top of page
Search

Technical Rejection vs. Refuse to File: What’s the Difference?

13 minutes ago
7 min read

Few messages land harder on a submission team than one telling you the FDA won’t move forward with your application. But “rejected” can mean two very different things. A technical rejection and a refuse-to-file (RTF) decision come from different parts of the Agency, happen at different points in the process, and require different fixes. Knowing which one you are facing, and which parts of your process prevent each, is basic submission hygiene for any sponsor preparing an IND, NDA, or BLA.


From a regulatory operations and publishing perspective, the distinction between a technical rejection vs. refuse to file comes down to one question: did FDA fail to process your submission, or did FDA process it and decide it wasn’t ready for review?

business man at computer with pen in hand, green checkbox and document icons in front

Two Gates, Two Questions

Every eCTD sequence passes through two gates. The first is technical: can FDA’s systems receive, validate, and load the submission?


The second, for marketing applications, is substantive: is the application complete enough to support a meaningful review?


FDA’s process diagrams place these at different stages, with rejection notices issued during receipt and validation, and refuse-to-file or refuse-to-receive notices issued only after filing review.[1] A technical rejection stops a submission at the first gate. An RTF stops it at the second.


What Is an FDA Technical Rejection?

A technical rejection occurs when an electronic submission fails FDA’s automated processing or eCTD validation. FDA publishes its Specifications for eCTD Validation Criteria, which assign every validation error a severity. A High severity error is a serious technical error that prevents processing and requires resubmission, and FDA considers the submission not received.[2] Medium and Low errors may still allow the submission to be received, though they can affect reviewability.


That “not received” status is the part sponsors often underestimate. A technically rejected sequence doesn’t sit in a queue waiting for a fix. Officially, it never arrived, so any clock tied to receipt, such as the 30-day IND review period, hasn’t started.


The causes are operational, not scientific. Duplicate sequence numbers have been the leading identifiable cause of rejection since at least FY2018, and they still topped CDER’s 2023 data, ahead of eCTD validation errors.[3],[4] Study data carries its own rules: since September 15, 2021, CDER and CBER have rejected submissions that fail the Technical Rejection Criteria for study data, such as a missing trial summary (ts.xpt) dataset or incorrect study tagging file (STF) tags.[5] These failures hit early-stage sponsors hardest. In 2023, every nonclinical (Module 4) rejection for a missing ts.xpt dataset, incorrect STF file tags, or a missing SEND demographics dataset came from an IND submission.[6]


The good news is that technical rejections are rare and preventable. FDA’s own figures put the rate at roughly 1% to 2% of eCTD submissions.[7],[8] But with more than 330,000 eCTD submissions to CDER in 2023 alone, even 1% means thousands of rejected sequences a year.


Sponsors typically learn the outcome through FDA’s electronic acknowledgments: a successful submission receives a final acknowledgment confirming it has completed validation and has been loaded to the review repository, while a failed one generates a technical rejection notice.[9]


What Is a Refuse-to-File Decision?

An RTF is a regulatory action on a marketing application. Under 21 CFR 314.101, FDA will file an NDA within 60 days of receipt or notify the applicant that it refuses to file.[10] BLAs follow the same 60-day timeframe under 21 CFR 601.2, whether they are reviewed by CDER, which handles most therapeutic biologics, or CBER, which handles vaccines, blood products, and cell and gene therapies.[11],[12],[13],[14]


Filing means FDA has made a threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review.[15]


CDER’s draft guidance, Refuse to File: NDA and BLA Submissions to CDER (December 2017), describes deficiencies that can trigger an RTF. These include applications that are materially lacking or so poorly organized that they would not permit a timely, efficient review; missing abuse-potential assessments where required; and agreed-upon minor components not received within 30 days for applications reviewed under the PDUFA Program.[16] The regulation lists additional grounds, including a missing application form, an incomplete environmental assessment, and missing GLP or IRB compliance statements.[17]


The costs are real. By statute, FDA refunds 75% of the application fee when it refuses an application for filing, but the full fee applies again when the applicant resubmits or files over protest.[18] The applicant may request an informal conference within 30 days of the RTF notification and can ask FDA to file the application over protest.[19] The biggest cost is time: an RTF arrives near day 60, after the team believed the application was under review.


Technical Rejection vs. Refuse to File at a Glance


Technical Rejection

Refuse to File (RTF)

Trigger

High severity eCTD validation errors or processing failures

Application incomplete or deficient on its face

Decided by

FDA’s automated validation and electronic submission staff

Review division director (or designee) after filing review

Timing

At receipt, before reviewers see it

Within 60 days of receipt

Submission status

Considered not received

Received, but not filed

Applies to

Any eCTD submission (IND, NDA, BLA, ANDA, DMF)

NDAs and BLAs (ANDAs use refuse-to-receive)

Path forward

Correct errors and resubmit

Amend and resubmit (full fee), or request informal conference/ file over protest

Primary owner

Publishing and regulatory operations

Cross-functional; RA leads content, reg ops supports completeness

 

Where the Lines Blur

The two gates aren’t entirely separate. CDER’s RTF draft guidance notes that electronic submission problems can themselves be filing issues, specifically organization, file format, coding, or formatting problems specified in guidance issued under section 745A(a) of the FD&C Act.[20] FDA’s eCTD guidance is equally direct: a submission not in the required electronic format will not be filed or received.[21] (For a closer look at format requirements, see our post on FDA file format requirements.)


The reverse also holds. A submission can pass validation cleanly and still be refused for filing because required content is missing. And a scientifically complete application can be technically rejected over a reused sequence number. Validation confirms that a submission is processable. It doesn’t confirm that it is complete or reviewable.


How Regulatory Operations Protects Both Gates

Technical rejections sit squarely in the publishing and regulatory operations lane, and RTF risk depends partly on it. These practices make the biggest difference:


  • Treat sequence history as a controlled record. Confirm the next available sequence number before every build and obtain the full sequence history when an application changes hands. FDA keeps withdrawn sequences on record, so those numbers can’t be reused.[22]

  • Validate against FDA’s current criteria. Run validation against the latest Specifications for eCTD Validation Criteria and the eCTD Technical Conformance Guide and resolve every High severity error before transmission.[23],[24]

  • Check study data against the Technical Rejection Criteria for any sequence containing Module 4 or Module 5 datasets.[25] FDA’s Technical Rejection Criteria Self-Check Worksheet is a useful pre-submission tool.[26]

  • Confirm receipt; don’t assume it. A submission isn’t done when it leaves your gateway account. It’s done when FDA’s final acknowledgment arrives.

  • Build in a resubmission buffer. Transmit early enough that a technical rejection can be corrected before a target date.

  • Support completeness checks. Regulatory affairs owns content decisions, but publishing teams can cross-check the planned table of contents against the final build, including Module 1 forms and components agreed at the pre-submission meeting, so nothing is silently missing.

  • Organize for reviewers. Sound eCTD granularity, bookmarks, and hyperlinks do more than satisfy validation. They make the application navigable, the same quality the RTF guidance points to when it describes applications too disorganized to review. (More on that in Working with the FDA Reviewer in Mind.)


The Bottom Line

A technical rejection means FDA couldn’t process your submission. A refuse-to-file means FDA processed it and decided it wasn’t ready for review. The first is almost always a publishing problem. The second is usually a content problem that disciplined publishing helps surface before FDA does.


At WAYS Pharmaceutical Services, our regulatory submission team has published and managed hundreds of eCTD submissions for small pharma and emerging biotech sponsors. If you’re preparing an IND, NDA, or BLA and want confidence that your submission will clear both gates, contact us to talk through your submission plan.

 

FAQs

What is a technical rejection from FDA? A technical rejection occurs when an eCTD submission fails a High severity validation check or cannot be processed. FDA considers the submission not received, and the sponsor must correct the errors and resubmit.


What does refuse to file mean? A refuse-to-file decision means FDA received an NDA or BLA but determined within 60 days that it was not complete enough to permit a substantive review.


Can formatting problems cause a refuse to file? Yes. CDER's draft RTF guidance notes that certain electronic organization, file format, coding, or formatting problems specified in guidance under section 745A(a) of the FD&C Act can be filing issues.

 


[1]U.S. FDA, CDER. Application Submission and Filing Review Process (presentation). https://www.fda.gov/media/169451/download

[2]U.S. FDA. Specifications for eCTD Validation Criteria (eCTD v3.2.2). https://www.fda.gov/media/87056/download

[3]U.S. FDA, CDER Electronic Submission Support. Electronic Submissions Update presentation (“Top 3 Rejections, FY 2018”). https://www.fda.gov/media/135249/download

[4] U.S. FDA, CDER. Crandall H. Study Data Rejections in eCTD Submissions (presentation, SEND Face-to-Face, April 24, 2024). https://www.fda.gov/media/189617/download

[5]U.S. FDA. Technical Rejection Criteria for Study Data — eCTD Rejection Notice overview (presentation). https://www.fda.gov/media/160960/download

[6] U.S. FDA, CDER. Crandall H. Study Data Rejections in eCTD Submissions (presentation, SEND Face-to-Face, April 24, 2024). https://www.fda.gov/media/189617/download

[7]U.S. FDA, CDER. eCTD Updates presentation (2023), including 2022 technical rejection rate. https://www.fda.gov/media/168958/download

[8] U.S. FDA, CDER. Crandall H. Study Data Rejections in eCTD Submissions (presentation, SEND Face-to-Face, April 24, 2024). https://www.fda.gov/media/189617/download

[11] 21 CFR 601.2 — Applications for biologics licenses; procedures for filing. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-601/subpart-A/section-601.2

[12] U.S. FDA, CDER. Refuse to File: NDA and BLA Submissions to CDER. Draft Guidance for Industry (December 2017). https://www.fda.gov/media/109758/download

[13] U.S. FDA, CBER. SOPP 8404.1: Procedures for Filing an Application When the Applicant Protests a Refusal to File Action (File Over Protest), Version 9 (April 1, 2026). https://www.fda.gov/media/108943/download

[14] U.S. FDA. Transfer of Therapeutic Biological Products to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (updated March 7, 2022). https://www.fda.gov/combination-products/jurisdictional-information/transfer-therapeutic-biological-products-center-drug-evaluation-and-research

[15]U.S. FDA, CDER. Refuse to File: NDA and BLA Submissions to CDER. Draft Guidance for Industry (December 2017). https://www.fda.gov/media/109758/download

[16]U.S. FDA, CDER. Refuse to File: NDA and BLA Submissions to CDER. Draft Guidance for Industry (December 2017). https://www.fda.gov/media/109758/download

[18]21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(1)(D)–(E) — PDUFA application fee refunds and resubmission fees. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/379h

[19]U.S. FDA, CDER. Refuse to File: NDA and BLA Submissions to CDER. Draft Guidance for Industry (December 2017). https://www.fda.gov/media/109758/download

[20]U.S. FDA, CDER. Refuse to File: NDA and BLA Submissions to CDER. Draft Guidance for Industry (December 2017). https://www.fda.gov/media/109758/download

[21]U.S. FDA. Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format — Certain Human Pharmaceutical Product Applications and Related Submissions Using the eCTD Specifications. Guidance for Industry (Rev. 8). https://www.fda.gov/media/135373/download

[22]U.S. FDA, CDER Electronic Submission Support. Electronic Submissions Update presentation (“Top 3 Rejections, FY 2018”). https://www.fda.gov/media/135249/download

[23]U.S. FDA. Specifications for eCTD Validation Criteria (eCTD v3.2.2). https://www.fda.gov/media/87056/download

[24]U.S. FDA. eCTD v3.2.2 Technical Conformance Guide. https://www.fda.gov/media/181847/download

[25]U.S. FDA. Technical Rejection Criteria for Study Data — eCTD Rejection Notice overview (presentation). https://www.fda.gov/media/160960/download

[26] U.S. FDA, CDER. Crandall H. Study Data Rejections in eCTD Submissions (presentation, SEND Face-to-Face, April 24, 2024). https://www.fda.gov/media/189617/download

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page