Environmental Assessment; Categorical Exclusions, 69276-69277 [05-22563]

Download as PDF 69276 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations FDC Date State City Airport UNION COUNTY .................................... YAKIMA AIR TERMINAL/MCALLISTER FIELD. WILLIAM R. FAIRCHILD INTL ............... CHANDLER FIELD ................................. AUSTIN-BERGSTROM INTL .................. ARDMORE MUNI ................................... MYRTLE BEACH INTL ........................... MYRTLE BEACH INTL ........................... MYRTLE BEACH INTL ........................... MYRTLE BEACH INTL ........................... MYRTLE BEACH INTL ........................... 11/01/05 .... 11/01/05 .... OH WA MARYSVILLE ......... YAKIMA .................. 11/01/05 11/02/05 10/27/05 11/02/05 11/02/05 11/02/05 11/02/05 11/02/05 11/02/05 WA MN TX OK SC SC SC SC SC PORT ANGELES ... ALEXANDRIA ......... AUSTIN .................. ARDMORE ............. MYRTLE BEACH ... MYRTLE BEACH ... MYRTLE BEACH ... MYRTLE BEACH ... MYRTLE BEACH ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... [FR Doc. 05–22493 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. 2004N–0461] Environmental Assessment; Categorical Exclusions AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulation on environmental impact considerations to expand existing categorical exclusions to include approvals of humanitarian device exemptions (HDEs) and establishment of special controls as categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an environmental assessment (EA) nor an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. FDA is taking this action in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DATES: This rule is effective December 15, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa M. Gilmore, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ–215), Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850, 240–276– 2346. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction In the Federal Register of November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68280), FDA published a proposed rule (the November 2004 proposed rule) to amend its regulation on environmental impact considerations to expand existing categorical exclusions to include approvals of HDEs VerDate Aug<31>2005 12:15 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 208001 FDC No. 5/0174 5/0181 NDB RWY 27, AMDT 5B. ILS RWY 27, AMDT 26C. 5/0187 5/0218 5/9947 5/0226 5/0232 5/0233 5/0234 5/0235 5/0236 ILS–1 RWY 8, AMDT 1C. ILS OR LOC RWY 31, ORIG-A. ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, AMDT 3A. ILS RWY 31, AMDT 4A. ILS OR LOC RWY 36, AMDT 1C. RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, AMDT 1A. RADAR–1, AMDT 1C. ILS OR LOC RWY 18, AMDT 1F. RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, 1C. and establishment of special controls as categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an EA nor an EIS is required. Interested persons were given until December 27, 2004, to comment on the proposal. FDA received two comments on the proposed rule. II. Summary of Comments and FDA’s Response (Comment 1) One comment opposed FDA’s proposal to expand existing categorical exclusions to include approvals of HDEs and establishment of special controls on the basis that a more rigorous standard should be applied before approval of ‘‘dangerous devices.’’ (Response) This comment seemed to misunderstand the proposed rule. FDA is not excluding any products from the statutorily required safety review under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The rule excludes certain categories of actions from the need to prepare an EA or EIS under the NEPA. (Comment 2) This comment did not express an opinion on the proposed rule. III. Background and Regulatory Authorities NEPA requires all Federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of its actions and to ensure that the interested and affected public is informed of environmental analyses. The Counsel on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is responsible for overseeing Federal efforts to comply with NEPA. Both CEQ and FDA have issued regulations governing agency obligations and responsibilities under NEPA. CEQ’s regulations implementing the procedural requirements of NEPA can be found at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and FDA’s NEPA policies and procedures can be found at 21 CFR part 25. CEQ’s and FDA’s regulations, 40 CFR 1508.4 and 21 CFR 25.5(a)(1), respectively, define ‘‘categorical PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Subject No. exclusion’’ to mean a category of actions which have been found by procedures adopted by the Federal agency not to individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an EA nor an EIS is required. When categorically excluding an action, an agency must determine that there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the action that may result in the action having significant environmental effects. FDA published final regulations governing compliance with NEPA as implemented by the CEQ regulations in the Federal Register of July 29, 1997 (62 FR 40570). The July 29, 1997, final rule listed certain device actions as categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an EA nor an EIS is required. IV. Summary of the Final Rule FDA received two comments on the proposed rule, however, neither comment related to the statutory and regulatory authority of that proposal. Therefore, the discussion of the statutory and regulatory authority set out in the preamble of the proposed rule (69 FR 68280 at 68281 through 68282) remains relevant to this final rule and will not be repeated here. A. Special Controls FDA is amending its environmental impact regulations under § 25.34 to include as a category of action that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an EA nor EIS is required, classification or reclassification of a device, including the establishment of special controls, if the action will not result in increases in the existing levels of use of the device or changes in the intended use of the device or its substitutes. FDA issues special controls in order to assure that class II devices provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM 15NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations Under these conditions, FDA believes that it is appropriate to categorically exclude the establishment of a special control from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS. B. HDE FDA is amending § 25.34 to include approval of an HDE as a category of action that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an EA nor EIS is required. Because humanitarian use devices are limited by definition to use for treating or diagnosing diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 4,000 individuals in the United States per year, any environmental impact associated with use of a humanitarian use device is very limited. FDA approves few HDEs, further limiting any potential environmental impact. FDA’s experience in reviewing HDEs has shown that no HDE reviewed thus far has had a significant environmental impact. V. Environmental Impact The agency has determined that under 21 CFR 24.30(h) this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. VI. Analysis of Impacts FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Executive order. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this final rule provides for an exclusion from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS and, as such, relieves a burden, the agency certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities. VerDate Aug<31>2005 12:15 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 208001 Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before finalizing ‘‘any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.’’ The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $115 million, using the most current (2003) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount. VII. Federalism FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required. VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 25 Environmental impact statements, Foreign relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, 21 CFR part 25 is amended as follows: I PART 25—ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 25 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321–393; 42 U.S.C. 262, 263b–264; 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4332; 40 CFR parts 1500–1508; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1971 Comp., p. 531–533 as amended by E.O. 11991, 42 FR 26967, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 123–124 and E.O. 12114, 44 FR 1957, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 356–360. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69277 2. Section 25.34 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: I § 25.34 Devices and electronic products. * * * * * (b) Classification or reclassification of a device under part 860 of this chapter, including the establishment of special controls, if the action will not result in increases in the existing levels of use of the device or changes in the intended use of the device or its substitutes. * * * * * (i) Approval of humanitarian device exemption under subpart H of part 814 of this chapter. Dated: October 14, 2005. Jeffrey Shuren, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 05–22563 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–S PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 Benefits Payable in Terminated SingleEmployer Plans; Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans prescribe interest assumptions for valuing and paying benefits under terminating singleemployer plans. This final rule amends the regulations to adopt interest assumptions for plans with valuation dates in December 2005. Interest assumptions are also published on the PBGC’s Web site (https://www.pbgc.gov). DATES: Effective December 1, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202–326–4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be connected to 202–326–4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC’s regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating singleemployer plans covered by title IV of E:\FR\FM\15NOR1.SGM 15NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69276-69277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22563]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. 2004N-0461]


Environmental Assessment; Categorical Exclusions

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its 
regulation on environmental impact considerations to expand existing 
categorical exclusions to include approvals of humanitarian device 
exemptions (HDEs) and establishment of special controls as categories 
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment and for which neither an environmental 
assessment (EA) nor an environmental impact statement (EIS) is 
required. FDA is taking this action in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

DATES:  This rule is effective December 15, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosa M. Gilmore, Center for Devices 
and Radiological Health (HFZ-215), Food and Drug Administration, 1350 
Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-2346.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    In the Federal Register of November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68280), FDA 
published a proposed rule (the November 2004 proposed rule) to amend 
its regulation on environmental impact considerations to expand 
existing categorical exclusions to include approvals of HDEs and 
establishment of special controls as categories of actions that do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment and for which neither an EA nor an EIS is required. 
Interested persons were given until December 27, 2004, to comment on 
the proposal. FDA received two comments on the proposed rule.

II. Summary of Comments and FDA's Response

    (Comment 1) One comment opposed FDA's proposal to expand existing 
categorical exclusions to include approvals of HDEs and establishment 
of special controls on the basis that a more rigorous standard should 
be applied before approval of ``dangerous devices.''
    (Response) This comment seemed to misunderstand the proposed rule. 
FDA is not excluding any products from the statutorily required safety 
review under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The rule 
excludes certain categories of actions from the need to prepare an EA 
or EIS under the NEPA.
    (Comment 2) This comment did not express an opinion on the proposed 
rule.

III. Background and Regulatory Authorities

    NEPA requires all Federal agencies to assess the environmental 
impacts of its actions and to ensure that the interested and affected 
public is informed of environmental analyses. The Counsel on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) is responsible for overseeing Federal 
efforts to comply with NEPA. Both CEQ and FDA have issued regulations 
governing agency obligations and responsibilities under NEPA. CEQ's 
regulations implementing the procedural requirements of NEPA can be 
found at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508 and FDA's NEPA policies and 
procedures can be found at 21 CFR part 25.
    CEQ's and FDA's regulations, 40 CFR 1508.4 and 21 CFR 25.5(a)(1), 
respectively, define ``categorical exclusion'' to mean a category of 
actions which have been found by procedures adopted by the Federal 
agency not to individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on 
the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an EA nor an 
EIS is required. When categorically excluding an action, an agency must 
determine that there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the 
action that may result in the action having significant environmental 
effects.
    FDA published final regulations governing compliance with NEPA as 
implemented by the CEQ regulations in the Federal Register of July 29, 
1997 (62 FR 40570). The July 29, 1997, final rule listed certain device 
actions as categories of actions that do not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for 
which neither an EA nor an EIS is required.

IV. Summary of the Final Rule

    FDA received two comments on the proposed rule, however, neither 
comment related to the statutory and regulatory authority of that 
proposal. Therefore, the discussion of the statutory and regulatory 
authority set out in the preamble of the proposed rule (69 FR 68280 at 
68281 through 68282) remains relevant to this final rule and will not 
be repeated here.

A. Special Controls

    FDA is amending its environmental impact regulations under Sec.  
25.34 to include as a category of action that does not individually or 
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for 
which neither an EA nor EIS is required, classification or 
reclassification of a device, including the establishment of special 
controls, if the action will not result in increases in the existing 
levels of use of the device or changes in the intended use of the 
device or its substitutes. FDA issues special controls in order to 
assure that class II devices provide a reasonable assurance of safety 
and effectiveness.

[[Page 69277]]

 Under these conditions, FDA believes that it is appropriate to 
categorically exclude the establishment of a special control from the 
requirement to prepare an EA or EIS.

B. HDE

    FDA is amending Sec.  25.34 to include approval of an HDE as a 
category of action that does not individually or cumulatively have a 
significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an EA 
nor EIS is required. Because humanitarian use devices are limited by 
definition to use for treating or diagnosing diseases or conditions 
affecting fewer than 4,000 individuals in the United States per year, 
any environmental impact associated with use of a humanitarian use 
device is very limited. FDA approves few HDEs, further limiting any 
potential environmental impact. FDA's experience in reviewing HDEs has 
shown that no HDE reviewed thus far has had a significant environmental 
impact.

V. Environmental Impact

    The agency has determined that under 21 CFR 24.30(h) this action is 
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

VI. Analysis of Impacts

    FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive 
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive 
Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of 
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to 
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that 
this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the 
Executive order.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze 
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule 
on small entities. Because this final rule provides for an exclusion 
from the requirement to prepare an EA or EIS and, as such, relieves a 
burden, the agency certifies that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on substantial number of small entities.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 
that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment 
of anticipated costs and benefits, before finalizing ``any rule that 
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment 
for inflation is $115 million, using the most current (2003) Implicit 
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this 
final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or 
exceed this amount.

VII. Federalism

    FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles 
set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule 
does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded 
that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism 
implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a 
federalism summary impact statement is not required.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, 
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 25

    Environmental impact statements, Foreign relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
Administration, 21 CFR part 25 is amended as follows:

PART 25--ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 25 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321-393; 42 U.S.C. 262, 263b-264; 42 U.S.C. 
4321, 4332; 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 
1971 Comp., p. 531-533 as amended by E.O. 11991, 42 FR 26967, 3 CFR, 
1978 Comp., p. 123-124 and E.O. 12114, 44 FR 1957, 3 CFR, 1980 
Comp., p. 356-360.

0
2. Section 25.34 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.34   Devices and electronic products.

* * * * *
    (b) Classification or reclassification of a device under part 860 
of this chapter, including the establishment of special controls, if 
the action will not result in increases in the existing levels of use 
of the device or changes in the intended use of the device or its 
substitutes.
* * * * *
    (i) Approval of humanitarian device exemption under subpart H of 
part 814 of this chapter.

    Dated: October 14, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-22563 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.