Guidance on Inspection Obstruction Practices

Based on FDA’s 2024 Final Guidance

Introduction: Understanding Inspection Obstruction

Entities that manufacture and handle pharmaceuticals and medical devices are obligated to undergo inspections (examinations) conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Inspections are a critical procedure for ensuring the safety and quality of products. However, there are occasions when entities intentionally or unintentionally engage in conduct that impedes the execution of inspections. Such conduct is referred to as “inspection obstruction practices,” and FDA issued guidance in October 2014 (updated as final guidance in June 2024) regarding specific examples and legal implications. This document provides an explanation of representative examples of inspection obstruction practices and their legal ramifications based on the updated guidance.

Chapter 1: Categories of Inspection Obstruction Practices

According to FDA’s guidance finalized in June 2024, the following practices may constitute delay, denial, limitation, or refusal of inspections:

1. Delay of Inspection

Actions that constitute delay include causing FDA investigators to wait for extended periods before entering a facility, intentionally postponing the provision of materials necessary for inspection or responsible personnel, or deferring the commencement of inspection on grounds that essential records are not prepared. Such delaying conduct impedes the achievement of the inspection’s intended objectives.

Delay can occur at various stages: during the scheduling of pre-announced inspections, upon the investigator’s arrival at the facility, or during the inspection itself when producing requested records or information. FDA recognizes that delays may occur for various reasons, some of which are beyond the facility’s control, and will consider reasonable explanations. However, unreasonable delays may result in drugs or devices being deemed adulterated under Section 501(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

2. Denial of Inspection

This refers to directly refusing entry to the facility or explicitly denying FDA investigators’ access to the premises. For instance, refusing at the reception desk by stating “we cannot accommodate you at this time” may be considered an explicit denial. Additionally, FDA interprets denial broadly to include actions or statements that are intended to prevent FDA from conducting or completing an inspection.

Examples of denial include: rejecting FDA’s attempts to schedule a pre-announced inspection; refusing to permit FDA investigators to begin or continue an inspection upon arrival; falsely claiming that the facility no longer manufactures drugs or devices; and imposing conditions on the inspection that are not required by law (such as requiring FDA to sign nondisclosure agreements or limiting the number of FDA investigators without valid justification).

3. Limitation of Inspection

Practices falling into this category include restricting the scope of areas available for confirmation during inspection, partially refusing access to necessary records, denying permission for photography or sample collection, and restricting meetings with employees whom investigators wish to interview.

Specific examples include: refusing to allow FDA investigators to observe facility operations or conditions; limiting photography (which is an integral part of FDA inspections); limiting access to or copying of records that FDA has statutory authority to inspect; and limiting or preventing collection of samples (environmental samples, finished product samples, raw material samples, in-process material samples, and other samples that FDA has authority to collect).

4. Refusal to Permit Entry or Inspection

FDA interprets this term to include not only active refusal but also passive behavior and inaction by the owner, operator, or agent of a facility that results in an authorized FDA representative being unable to enter or fully inspect the facility. This category applies when delays, limitations, and other obstructive practices are repeated, making inspection effectively impossible, or when there is firm rejection of official notifications.

Examples include: without reasonable explanation, barring FDA investigators from entering the facility or certain areas by failing to unlock areas or take other necessary actions that would permit access; failing to respond to or acknowledge FDA’s attempts to schedule an inspection; and failing to take steps necessary to permit an inspection of a facility.

Chapter 2: Specific Examples Provided in the Guidance

FDA’s guidance provides specific direction on cases that may present challenges in determination.

Data tampering or deletion constitutes clear refusal conduct. When control over FDA investigators’ question responses is excessively managed under the guise of explanation, this may also be considered limitation conduct. Claiming that inspection is only possible during specific times without reasonable justification also constitutes obstruction.

To prevent these situations, entities are required to establish inspection response manuals and provide education to responsible personnel. The guidance emphasizes that FDA intends to work collaboratively with facilities to conduct inspections and obtain information necessary to achieve inspection objectives, while considering reasonable explanations for conduct that might otherwise be deemed obstructive.

The guidance includes numerous specific scenarios to illustrate what constitutes reasonable versus unreasonable conduct. For example, a delay might be considered reasonable if it accommodates documented safety procedures (such as gowning requirements for aseptic processing areas), allows reasonable time to compile large volumes of records, or addresses genuine operational disruptions. Conversely, unreasonable delays include failing to agree on an inspection start date without reasonable explanation, requesting later start dates without justification, or taking unreasonable amounts of time to produce requested materials.

Chapter 3: Legal Ramifications

Inspection obstruction practices are prohibited by Section 501(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Section 501(j) was added by Section 707 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) of 2012, which deemed drugs adulterated if the owner, operator, or agent of the facility delays, denies, or limits an inspection or refuses to permit entry or inspection. Subsequently, Section 702© of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA) amended the scope of Section 501(j) to include medical devices alongside drugs.

When FDA determines that inspection obstruction has occurred, the following measures may potentially be taken:

Administrative and Regulatory Actions:

• Product detention and import refusal
• Issuance of Warning Letters
• Suspension or revocation of licenses and authorizations
• Public disclosure in FDA databases

Criminal Penalties: Section 301(f) of the FD&C Act establishes that refusal to permit inspection as authorized by Section 704 is a prohibited act, subject to criminal penalties under Section 333 of the FD&C Act. This can result in criminal prosecution and additional administrative sanctions.

Furthermore, since this information is recorded in FDA’s publicly accessible databases, it must be recognized that there are risks of corporate reputation damage. The designation of products as “adulterated” under Section 501(j) has serious implications for regulatory compliance and business operations, including potential restrictions on product distribution and market access.

It is important to note that FDA’s guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities but rather describe the Agency’s current thinking on topics and should be viewed as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. However, violations of the requirements under Section 501(j) are being cited in Warning Letters, and entities must understand their obligations to avoid regulatory action.

Chapter 4: Recent Developments and Current Regulatory Environment

The final guidance issued in June 2024 supersedes the October 2014 guidance and reflects several years of practical implementation experience. The updated guidance:

• Incorporates medical devices explicitly throughout, following the 2017 FDARA amendments
• Provides enhanced clarity on what constitutes “reasonable explanations” for potentially obstructive conduct
• Includes expanded examples based on situations FDA has encountered in conducting drug and device inspections
• Emphasizes FDA’s commitment to working collaboratively with facilities while maintaining inspection authority

Additionally, FDA has introduced Remote Regulatory Assessments (RRAs) as a permanent component of its oversight toolkit. While RRAs are distinct from traditional inspections under Section 704 of the FD&C Act, they represent an important evolution in FDA’s approach to regulatory oversight, utilizing digital tools and remote examination methods alongside conventional on-site inspections.

The pharmaceutical and medical device industries continue to face evolving international regulatory requirements. Harmonization efforts through organizations such as the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) and alignment with regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions (such as the European Medicines Agency and Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency) emphasize the importance of transparent and cooperative regulatory interactions globally.

Conclusion: The Critical Importance of Guidance Compliance

Inspections represent valuable opportunities to demonstrate regulatory compliance, and sincere, proactive responses constitute corporate social responsibility. As FDA’s 2024 final guidance clearly indicates, inspection obstruction practices such as delay, denial, limitation, and refusal are treated with strict enforcement and can sometimes lead to serious legal penalties including product adulteration designations, Warning Letters, import refusals, and criminal prosecution.

Entities should maintain well-established inspection response systems on an ongoing basis and cultivate appropriate compliance awareness among all personnel involved. The concept of “reasonable explanation” is critical—FDA has repeatedly emphasized its intention to work collaboratively with facilities, but this requires transparent communication, documented justification for any deviations from standard procedures, and genuine cooperation with FDA’s mission to protect public health.

Key recommendations for entities include:

Preparedness Measures:

• Develop comprehensive inspection response procedures and protocols
• Conduct regular training for all personnel who may interact with FDA investigators
• Maintain organized, readily accessible documentation systems
• Establish clear communication channels and designated contacts for FDA interactions

During Inspections:

• Respond promptly and transparently to FDA requests
• Provide reasonable explanations for any necessary delays, supported by documentation
• Ensure full access to areas, records, and personnel as authorized by law
• Facilitate photography, sample collection, and other standard inspection activities
• Maintain professional, cooperative conduct throughout the inspection process

Post-Inspection:

• Review any observations or concerns raised by investigators
• Implement corrective actions promptly and thoroughly
• Maintain records of inspection-related communications and actions
• Use inspection experiences to improve overall compliance systems

Moving forward, it is essential to continue monitoring international regulatory and audit requirement changes with careful attention. The regulatory landscape continues to evolve, with increasing emphasis on data integrity, supply chain transparency, and quality systems throughout product lifecycles. Entities must maintain a cautious, deliberate approach—similar to the Japanese proverb of “crossing a stone bridge while tapping it”—ensuring thorough preparation and maintaining the highest standards of regulatory compliance in all interactions with FDA and other regulatory authorities worldwide.

---

Table 1: Evolution of FDA Inspection Obstruction Regulations

Date	Legislative/Regulatory Action	Key Provisions
July 2012	Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) Section 707	Added Section 501(j) to FD&C Act, deeming drugs adulterated if inspection is delayed, denied, limited, or refused
October 2014	FDA Final Guidance (Original)	Defined circumstances constituting inspection obstruction for drugs
August 2017	FDA Reauthorization Act (FDARA) Section 702	Amended Section 501(j) to include medical devices alongside drugs
December 2022	FDA Draft Guidance (Revision 1)	Proposed updated guidance incorporating devices and implementation experience
June 2024	FDA Final Guidance (Current)	Finalized comprehensive guidance for both drugs and devices, superseding 2014 version

Table 2: Categories of Inspection Obstruction and Examples

Category	Definition	Examples of Obstructive Conduct	Examples of Reasonable Explanations
Delay	Actions that postpone or defer inspection activities	– Failing to agree on inspection start date without justification<br>- Excessive time to produce records<br>- Prolonged waiting periods before facility access	– Documented gowning/safety procedures<br>- Reasonable time to compile large record volumes<br>- Genuine operational disruptions (natural disasters)
Denial	Refusing to permit inspection to occur	– Rejecting inspection scheduling attempts<br>- Refusing investigator entry upon arrival<br>- Falsely claiming facility no longer handles regulated products<br>- Imposing unlawful preconditions	– Facility closed for scheduled maintenance<br>- Unavailability of appropriate personnel for specific technical areas (if rescheduling offered promptly)
Limitation	Restricting scope or activities of inspection	– Denying access to operational areas<br>- Preventing photography<br>- Refusing record access/copying<br>- Limiting sample collection<br>- Restricting employee interviews	– Chemical properties that would be adversely affected by flash photography<br>- Need to accompany investigators in hazardous areas for safety<br>- Time needed to redact trade secret information (if done promptly)
Refusal	Active or passive conduct preventing inspection	– Failing to unlock facility areas<br>- Not responding to scheduling attempts<br>- Failing to take necessary steps to permit inspection<br>- Repeated obstruction making inspection impossible	– Extraordinary circumstances genuinely preventing facility access<br>- Force majeure events (must be documented and communicated promptly)

Table 3: Legal Consequences of Inspection Obstruction

Type of Consequence	Specific Actions	Legal Basis
Product Adulteration Designation	Drug or device deemed adulterated	FD&C Act Section 501(j)
Import Refusal	Denial of entry for imported products	FD&C Act Section 801
Warning Letters	Official notice of violations	FDA enforcement discretion
Regulatory Actions	Consent decrees, injunctions, product recalls	FD&C Act Sections 302, 304
License/Authorization Impact	Suspension, revocation, or denial of applications	FD&C Act Sections 505, 515
Criminal Penalties	Fines and/or imprisonment	FD&C Act Sections 301(f), 333
Public Disclosure	Publication in FDA databases (e.g., Warning Letters)	Freedom of Information Act
Reputational Damage	Loss of business relationships, market access	Indirect consequence

---

Note: This guidance document is based on FDA’s final guidance “Circumstances that Constitute Delaying, Denying, Limiting, or Refusing a Drug or Device Inspection” (June 2024) and related regulatory provisions. Entities should consult the official FDA guidance documents and seek qualified regulatory counsel for specific compliance questions. FDA guidance documents represent the Agency’s current thinking and should be viewed as recommendations unless specific statutory or regulatory requirements are cited.