[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 8, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48592-48600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20078]



[[Page 48591]]

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

Part V





Department of Justice





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



Office of Justice Programs



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



28 CFR Part 91



Environmental Impact Review Procedures for the VOI/TIS Grant Program; 
Interim Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 8, 2000 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 48592]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

28 CFR Part 91

[OJP (OJP)-1277]
RIN 1121-AA52


Environmental Impact Review Procedures for the VOI/TIS Grant 
Program

AGENCY: Corrections Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, 
Justice.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Corrections Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, 
Department of Justice, is issuing this Interim Final Rule to set forth 
the procedures that OJP and the States awarded federal funds under the 
Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants 
Program must follow in order to comply with the environmental impact 
review procedures mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, 
the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations, and 
other related federal environmental impact review requirements.

DATES: This Interim Final Rule is effective on August 8, 2000. Written 
comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning this rule to Jennifer 
Romeo, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Justice 
Programs, 810 Seventh Street, NW, Room 5411, Washington, DC 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Merkle, Special Advisor to the 
Director, Corrections Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, 810 
Seventh Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531; Telephone: 1-(800) 848-6325. 
Additional program guidance can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cpo/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Purpose

    The purpose of this interim final rule is to set forth the 
implementation procedures that the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and 
the States awarded funds under the Violent Offender Incarceration/
Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants Program (VOI/TIS) must follow in 
order for OJP to comply with the environmental impact review 
requirements mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental Quality's 
implementing regulations (CEQ regulations), 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and 
other related environmental impact review requirements.

Authority

    Section 20105 of subtitle A, title II of the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorizes the Office of Justice 
Programs, as the agency charged with administering and enforcing the 
VOI/TIS grant program, to issue regulations. Moreover, both NEPA and 
the CEQ's implementing regulations direct agencies to adopt 
supplemental environmental impact review procedures.

VOI/TIS Grants Program

    As part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994, Public Law 103-322 (``1994 Crime Bill''), Congress enacted the 
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) 
Incentive Grants Program, 42 U.S.C. 13701 et seq., which offered prison 
construction grants and other institutional improvement funding to 
encourage States to adopt tougher sentencing policies for violent 
offenders.
    In the FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-134, 
Congress significantly amended this legislation by changing the formula 
for distribution of grant funds and limiting the types of construction 
projects for which State recipients could use the grant money. 
Currently, the VOI/TIS program provides funds for eligible States to 
build or expand permanent or temporary correctional facilities in order 
to increase secure confinement space for violent offenders. Grant funds 
may also be used to build or expand local jails and juvenile 
correctional facilities, and for the privatization of facilities.
    State applicants for VOI/TIS grants must provide assurances that 
funds received under the program will be used to supplement, not 
supplant, other federal, state, and local funds. Awards are made to 
States and Territories whose correctional policies, programs and truth-
in-sentencing statutes meet the VOI/TIS grant eligibility requirements. 
Eligible states may make sub-awards to State agencies and units of 
local government.

NEPA Compliance

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 
4321-4370d, establishes the environmental protection policy and 
requirements governing all federal departments and agencies. 
Specifically, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the 
environmental effects of their proposed actions at the earliest 
possible time in their decision-making process and to prepare detailed 
environmental impact statements on proposals for legislation or on 
other major federal actions that significantly affect the quality of 
the human environment. Moreover, NEPA seeks to ensure that such 
environmental information is available to the public for review and 
comment before federal agencies take such action. In short, NEPA is a 
policy and procedural statute that makes environmental protection a 
part of the mandate of every federal agency and department.
    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued regulations to 
implement NEPA's procedural provisions at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. The 
CEQ regulations define ``major federal actions,'' which trigger NEPA's 
requirements, as those actions with effects that may be major and which 
are subject to Federal control and responsibility. 40 CFR 1508.18. 
Actions include, among other things, projects and programs entirely or 
partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal 
agencies. 40 CFR 1508(a). The CEQ regulations identify four categories 
of ``federal actions,'' one of which involves the ``[a]pproval of 
specific projects, such as construction or management activities 
located in a defined geographic area. Projects include actions approved 
by permit or other regulatory decision as well as federal and federally 
assisted activities.'' 40 CFR 1508.18(b)(4).

Change in Circumstances

    When the VOI/TIS Program was implemented in 1996, the Office of 
Justice Programs determined that the implementation of this program did 
not result in a ``major federal action'' because, under the formula 
grant program, OJP was not involved in the funding decisions and site 
selection for specific projects.
    Over the past several years, however, OJP has been required to make 
a variety of important policy decisions in response to project-specific 
questions from grantees, including those regarding allowable and 
unallowable costs, and match issues. Additionally, OJP has been 
required to exercise greater authority over funding determinations and 
to participate more actively in VOI/TIS construction projects. These 
activities signal the agency's continuing role in, and discretion and 
control over, VOI/TIS-funded projects.
    As a result of this increased federal involvement in the VOI/TIS 
program, and of the number of newly-established

[[Page 48593]]

grant programs involving similar degrees of federal participation, OJP 
initiated an agency-wide review of the implementation of environmental 
policies in all its financial assistance programs and determined that 
the VOI/TIS program is subject to NEPA's environmental impact review 
requirements. Accordingly, OJP must require compliance with NEPA's 
provisions as a condition of granting VOI/TIS funds.

Responsibility for NEPA Compliance

    OJP, as the federal agency, always remains responsible for 
compliance with NEPA and must work closely with the State or local 
agency responsible for implementing the project. Regarding 
environmental documents, the CEQ regulations allow the grantee agency 
to play a major role in preparing Environmental Assessments. As to 
Environmental Impact Statements, the CEQ regulations prohibit the 
entity preparing the EIS from having a stake in the outcome of the EIS. 
Consequently, the federal agency or a third party expert under the 
direction of the federal agency prepares the EIS.
    However, as an exception to this latter provision, NEPA was 
specifically amended to allow a state agency with statewide 
jurisdiction and responsibility for the action to prepare the EIS as 
long as the responsible federal agency furnishes guidance, participates 
in the preparation of and independently evaluates the EIS prior to its 
approval and adoption. VOI/TIS grantees are either the state agency 
responsible for its corrections programs or the state agency 
responsible for its criminal justice programs. In either case, they are 
agencies with statewide jurisdiction. Sub-grantees, however, do not 
have state-wide jurisdiction and, therefore their responsibilities are 
more limited under this rule.

Parties Affected by this Interim Final Rule

    This interim final rule applies to all VOI/TIS grant recipients 
which include the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the territories, 
and various Indian tribes. Sub-grantees such as state agencies, 
counties and other units of local government are also affected by the 
interim final rule's application of NEPA requirements to VOI/TIS-funded 
construction projects.

OJP's Initial Notice and Guidance Handbook for VOI/TIS Grantees 
Regarding NEPA Compliance

    On March 22, 2000, OJP sent letters to all VOI/TIS grantees to 
inform them of its decision to apply the NEPA requirements to VOI/TIS 
construction projects. To facilitate compliance, OJP enclosed copies of 
its newly published handbook, Program Guidance on Environmental 
Protection Requirements. OJP also posted this instructive handbook on 
its website at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cpo/.
    OJP's handbook provides detailed guidance to grantees on the 
environmental impact review process, and on preparing environmental 
assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements (EIS). The 
handbook also includes questions and answers related to NEPA's 
requirements and their applicability to the VOI/TIS construction grant 
program. Finally, OJP's handbook contains a copy of the CEQ regulations 
implementing NEPA.

Interim Final Rule Limited to VOI/TIS Grant Program

    This interim final rule implementing NEPA's environmental impact 
review procedures applies only to the VOI/TIS grant program. 
Accordingly, this rule amends 28 CFR Part 91 pertaining to grants for 
correctional facilities.
    Notably, Justice Department regulations implementing NEPA's 
procedures and applying them to all organizational elements of the 
Department already exist in 28 CFR Part 61 and its appendices. Appendix 
D of 28 CFR Part 61, promulgated by the predecessor agency to OJP, 
adopted supplemental procedures to ensure NEPA compliance among its 
three federal financial assistance offices. OJP intends to update and 
revise Appendix D to correspond to the current OJP Bureaus and Program 
Offices and to implement environmental impact review procedures for 
those OJP grant programs subject to NEPA's requirements.
    However, until such time as OJP updates and revises Appendix D, OJP 
finds it necessary to provide immediate guidance to VOI/TIS grantees on 
these environmental impact review procedures through regulations 
tailored specifically to the VOI/TIS construction grant program. For 
that reason, OJP has initially designated this interim final rule as an 
amendment to Part 91--Grants for Correctional Facilities. At an 
appropriate time in the future, OJP intends to transfer this subpart to 
Appendix D of Part 61, which will contain all other OJP environmental 
regulations.

OJP's Good Cause Determination for Issuing an Interim Final Rule

    Pursuant to Sec. 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the 
Office of Justice Programs believes that there is good cause for 
finding that providing notice and comment in connection with this 
rulemaking action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
    Several considerations guided OJP's decision to proceed with an 
interim final rule rather than a notice of proposed rulemaking. First, 
providing for notice and comment would be impracticable in that the 
delay would prevent OJP from carrying out its statutory mandate and 
lawfully administering its VOI/TIS grant program. Consequently, in this 
case, the interim final rule immediately applies NEPA's requirements to 
VOI/TIS construction grants and in providing specific procedural 
information, facilitates the ability of State grantees to take proper 
environmental impact review actions on proposed projects for which they 
have already received VOI/TIS funding, as well as to become eligible to 
apply for and receive VOI/TIS funding for fiscal year 2000.
    Second, absent an interim final rule, real harm will result. Such 
harm arises from the urgent need: (1) To avoid disruption to--if not a 
complete shut down of--the VOI/TIS grant program; (2) to make clear the 
rights and responsibilities of States that have already been awarded 
funding under VOI/TIS; (3) to prevent State grantees from allocating 
resources towards the construction of new projects or the completion of 
existing ones during the period between the proposed and final rule; 
and (4) to prevent an immediate threat of harm to the environment and 
protected species. In short, OJP's use of expedited rulemaking 
procedures in this case will further the public interest by ensuring 
that VOI/TIS-funded correctional facilities are planned, constructed, 
and operated with the least adverse impact on the environment.
    Finally, because this interim rule's requirements are based 
primarily upon the CEQ regulations which: (1) Have been in effect since 
1978, (2) were subject to their own notice and comment procedures, and 
(3) apply to many other federally-funded activities engaged in by VOI/
TIS grantees and subgrantees, VOI/TIS grantees are not being uniquely 
affected by its requirements. For these reasons, OJP for good cause 
finds that notice and comment are impracticable and contrary to the 
public interest.

OJP's Good Cause Determination for Exemption From the 30-day Delay in 
Effective Date

    OJP also believes that good cause exists to forego the 30-day 
waiting period between publication of the rule

[[Page 48594]]

and its effective date. In this case, a 30-day delayed effective date 
is impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. For 
the reasons stated above, the 30-day delay interferes with OJP's 
ability to carry out its mission and could result in harm to the 
environment during the interim.
    Additionally, the 30-day delay is unnecessary because in March 
2000, OJP issued a letter and guidance book to all eligible State 
grantees announcing NEPA's application to VOI/TIS construction projects 
and explaining the requisite environmental impact review procedures. 
Consequently, the grantees have had prior actual notice and do not need 
additional time to adjust their behavior before the rule takes effect. 
Thus, without any further regulatory action by OJP, this interim final 
rule is fully in effect and binding upon its date of publication in the 
Federal Register.

Consideration of Public Comments

    In order to benefit from the experiences, observations or 
viewpoints that any interested or affected parties may have, OJP is 
requesting post-promulgation comments on the interim final rule. OJP 
will carefully consider all written comments received by October 10, 
2000.
    Additionally, within a reasonable time after the comment period 
ends, OJP will publish in the Federal Register a response to any 
significant adverse comments received along with any modifications to 
the interim final rule, where appropriate.

Regulatory Certifications

Executive Order 12866

    OJP has drafted and evaluated this interim final rule in accordance 
with Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and has 
determined that the rule is not a significant regulatory action. 
Specifically, OJP's interim final rule is not expected to have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Furthermore, 
OJP's interim final rule is mandated by federal law--NEPA and the CEQ 
regulations--which requires all federal agencies to implement 
environmental impact review procedures for their ``major federal 
actions.'' Congress is not expected to appropriate any additional funds 
to the VOI/TIS program in response to this rule.
    Moreover, OJP, as the federal agency responsible for compliance, 
will permit the VOI/TIS grantees to use federal grant funds to cover 
the costs of NEPA procedures and related activities. Similarly, OJP 
seeks to lessen any perceived burden on the States by categorically 
excluding activities that are presumed not to have a substantial effect 
on the human environment. For these reasons, OJP has concluded that 
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866, and accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

    The Office of Justice Programs, in accordance with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this interim final rule 
and by approving it certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This interim final rule applies the National Environmental Policy Act's 
environmental impact review procedures to VOI/TIS-funded construction 
projects, and for the most part, is nondiscretionary. Eligible grantees 
under the VOI/TIS program are the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 
the territories, and Indian tribes. In general, State agencies with 
state-wide jurisdiction are responsible for working with federal 
agencies to carry out NEPA's requirements. However, OJP, as the federal 
agency, remains ultimately responsible for NEPA compliance.
    Regardless, OJP believes that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(2), the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to rules adopted under the 
APA's good cause exception. Rather, the statute's requirements are 
triggered only by rules for which an agency publishes a notice of 
proposed rulemaking as required by the APA or other law. Consequently, 
on that basis, OJP's interim final rule is exempt from all Regulatory 
Flexibility Act analysis requirements.

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

    This interim final rule will not result in the expenditure by 
State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Therefore, no 
actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection and record keeping requirements associated 
with this interim final rule have been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 USC Chapter 35). The OMB control number for the 
information collection is OMB No. 1121-0245.

Administrative Procedure Act

    This interim final rule is exempt from the provision of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 533) requiring notice of 
proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment, and delay in 
effective date. The Office of Justice Programs believes that there is 
good cause for finding that providing notice and comment in connection 
with this rulemaking action is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary 
to the public interest.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    OJP's interim final rule implementing NEPA's environmental impact 
review requirements for the VOI/TIS grant program will not 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.
    OJP's interim final rule implements federal NEPA compliance 
procedures which promote environmental protection policies and which do 
not preempt State law. Rather, OJP's rule provides for coordination 
between federal and State agencies to ensure that any State or local 
environmental impact review requirements similar to the federal NEPA 
procedures will be met concurrently, to the extent possible, to avoid 
or minimize any duplication of effort. Moreover, the rule permits State 
grantees to use federal grant funds to pay for the federal 
environmental impact review activities, and thus, does not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. 
Finally, OJP, as the federal agency administering the VOI/TIS program, 
remains ultimately responsible for NEPA compliance.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, 
the Office of Justice Programs has determined that this rule does not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This Interim Final Rule is not a major rule as defined by section 
251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the 
economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; 
or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, 
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based 
companies to compete with foreign-

[[Page 48595]]

based companies in domestic and export markets.

Environmental Impact

    The Office of Justice Programs has evaluated this interim final 
rule in accordance with its procedures for ensuring full consideration 
of the potential environmental impacts of Office of Justice Programs' 
actions, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and related directives. The Office of Justice 
Programs has concluded that the issuance of this interim final rule, 
which establishes the environmental compliance process for grantees 
under the VOI/TIS program, does not have a significant impact on the 
quality of the human environment and, therefore, does not require the 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR part 91

    Environmental impact statements; Environmental protection; Grant 
programs-law.

Interim Final Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Corrections Program 
Office, Office of Justice Programs, amends Part 91 of Title 28 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GRANTS FOR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

    1. The authority citation for Part 91 is revised to read as 
follows:


    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 13705.

    2. Add Subpart D to read as follows:

Subpart D--Environmental Impact Review Procedures for VOI/TIS Grant 
Program

In General

Sec.
91.50   Purpose.
91.51   Policy.
91.52   Definitions.
91.53   Other guidance.

Application to VOI/TIS Grant Program

91.54   Applicability.
91.55   Categorical exclusions.
91.56   Actions that normally require the preparation of an 
environmental assessment.
91.57   Actions that normally require the preparation of an 
environmental impact statement.

Environmental Review Procedures

91.58   Timing of the environmental review process.
91.59   OJP's responsibilities.
91.60   Grantee's responsibilities.
91.61   Subgrantee's responsibilities.
91.62   Preparing an Environmental Assessment.
91.63   Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement.
91.64   Supplemental EA or EIS
91.65   Responsible OJP officials.
91.66   Public participation.

Other State and Federal Law Requirements

91.67   State Environmental Policy Acts.
91.68   Compliance with other federal environmental statutes, 
regulations and executive orders.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 13701 et seq., as amended by Pub. L. 104-
134; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.

In General


Sec. 91.50  Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to inform grant recipients under the 
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive (VOI/
TIS) Formula Grant Program of OJP's procedures for complying with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq., and 
related environmental impact review requirements.


Sec. 91.51  Policy.

    (a) NEPA Policy. NEPA policy requires that Federal agencies, to the 
fullest extent possible:
    (1) Implement procedures to make the NEPA process more useful to 
decision-makers and the public; reduce paperwork and the accumulation 
of extraneous background data; and emphasize real environmental issues 
and alternatives. Environmental impact statements shall be concise, 
clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that 
agencies have made the necessary environmental analyses.
    (2) Integrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and 
environmental review procedures required by law and by agency practice 
so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.
    (3) Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which 
affect the quality of the human environment.
    (4) Use the NEPA process to identify and assess reasonable 
alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse 
effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.
    (5) Use all practicable means to restore and enhance the quality of 
the human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse 
effects of the actions upon the quality of the human environment.
    (b) OJP's policy to minimize harm to the environment. It is OJP's 
policy to minimize harm to the environment. Consequently, OJP can 
reject proposals or prohibit a State from using formula grant funds for 
a project that would have a substantial adverse impact on the human 
environment. Additionally, federal law prohibits the implementation of 
a project that jeopardizes the continued existence of an endangered 
species or that violates certain regulations related to water quality. 
Generally, though, where an EA or EIS reveals that a project will have 
adverse environmental impacts, OJP will work with the State grantee to 
identify ways to modify the project to mitigate any adverse impacts, or 
will encourage the State to consider an alternative site.
    (c) Mitigation. OJP may require the following mitigation measures 
to reduce or eliminate a project's adverse environmental impacts:
    (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking certain action or 
part of an action.
    (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the 
action and its implementation.
    (3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or 
restoring the affected environment.
    (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation 
and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
    (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing 
substitute resources or environments.
    (d) Use of grant funds. In accordance with OJP's general policy of 
providing the States with the maximum amount of control and flexibility 
over the use of formula grant funds, the States can use VOI/TIS grant 
funds to pay for the costs of preparing environmental documents, to 
implement mitigation measures to reduce adverse environmental impacts, 
and to cover the costs of construction delays or other project changes 
resulting from compliance with the NEPA process. However, any funds 
used for these purposes must be included as a portion of the State's 
grant which requires a State match.


Sec. 91.52  Definitions.

    The definitions supplied by the Council on Environmental Quality in 
its Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508, (CEQ 
Regulations), shall apply to the terms in this subpart.


Sec. 91.53  Other guidance.

    The Department of Justice has also published NEPA procedures that 
incorporate the CEQ regulations at 28 CFR part 61. Additionally, the 
Office of Justice Programs' Corrections Program

[[Page 48596]]

Office has prepared a handbook for VOI/TIS grantees, Program Guidance 
on Environmental Protection Requirements. This publication and other 
relevant documents can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cpo.

Application to VOI/TIS Grant Program


Sec. 91.54  Applicability.

    (a) Major Federal action. NEPA's requirements apply to any proposal 
for legislation or other major federal action that might significantly 
impact the quality of the human environment. The CEQ regulations in 40 
CFR 1508.18 define ``major federal actions'' as actions with effects 
that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control 
and responsibility. The CEQ regulations categorize ``major federal 
actions'' as, among other things, the ``[a]pproval of specific 
projects, such as construction or management activities located in a 
defined geographic area. Projects include actions approved by permit or 
other regulatory decision as well as Federal and Federally assisted 
activities.'' (40 CFR 1508.18(b)(4)).
    (b) VOI/TIS construction grants subject to NEPA. This subpart 
applies to all proposed, new and partially completed VOI/TIS projects 
(including projects on tribal lands) initiated by state or local units 
of government with grant funding from OJP that involve construction, 
expansion, renovation, facility planning, site selection, site 
preparation, security or facility upgrades or other activities that may 
significantly impact the environment.
    (c) Projects. Although VOI/TIS money cannot be used for a project's 
operations expenses, the definition of ``project'' or ``proposal'' for 
NEPA review purposes is defined as both the construction and the long-
term operation of correctional facilities and related components such 
as all off-site projects to accommodate the needs of the correctional 
facilities project (e.g., road and utility construction or expansion, 
projects offered to the affected community as an incentive to accept 
the correctional facility construction or expansion, and other 
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or 
third party undertakes such action). Reasonably foreseeable actions 
include future prison construction phases, especially when either 
current acreage requirements or design capacities for utilities are 
based on needs stemming from future phases.


Sec. 91.55  Categorical exclusions.

    Activities undertaken by State, local, or tribal entities using 
VOI/TIS funds that are consistent with any of the following categories 
are presumed not to have a significant effect on the human environment 
and thus, are categorically excluded from the preparation of either an 
EA or an EIS. Although these activities are excluded from environmental 
reviews under NEPA, they are not excluded from compliance with other 
applicable local, State, or Federal environmental laws. Additionally, 
an otherwise excluded activity loses its exclusion and is subject to 
environmental review if it either would be located within or 
potentially affect any of the following: a 100-year flood plain, a 
wetland, important farmland, a proposed or listed endangered or 
threatened species, a proposed or listed critical habitat, a property 
that is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places, an area within an approved State Coastal Zone 
Management Program, a coastal barrier or a portion of a barrier within 
the Coastal Barrier Resources System, a river or portion of a river 
included in or designated for potential addition to the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System, a designated or proposed Wilderness Area, or a sole 
source aquifer recharge area designated by the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). The resulting environmental review for those activities 
that lose their exclusion status shall focus on the factor or factors 
that caused the loss of the exclusion.
    (a) Minor renovations. Projects for minor renovations within an 
existing facility, unless the renovation would impact a structure which 
is on the National Register of Historic Places, or is eligible for 
listing on the register.
    (b) Limited expansion. Projects for the expansion of an existing 
facility or within an existing correctional complex, which does not add 
more than 50 beds or increase the capacity of the facility by more than 
50 percent whichever is smaller. This exclusion does not apply to 
either a phased project that exceeds these numerical thresholds or 
projects to expand facilities that:
    (1) Are located in a floodplain;
    (2) Will affect a wetland;
    (3) Will affect a facility on the National Register of Historic 
Places or that is eligible for listing on the register;
    (4) Will affect a federally proposed or listed endangered or 
threatened species or its habitat;
    (5) Is controversial for environmental reasons; or
    (6) Would not be served by adequate sewage treatment, solid waste 
disposal, or water facilities.
    (c) Expansion of support facilities. Projects for the expansion of 
bed space within an existing facility (e.g., double bunking or 
conversion of non-cell space) which are using grant funds to expand or 
add support facilities, such as a kitchen, medical facilities, 
recreational space, or program space, to accommodate the increased 
number of inmates. This does not include projects to increase capacity 
for support facilities which might pose a threat to the environment, 
such as solid waste and waste water management, new roads, new or 
upgraded utilities coming into the facility, or prison industry 
programs that involve the use of chemicals and produce hazardous waste 
or water or air pollution.
    (d) Security upgrades. Security upgrades of an existing facility 
which are inside the existing perimeter fence or involve the upgrade of 
the existing perimeter fence. This exclusion does not include such 
upgrades as adding lethal fences or increasing height or lighting of a 
perimeter fence in a residential area or other areas sensitive to the 
visual impacts resulting from height or lighting changes.
    (e) Privatization. Projects that involve the leasing of bed space 
(which may include operational costs) from a facility operated by a 
private correctional corporation or that contract with a private 
correctional corporation for the operation of a state facility or 
program. This exclusion does not apply if the correctional agency has 
contracted with the private vendor to build the facility, operate the 
facility, or lease beds to the correctional agency using federal grant 
funds.
    (f) Drug testing and treatment. Projects that use grant funds to 
implement drug treatment, testing, sanctions, or interdiction programs.


Sec. 91.56  Actions that normally require the preparation of an 
environmental assessment.

    (a) Renovation or expansion of existing correctional facility. 
Renovation or expansion activities not categorically excluded under 
Sec. 91.55 require an environmental assessment (EA). An environmental 
assessment is generally prepared when a project is not expected to have 
a significant impact on the environment. Since projects for the 
renovation or expansion of an existing facility or the construction of 
a new facility within an existing correctional complex may have limited 
impact on the environment, preparing an EA may be sufficient.
    (b) Proposed construction of a new correctional facility. The 
proposed construction of a new correctional facility will require the 
preparation of an environmental assessment unless the proposal will 
clearly have a significant environmental impact in which case an

[[Page 48597]]

environmental impact statement can be initiated immediately without the 
preparation of an environmental assessment.


Sec. 91.57  Actions that normally require the preparation of an 
environmental impact statement.

    Significant impact. For the proposed construction of a new 
correctional facility or the proposed expansion of an existing 
facility, if the proposal is large or complex and/or controversial 
because of the nature of possible environmental impacts, and/or if any 
EA determines that the project will have a significant impact on the 
environment, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required. 
For those projects that clearly will have significant environmental 
impact, a grantee can save time and resources by initiating the EIS 
immediately without going through the EA process.

Environmental Review Procedures


Sec. 91.58  Timing of the environmental review process.

    (a) Initial planning and site selection phase. The NEPA procedures 
must be initiated as part of the planning and site selection phase of 
all new construction, expansion, and renovation projects and completed 
before the construction or renovation on the project can begin.
    (b) Early consultation with OJP. As grantees identify proposed, new 
projects, the grantees must inform OJP and after consulting OJP's 
Program Guidance on Environmental Protection Requirements, must 
recommend to OJP whether:
    (1) The proposed project meets the criteria of a categorical 
exclusion;
    (2) An environmental assessment should be initiated;
    (3) Because of the project size and/or anticipated environmental 
impacts, an environmental impact statement should be initiated.
    (c) Design phase. Projects currently in the planning and design 
phase must complete the NEPA procedures and no further decisions or new 
commitments of resources can be made on these projects by the State or 
local entity that would either have an adverse impact on the 
environment or limit the choice of reasonable alternative sites.
    (d) Prohibited pre-analysis activities. None of the following 
actions can be taken until the NEPA analysis is completed for the 
affected project:
    (1) Starting construction;
    (2) Accepting construction bids;
    (3) Advertising for construction bids;
    (4) Initiating the development of or approving final plans and 
specifications; or
    (5) Purchasing property.
    (e) Ongoing or completed construction projects. For grant-funded 
projects under construction, OJP will work with the States to determine 
what environmental analysis has been done, making every effort to limit 
disruption to projects under construction. For completed grant-funded 
projects, OJP will work with the States to determine whether those 
projects may pose continuing environmental problems. For example, NEPA 
issues may exist due to excessive noise, light pollution, excessive 
water consumption or draw down on an important stream, or adverse 
visual impact due to an inappropriate facade color in an 
environmentally scenic area. Consequently, performing an analysis for 
those VOI/TIS VOI/TIS projects for which construction is completed may 
still serve the useful purpose of determining the extent of a project's 
continuing adverse environmental impacts, and the feasibility of 
mitigation measures.
    (f) Avoiding duplication of efforts. If an EA or EIS was completed 
on an original structure, any environmental research that was conducted 
at the time the original structure was being planned and is still 
relevant need not be duplicated in any required environmental impact 
analysis for proposed modifications or additions to that structure.


Sec. 91.59  OJP's responsibilities.

    (a) In general. All NEPA decisions such as determining the adequacy 
of assessments, the need for environmental impact statements, and their 
adequacy must, by statute, remain with OJP. Therefore, OJP, as the 
Federal agency sponsoring the major federal action, shall determine if 
a proposed project qualifies for a categorical exclusion, if a finding 
of no significant impact can be issued based on the EA, or if an EIS 
will be required.
    (b) Specific duties. As part of its role in the NEPA process, OJP 
shall:
    (1) Issue guidance on the preparation of environmental documents 
and the NEPA process.
    (2) Review all draft documents.
    (3) Participate in giving notice to state and federal agencies, as 
well as to the public, and attend public meetings with the grantee, as 
appropriate.
    (4) Identify and solicit appropriate state, local, and tribal 
agencies to be a cooperating or joint lead agency, as appropriate.
    (5) Prepare a written assessment of any environmental impacts that 
another state or federal land management or environmental protection 
agency believes have not been adequately addressed through the NEPA 
process.
    (6) Monitor implementation by the states to ensure the completion 
of any required mitigation measures.
    (7) Develop a sample Statement of Work for preparing an EIS that 
States employing their own contractor can use to ensure that the 
services provided meet the requirements.


Sec. 91.60  Grantee's responsibilities.

    Specific duties. As part of its role in the NEPA process, the 
grantee agency must:
    (a) Work closely with OJP on the development and review of the 
environmental documents, and follow the NEPA process, with the full 
participation of OJP.
    (b) Issue the documents for public comment jointly with OJP.
    (c) Solicit comment from other state and federal agencies, 
interested organizations, and the public.
    (d) Refrain from purchasing land, beginning bidding process, or 
starting construction on any project until all environmental work has 
been completed.
    (e) Complete a project Status Report form for all projects under 
construction or completed prior to the effective date of this subpart.
    (f) Ensure that appropriate environmental analysis, as determined 
by OJP, is completed for all projects and that appropriate alternatives 
are considered and mitigation measures are implemented to reduce the 
impact of identified environmental impacts, if any.
    (g) Identify and inform OJP of all applicable state and local 
environmental impact review requirements.
    (h) Notify all subgrantees of the requirements of this subpart in 
the initial planning and site selection phase.


Sec. 91.61  Subgrantee's responsibilities.

    If delegated by the grantee, the subgrantee shall:
    (a) Prepare (if the required expertise exists) or contract for the 
preparation of an environmental assessment (EA); and
    (b) Submit all environmental assessments through the grantee to OJP 
for review and the issuance of a draft finding of no significant impact 
(FONSI) or a determination that an environmental impact statement (EIS) 
is required. If OJP issues a draft FONSI, the grantee agency shall make 
the draft FONSI and the underlying EA available for public comment.


Sec. 91.62  Preparing an Environmental Assessment.

    (a) In general. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a concise 
public

[[Page 48598]]

document that provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining 
whether OJP should issue a Finding of No Significant Environmental 
Impact (FONSI) or prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It 
is designed to help public officials make decisions that are based on 
an understanding of the human and physical environmental consequences 
of the proposed project and take actions, in the location and design of 
the project, that protect, restore and enhance the environment. 
Completing an EA requires considering all potential impacts associated 
with the construction of the correctional facility project, its 
operation and maintenance, any related projects including those off-
site, and the attainment of the project's major objectives. The latter 
requires an analysis of the environmental impacts of any training and 
vocational activities to be conducted by the inmates.
    (b) Project planning and site selection. During the planning phase 
of the project, OJP and the grantee jointly define the project, explore 
the various alternatives and identify a proposed site for the 
construction or renovation project. In order to identify possible 
environmental concerns and reduce the likelihood of later opposition to 
the project, the grantee should involve other interested parties at 
this stage through public meetings which allow affected or interested 
parties to learn about the need for the action, the scope of the 
proposed action, and any alternatives being considered. These public 
meetings should also provide interested parties an opportunity to 
express comments or concerns about potential consequences of the 
action. Additionally, minority and low-income populations as well as 
Indian tribes that may be affected by the proposal should be consulted 
at this early stage. The grantee should obtain their views on proposed 
sites and mitigation measures as an important step in meeting the 
environmental justice goals of Executive Order 12898.
    (c) Draft environmental assessment. The grantee should prepare an 
EA after identifying the proposed site, but before reaching a final 
decision to proceed with the effort at that location. The grantee may 
prepare the EA or contract for the preparation of all or parts of the 
EA. In order to adequately assess all of the potential environmental 
impacts, a multi-disciplinary team must be used to perform the 
environmental analysis. Any state or local environmental impact review 
requirements should also be incorporated into the EA process. The 
amount of analysis and detail provided must be commensurate with the 
magnitude of the expected impact. At a minimum, an EA should include a 
brief discussion of the need for the proposal, the alternatives 
considered, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and 
alternatives considered, and a list of agencies and persons consulted. 
VOI/TIS grant funds may be used to pay the costs of preparing the 
environmental assessment.
    (d) OJP's Review of the Draft EA. The Office of Justice Programs 
will review the EA for the following:
    (1) Has the need for the proposed action been established?
    (2) Have the relevant areas of environmental concern been 
identified?
    (3) Have other agencies with an interest been consulted?
    (4) Has the grantee provided opportunities for public involvement?
    (5) Have reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures been 
considered and implemented where possible, including the costs and 
resources to operate the facility?
    (6) Has a convincing case been made that the project as presently 
conceived will have only insignificant impacts on each of the 
identified areas of environmental concern?
    (7) Has the grantee adequately documented compliance with other 
related federal environmental laws and regulations as well as similar 
state and local environmental impact review requirements.
    (e) Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or determination 
that EIS is required. If the EA satisfies all the factors in OJP's 
seven-part review set forth in the previous paragraph, OJP will issue a 
draft FONSI. If OJP's review of the EA results in a response of ``no'' 
to any of the questions, except question 6, then the EA is incomplete 
and will be returned for further work. If the only ``no'' is in 
response to question 6, then OJP will issue a determination requiring 
an EIS for that particular project at that site. Given the cost and 
time required to complete an EIS, the grantee may wish to explore 
another alternative site at this point.
    (f) Circulate EA and draft FONSI for public comment. The grantee 
must provide public notice of availability of a Finding of No 
Significant Impact. The notice must be timed so that interested 
agencies and the public have 30 days for review and comment on the 
draft EA.
    (g) Review comments and modify plans, as appropriate. The grantee 
must review any public or agency comments received as a result of 
review of the EA and draft FONSI, and should modify its plans, if 
appropriate. Modification may include modifying the project to mitigate 
the environmental impact of the proposed project, or abandoning the 
proposed site and selecting an alternative that will have a less 
significant impact on the environment. The grantee must submit the 
comments, responses to these comments, and any revisions to the 
proposed plan to OJP for review. If the grantee recommends proceeding 
with the project in light of adverse comments on the environmental 
impact, the grantee must include the rationale for its recommendation.
    (h) Final action on EA. Unless a significant environmental impact 
surfaces through the public comments or other means, OJP will issue the 
FONSI and authorize the grantee to begin the purchase of land, the 
bidding process, the development of final plans and specifications, and 
the construction work.


Sec. 91.63  Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement

    (a) Initial determination. OJP will determine whether a proposed 
project may have a significant impact on the quality of the human 
environment, thereby requiring the preparation of an environmental 
impact statement (EIS). This determination will be made either:
    (1) On the basis of an environmental assessment (EA) prepared for 
the proposed project or
    (2) Without the preparation of an EA, but based on the extensive 
size of the proposed facility and the resulting variety of 
environmental impacts, the sensitive environmental nature of the 
proposed site, and/or the existence of highly controversial 
environmental impacts.
    (b) CEQ regulations. The CEQ regulations in 40 CFR parts 1500 
through 1508 govern the preparation of the EIS. The Corrections Program 
Office's Handbook on Environmental Protection Requirements offers 
further guidance.
    (c) EIS preparation team. (1) Once OJP determines that an EIS is 
needed, the grantee shall notify OJP in writing about the contracting 
method that the grantee will use to complete the EIS. The grantee shall 
establish an EIS preparation team or entity that meets the requirements 
for an interdisciplinary approach. The team must not have any interest, 
financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the proposed projected or any 
related projects.
    (2) If the grantee decides to use an alternate method to 
contracting out for preparation of the EIS (such as using a team of 
experts from various state agencies or a university), the grantee must 
submit a written proposal to OJP demonstrating that the team has the 
necessary interdisciplinary skills and

[[Page 48599]]

experience in preparing EISs for similar projects. The proposal must 
include a completion schedule demonstrating that the alternate method 
will not result in significant delay. The proposal must also document 
that all members of the team, other than the grantee's employees, do 
not have any interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the 
proposed project or any related projects.
    (3) The grantee must use an OJP-approved statement of work (SOW) in 
conducting the EIS.
    (4) Any consultant or contractor hired by OJP or the grantee to 
prepare an EIS must execute a disclosure statement specifying that it 
has no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project or any 
related projects.
    (d) Notice of intent. OJP will publish a notice in the Federal 
Register to announce its intent to prepare the EIS. The grantee shall 
be responsible for drafting this notice. This notice must state the 
date, time and place of the scoping meeting and briefly describe the 
purpose of the meeting. The grantee should schedule the meeting at 
least 30 days from the date that the grantee submits the draft Federal 
Register notice to OJP.
    (e) Scoping. The scoping process shall be conducted in accordance 
with 40 CFR 1501.7 of the CEQ regulations. The purpose of scoping is to 
identify and consult with affected federal, state and local agencies, 
Indian tribes, interested organizations and persons, including minority 
and low-income populations. The grantee and OPD shall conduct two 
distinct scoping meetings to assist in identifying both major and less 
important issues for the draft EIS. At the end of the scoping process, 
a brief report will be prepared summarizing the results, listing the 
participants, and attaching the meeting minutes.
    (f) Draft EIS. The grantee and OJP will prepare the draft EIS in 
accordance with the requirements of the CEQ regulations in 40 CFR parts 
1500 through 1508. The draft EIS must represent the best analysis 
reasonably possible. The grantee must submit the draft EIS to OJP and 
any cooperating agencies for internal review and comment. The revised 
draft must be submitted to OJP and any cooperating agency for approval.
    (g) Public comment. The grantee, with OJP approval, must establish 
a distribution list and must mail the draft EIS to those parties. OJP 
will then submit the approved draft EIS to the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and will request EPA to publish a notice of the 
availability of the draft in the Federal Register. The grantee must 
publish a similar notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the 
area of the proposed action. Additionally, the grantee and OJP shall 
conduct a public information meeting to answer questions and receive 
comments on the draft EIS.
    (h) Final EIS. The grantee and OJP will prepare the final EIS, 
including a copy of all comments on the draft and a summary of the 
public information meeting. The grantee shall submit the final EIS to 
OJP and any cooperating agencies for internal review. The grantee and 
OJP will circulate the final EIS to all parties on the distribution 
list, to any agency or person that requests a copy, and to EPA for 
publication in the Federal Register. The grantee must also announce the 
availability of the final EIS locally.
    (i) Record of decision. When the waiting period for circulation of 
the final EIS expires, OJP shall prepare the record of decision in 
accordance with 40 CFR 1505.2 of the CEQ regulations and in 
consultation with the grantee. This record of decision shall determine 
the allowable uses of the grantee's VOI/TIS fund with respect to the 
proposed action or its alternatives.
    (j) Final action on EIS. In proceeding with the proposed action, 
the grantee must implement any mitigation measures or other conditions 
established in the Record of Decision. As part of any mitigation, the 
grantee must report back to OJP on the status of implementing the 
mitigation.


Sec. 91.64  Supplemental EA or EIS.

    (a) OJP's duty to supplement. OJP shall prepare supplements to 
either completed environmental assessments or draft or final 
environmental impact statements if the grantee proposes to make 
substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 
previously assessed environmental concerns; or there are significant 
new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and 
bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. Additionally, OJP shall 
include the supplement in its formal administrative record.
    (b) Grantee's duty to supplement. A grantee has a duty to inform 
OJP if it plans to make substantial changes in the proposed action that 
are relevant to environmental concerns; or if it learns of significant 
new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and 
bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.


Sec. 91.65  Responsible OJP officials.

    (a) Corrections Program Office Director. The Director of the 
Corrections Program Office is primarily responsible for ensuring the 
completion of these procedures and for working with grantees to ensure 
that grantees and subgrantees meet their responsibilities under this 
subpart. The Director also has the authority to execute on behalf of 
OJP all FONSIs required under this subpart.
    (b) Assistant Attorney General. The Assistant Attorney General of 
OJP is responsible for executing all records of decisions resulting 
from the completion of environmental impact statements on projects 
subject to this subpart.


Sec. 91.66  Public participation.

    Environmental impact documents are public documents and the public 
should be provided an opportunity to review and comment on them.
    (a) Early project planning stages. During the early planning stages 
of a project, the grantee should make reasonable efforts to meet with 
the affected public and other interested parties in order to obtain 
their views and any concerns regarding the potential environmental 
impacts of the proposed project.
    (b) Environmental assessment process. (1) Newspaper notice. At a 
minimum, the grantee must provide public notice of the availability of 
the draft EA and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for 
review and comment. The grantee must publish this notice in the non-
legal section of at least two consecutive editions of the newspaper of 
general circulation in the affected community or area. The notice must:
    (i) Explain how and where a copy of the assessment can be accessed 
or obtained for review;
    (ii) Include a request for comments; and
    (iii) Provide at least a thirty-day comment period that begins from 
the date of the last published notice.
    (2) Post Office notice. If the project area is not served by a 
regularly published local or area-wide newspaper, the notice described 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be prominently displayed at 
the local post office.
    (3) Site notice. The grantee must send a copy of the notice to 
owners and occupants of properties that are nearby or directly affected 
by the proposed project. Additionally, the grantee must place or post 
the notice on the site of the proposed project.
    (4) Distribution of the draft EA. At the same time that the grantee 
provides the public notice of the availability of the EA for review and 
comment, the grantee must mail a copy of the draft EA and FONSI to any 
individuals and groups

[[Page 48600]]

that have expressed an interest in the planned project to either the 
grantee or OJP and also to appropriate local, state, and Federal 
agencies. OJP will advise the grantee of the identities of any parties 
who have directly requested project information from OJP.
    (5) Public information meeting. A public information meeting is not 
required for each environmental assessment. Rather, OJP will decide if 
a public meeting would be helpful in those cases in which the public 
comments either reflect a serious misunderstanding of the proposed 
project and its potential environmental impacts or raise substantial 
questions or issues concerning the content of the draft EA. If OJP 
determines that a meeting is necessary, the grantee must schedule and 
hold a public meeting. An OJP representative will attend.
    (c) EIS process. (1) Scoping meeting. As one of the first steps in 
the preparation of a draft EIS, OJP and the grantee will sponsor a 
public meeting in the area(s) that would be affected by the proposed 
project and the alternative sites under consideration. This meeting is 
referred to as a scoping meeting and is intended to identify the 
proposed project's environmental impacts that are:
    (i) Of most concern to the affected public and local, state, and 
federal agencies and
    (ii) Of least concern to the affected public and agencies.
    (2) Review and comment process for draft EIS. OJP's procedures 
require the grantee to obtain the public's comments on the draft EIS 
by:
    (i) Publishing a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the 
newspaper(s) serving the area(s) that would be impacted by the proposed 
project and the alternatives sites;
    (ii) Distributing copies of the draft EIS to all interested 
agencies, organizations, and individuals for their review and comment;
    (iii) Holding near the site of the proposed project a public 
information meeting in order to obtain the comments of the attendees; 
and
    (iv) Allowing, at a minimum, a forty-five day review and comment 
period for the draft EIS. Grantees should refer to OJP's Guidance 
Handbook for further information on how to conduct these public review 
and comment procedures.
    (3) Distribution of final EIS. Any interested person or group can 
request a copy of the final EIS and will be provided a copy.

Other State and Federal Law Requirements Sec. 91.67 State 
Environmental Policy Acts

    (a) Coordination. OJP will coordinate with grantees to ensure that 
any state, local, or tribal environmental impact review requirements 
similar to the Federal NEPA procedures will be met concurrently, to the 
extent possible, through requesting the appropriate non-federal 
agency(ies) to be a joint lead agency(ies). This effort would involve 
joint analyses, public involvement and documentation. Grantees are 
responsible for identifying the application of and informing OJP of 
these state and local requirements.
    (b) Completed analysis. For projects that had state or local 
environmental impact analysis completed prior the implementation of 
these procedures, OJP will review the documents prepared to meet the 
state and local requirements. In order to minimize any duplication of 
analysis, OJP will advise the State on whether additional environmental 
impact review is required.


Sec. 91.68  Compliance with other Federal environmental statutes, 
regulations and executive orders.

    (a) Other Federal environmental laws. All projects initiated by 
State or local units of government with VOI/TIS grant funding are also 
subject, where applicable, to the environmental impact analysis 
requirements of the following statutes, their implementing regulations, 
and the relevant executive orders:
    (1) Archeological and Historical Preservation Act,
    (2) Coastal Zone Management Act,
    (3) Coastal Barrier Resources Act,
    (4) Clean Air Act,
    (5) Safe Drinking Water Act,
    (6) Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
    (7) Endangered Species Act,
    (8) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
    (9) National Historic Preservation Act,
    (10) Wilderness Act,
    (11) Farmland Protection Policy Act,
    (12) Flood Disaster Protection Act
    (13) Executive Order on Floodplain Management,
    (14) Executive Order on Wetland Protection,
    (15) Executive Order on Environmental Justice, and
    (16) Executive Order on Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 
Environment.
    (b) Combined requirements. Documenting compliance with the 
environmental requirements in paragraph (a) of this section does not 
normally require separate documents or separate processes. Rather, 
documenting compliance with all of these requirements is generally 
accomplished by incorporating them into the NEPA documents. For 
example, one category of environmental impacts that must be addressed 
in a NEPA analysis is potential impacts to historic properties. The 
National Historic Preservation Act, as well as the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation's regulations at 36 CFR part 800, also contain 
Federal requirements for addressing the impacts on historic properties 
from Federal actions. In order to avoid duplicate compliance 
procedures, the NEPA document traditionally becomes the process for 
meeting the requirements of both laws.

    Dated: August 3, 2000.
Alexa Verveer,
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs.
[FR Doc. 00-20078 Filed 8-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P