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