Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 820. We received responses from Kevin Xiong, Vice President, dated August 1, 2014 and August 28, 2014, concerning our investigator s observations noted on the Form FDA 483 (FDA 483), List of Inspectional Observations, which was issued to your firm at the conclusion of the inspection. We address these responses below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Corrective and preventive action activities and/or results have not been adequately documented, as required by 21 CFR (b). Specifically, your Corrective and Preventative Action (CAPA) SOP #J-001, Rev A, dated 10/11/06, references as data sources the deficiencies identified during internal audits and regulatory inspections. Your firm was issued a Notice of Violation from the CA DPH on 05/17/08 and a FDA- 483 Inspectional Observations from the FDA on 12/10/2008. CAPA actions identified as #1 and #2 were initiated to address the deficiencies identified during the subject regulatory inspections. Our inspection found the status of those CAPA actions listed as completed. However, your firm does not have documentation demonstrating that the deficiencies were corrected. Furthermore, our current inspection found many previous deficiencies were not corrected. For example, deficiencies were found with receiving inspection procedures, component identification and traceability, acceptance activities, CAPA activities and trending/analysis of data sources, device history records, and employee training. The adequacy of your firm s response cannot be determined at this time. Your response includes a log of CAPAs opened on 07/22/14 to address deficiencies found during the current inspection, and records of some corrective actions that have been initiated. However, activities associated with CAPAs # are in progress with a target completion date of 10/31/2014. We will assess your corrective actions and documentation of those actions during the next inspection of your firm. 2. Procedures for corrective and preventive action have not been established, as required by 21 CFR (a). Specifically, your Corrective and Preventative Action SOP #J-001, Rev A, dated 10/11/06, was not implemented. Section requires devices reported or returned from the field as defective or malfunctioning to be investigated in accordance with SOP #M-005, Customer Complaint Investigation (also referred to as Customer Experience Investigation). However, there is no documentation that a failure investigation of reported and returned devices included a review to identify potential trends, as required by SOP M-005, Rev A, Section 3.12; nor is there documentation of trending analysis of Customer Experience Reports (CERs), as required by Section For example, the subject documentation is missing for CER # , , , , , and concerning device malfunctions of the low tone or low output or low DB level.

3 Page 3 of 6 The adequacy of your firm s response cannot be determined at this time. Your response states A new CAPA procedure is in the process of being revised and we will immediately begin analyzing all sources of quality data dating back to the previous 2008 inspection. We will assess your corrective actions and documentation of those actions during the next inspection of your firm. 3. Complaints involving the possible failure of a device to meet any of its specifications were not investigated where necessary, as required by 21 CFR (c). Specifically, your firm failed to fully investigate and document reported device failures, as required by your Customer Experience Investigation SOP, M-005, Rev. A. Section 3.12 requires your firm to perform an investigation and conduct necessary tests, prepare a report of the tests performed and the results, recommend any necessary corrective actions to preclude recurrence of the event, review the event to identify potential trends, and to report the findings to the President/Management Representative. Your Customer Experience Reports (CER) for CER # , , & regarding device malfunctions do not include the details and data of the investigations and tests performed. The reports also lack documented reviews to identify potential trends. We have reviewed your firm s response and conclude that it is not adequate. Your response states No complaints have been reported since the last inspection and as such no investigations or complaint records are enclosed with this response. Please be advised that the agency defines a complaint as any written, electronic, or oral communication that alleges deficiencies related to the identity, quality, durability, reliability, safety, effectiveness, or performance of a device after it is released for distribution. [21 CFR 820.3(b)]. Accordingly, the CERs listed in items #2 & #3 above, which were received after the last inspection of your firm, are defined as complaints. 4. Procedures for acceptance activities have not been adequately established, as required by 21 CFR (a). For example, your finished device acceptance testing and calibration procedure for audiometer model lacks specific directions and limits for accuracy and precision, and does not identify the acceptable results or specifications to meet. We have reviewed your firm s response and conclude that it is not adequate. Your response includes updated testing/acceptance procedures for models 650A, 650AB, 1000+, 1000+P and The procedures lack provisions for remedial action when the test specifications are not met. In addition, you have not demonstrated these procedures have been approved or implemented. 5. The device history record does not demonstrate that the device was manufactured in accordance with the device master record, as required by 21 CFR Specifically, your audiometer device history records (DHR) consist of the Assembly Router and Certificate of Calibration. Examples include serial numbers #23710, 25174, and The subject DHRs lack the complete acceptance records which demonstrate the devices were manufactured in accordance with the device master record (DMR) and lack the primary identification label and labeling used for each production unit.

4 Page 4 of 6 The adequacy of your firm s response cannot be determined at this time. Your response states these corrections are in progress. We will assess your corrective actions during the next inspection of your firm. 6. Procedures to ensure that all purchased or otherwise received product and services conform to specified requirements have not been established, as required by 21 CFR Specifically, a. Your firm has not defined and documented the specific requirements and specifications to be met by your suppliers of audiometer device components such as speakers and keypad membranes. b. Your Vendor Qualification SOP #E-001, Rev A, has not been implemented. Section 5.3 requires audits of vendors of custom components and services, unless they have received ISO registration and a copy of the ISO registration is obtained. Your firm has not performed audits of custom device components such as the keypad membrane and the firmware, and there is no ISO registration for those firms on file. The adequacy of your firm s response cannot be determined at this time. Your response states: You have updated the supplier evaluation form and are in the process of evaluating each supplier. You are in the process of documenting the required specifications for each current vendor on your approved supplier list. Device components, speaker, keypad membrane, and other received product and components will be evaluated and inspected upon receipt to ensure the specifications or acceptance criteria have been met. New suppliers will be evaluated for conformance to specifications prior to acceptance. Your response states these corrections are in progress. We will assess your corrective actions during the next inspection of your firm. 7. Procedures or instructions for performing servicing activities and verifying that servicing meets specified requirements have not been adequately established, as required by 21 CFR (a). Specifically, your Servicing SOP #N-001, Rev A, covers both annual recalibration and correction of equipment malfunctions. The SOP lacks specific procedures or instructions, or reference to such procedures, for performing the annual calibration activities. In addition, Section requires servicing to be recorded on Form N-001-1, Service. However, you routinely perform annual calibration of the devices and the form has not been filled out as required. For example, the calibration servicing of audiometer model 650A, serial B9880, on 03/18/2014 and model 1000+, serial #23710 on 07/03/14 were not recorded on the required form. The adequacy of your firm s response cannot be determined at this time. Your response states these corrections are in progress. We will assess your corrective actions during the next inspection of your firm.

5 Page 5 of 6 8. Personnel training is not documented, as required by 21 CFR (b). Specifically, your firm does not have any personnel training records for the quality system standard operating procedures for which they are responsible. Your firm s response to this observation appears to be adequate. Your response includes employee training records covering 21 CFR Parts 820, 806 & 803, your quality policy, and your quality manual. Your response also includes a commitment to ensure employees are trained in the new quality system SOPs currently under revision. You should take prompt action to correct the violation(s) addressed in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violation(s) may result in regulatory action being initiated by the Food and Drug Administration without further notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and/or civil money penalties. Also, federal agencies are advised of the issuance of all Warning Letters about devices so that they may take this information into account when considering the award of contracts. Additionally, premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which the Quality System regulation violations are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected. Requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments will not be granted until the violations related to the subject devices have been corrected. Please notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) business days from the date you receive this letter of the specific steps you have taken to correct the noted violations, as well as an explanation of how you plan to prevent these violation(s), or similar violation(s), from occurring again. Include documentation of the corrections and/or corrective actions you have taken. If your planned corrections and/or corrective actions will occur over time, please include a timetable for implementation of these activities. If corrections and/or corrective actions cannot be completed within 15 business days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which these activities will be completed. Your response should be comprehensive and address all violations included in this warning letter. Please send your reply to the Food and Drug Administration, Attention: Tamara Umscheid, Acting Director Compliance Branch Los Angeles District Fairchild Irvine, CA, 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 the violations, and take prompt actions to correct the violations and bring the products into compliance. If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact David Whitman, Compliance Officer at (619)

6 Page 6 of 6 Sincerely, /S/ Alonza E. Cruse, Director Los Angeles District Cc: Harlan Loui, Acting Chief California Department of Public Health Food and Drug Branch 1500 Capitol Avenue, MS-7602 Sacramento, California Attn: FDA Correspondence