72528 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Notices 

who are to respond; including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

(5) ways to minimize the burden of

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

HUD encourages interested parties to 

submit comments in response to these 

questions. 

C. Authority

Section 3507 of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35. 

Colette Pollard, 

Department Reports Management Officer, 

Office of Policy Development and Research, 

Chief Data Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23151 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

[245A2100DD/AAKC001030/ 

A0A501010.999900] 

Johnson-O’Malley Program 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Final Report. 

SUMMARY: Under the Johnson-O’Malley 

(JOM) Act of 1934, as amended by the 

JOM Supplemental Indian Education 

Program Modernization Act of 2018, the 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is 

publishing a Final Report that describes 

the initial determination of the number 

of eligible Indian students served or 

potentially served by each eligible 

entity, the data used for BIE to make 

such determination, feedback gained 

during the comment period, and 

justification for not applying feedback 

gained during the comment period. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Spike Bighorn, Program Manager, Office 

of Sovereignty in Indian Education, 

Bureau of Indian Education, via email at 

spike.bighorn@bie.edu or telephone at 

(202) 499–0482.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Johnson-O’Malley Supplemental Indian

Education Program Modernization Act

of 2018, Public Law 115–404, directed

the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)

to publish a preliminary report

describing the number of eligible Indian

students served or potentially served by

each eligible entity, using the most

applicable and accurate data from the

fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for 

which the initial determination is to be 

made. See 84 FR 57880, dated October 

29, 2019. The 60-day comment period 

ended on December 30, 2019. 

The BIE received feedback on the 

preliminary report from four entities. 

On June 16, 2022, BIE submitted to 

Congress a final report (JOM Final 

Report) on the initial determination of 

the number of eligible Indian students 

served or potentially served by each 

eligible entity, including justification for 

not including feedback gained during 

the consultation period. On July 14, 

2023, BIE published the JOM Final 

Report on the BIE website where it 

remains publicly available at https://

www.bie.edu/supplemental-educationprograms. 

Brian Newland, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23148 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4337–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Office of the Secretary 

[220D2641EA; DS61830000; 

DEA100000.000000; DX61801; Docket No. 

DOI–2023–0014] 

Request for Information To Inform the 

Orphaned Wells Program Office’s 

Development of Regulatory 

Improvement Grants Under the 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 

AGENCY: Orphaned Wells Program 

Office, Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The Orphaned Wells Program 

Office (OWPO) invites public comment 

to help inform its efforts in determining 

how to best structure the Regulatory 

Improvement Grant (RIG) program, 

pursuant to section 40601 of the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 

also referred to as the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law (Act). 

DATES: Respondents are invited to 

submit comment to the OWPO by 

December 19, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted through https://

www.regulations.gov and will be 

available for public viewing and 

inspection. This request can be located 

by typing the Docket number DOI– 

2023–0014 in the regulations.gov search 

box. For best results, do not copy and 

paste the number. Instead, type the 

Docket number into the search box, 

including the hyphens. Comments are 

submitted by clicking ‘‘Comment.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lee, Division Chief, State 

Orphaned Wells Program, OWPO, (202) 

579–1907 or by email at susan_lee@

ios.doi.gov. Or contact the OWPO by 

email at orphanedwells@ios.doi.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act is 

a once-in-a-generation investment in our 

nation’s infrastructure and economic 

competitiveness. The Act, which is 

codified at 42 U.S.C. 15907, creates a 

plugging, remediation, and restoration 

program within the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) to address orphaned 

wells, well sites, associated pipelines, 

facilities, infrastructure, habitats, soil 

remediation, tracking emissions of 

methane and other gases, tracking of 

ground and surface water 

contamination, located on Federal 

lands, Tribal lands, and state and 

private lands. 

Under the Act, states may be eligible 

to receive the following types of grants 

awarded, administered, and overseen by 

the OWPO: Initial Grants, Formula 

Grants, and Performance Grants. There 

are two categories of Performance 

Grants: Matching Grants and RIGs. The 

Act makes $1.5 billion available to DOI 

for distribution to eligible states for 

Performance Grants. A state that 

received an Initial Grant is eligible to 

apply for and receive two separate RIGs, 

if the state meets one or both of the 

following conditions during the 10-year 

period that precedes its application: 

(l) The state has strengthened

plugging standards and procedures 

designed to ensure that wells located in 

the state are plugged in an effective 

manner that protects groundwater and 

other natural resources, public health 

and safety, and the environment 

(Plugging Standards). 

(ll) The state has made improvements

to state programs designed to reduce 

future orphaned well burdens, such as 

financial assurance reform, alternative 

funding mechanisms for orphaned well 

programs, and reforms to programs 

relating to well transfer or temporary 

abandonment (Program Standards). 

A state may apply for and receive one 

RIG of up to $20 million for each of the 

above Standards, meaning a state may 

receive up to a total of $40 million in 

RIGs. RIGs are subject to available 

appropriations and grant application 

window deadlines. All RIG funds must 

be obligated by the state within five 

years of the effective date of the award. 

On January 10, 2023, Secretary 

Haaland issued Order 3409, which 

established the OWPO to ensure 

effective, accountable, and efficient 

implementation of the Act. The OWPO 

invites public comment to inform the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Notices 72529 

OWPO’s efforts as to how to best 

structure the RIG program. This 

includes information from the public 

regarding factors the OWPO may use in 

evaluating RIG applications. 

Questions 

Applicable to Both RIG Criteria 

1. Should a specific amount of the 

$1.5 billion in Performance Grant funds 

be set aside for Regulatory Improvement 

Grants? Similarly, should a specific 

amount be set aside for Plugging 

Standards and Program Standards? 

2. A state that receives a RIG shall 

reimburse the United States the amount 

of the grant if, during the 10-year period 

beginning on the date of receipt of the 

grant, the state enacts a law or 

regulation that, if in effect on the date 

of submission of the application, would 

have prevented the state from being 

eligible to receive the grant. What would 

be the most effective and 

administratively prudent way to address 

this requirement (e.g., an annual audit, 

certifications to attest to compliance, 

on-site reviews, etc.)? 

3. Different states may require 

different standards, financial reform 

methodology, and policies or 

procedures. Is there a recommended 

amount of time that the revised 

standards, methodologies, policies, or 

procedures should be in effect prior to 

applying for a RIG? 

4. What metrics or factors should the 

OWPO use for measuring and evaluating 

the improvements a state makes to its 

plugging standards or procedures 

(Plugging Standard RIG) and actions a 

state may take to reduce future 

orphaned well burdens (Program 

Standard RIG)? How can the OWPO 

ensure for the public that actions states 

take will achieve the intended 

purposes? 

5. Should a RIG be an all-or-nothing 

grant, whereby an applying state either 

receives the full $20 million or nothing 

based on a threshold criteria? Or, should 

a RIG award be some portion of $20 

million based on how the state’s 

application scores on a series of factors? 

6. What are the best practices 

pertaining to effective methods, 

policies, plugging approaches, or 

actions a state may use to avoid future 

issues or address past issues with failed 

partial plugging of wells (e.g., oil and 

gas wells partially plugged and 

converted to water wells)? 

Applicable to Plugging Standards RIGs 

1. What should be considered as 

‘‘standards and procedures’’ when 

evaluating grant applications and 

awarding RIG grants (e.g., laws or 

regulations, taxes or tax incentives, 

utilization of public funds, and fees or 

assessments, state personnel and 

staffing)? 

2. What factors or elements should be 

considered in evaluating whether a 

standard or procedure is intended to 

ensure that orphaned wells are plugged 

‘‘in an effective manner’’? Should 

specific factors or elements be weighed 

more heavily than others? Are there best 

practices for determining effective well 

plugging? 

3. Is there a specific regulatory entity 

(i.e., Federal agency, state agency, Tribal 

agency, non-United States jurisdictions) 

that has performed the best in ensuring 

oil or gas wells are properly plugged 

and abandoned, and that the associated 

surface has been restored? 

4. What are the standards and 

procedures used by the above specific 

entity that were most effective in 

ensuring that oil or gas wells were 

properly plugged and abandoned, and 

that the associated surface has been 

restored? 

5. What elements or factors should be 

considered in determining whether an 

entity has plugged a well effectively? 

Similarly, what elements or factors 

should be considered in determining 

whether the associated surface has been 

restored? Do standards or best practices 

exist? If so, what are they? 

6. Are there any particular standards 

or procedures, or lack of addressing 

certain aspects in standards or 

procedures, that should disqualify a 

state from receiving a Plugging 

Standards RIG? If so, what are they and 

why? 

7. What is the best approach for 

identifying the ways in which a state’s 

plugging standards and processes have 

been strengthened to achieve proper 

plugging and abandoning of oil and gas 

wells? What is the best approach for 

measuring or quantifying the ways in 

which a state’s previous standards and 

processes were adequate or inadequate? 

8. What factors or elements should be 

considered when evaluating whether a 

standard or procedure will affect each of 

the following: (1) groundwater; (2) 

public health and safety; and (3) natural 

resources or the environment? 

9. Should the evaluation of a state’s 

application be based on a criteria that 

focuses on the text and structure of the 

state’s plugging standards and 

procedures that are specifically 

identified in the application, or should 

an approach be taken whereby an 

applicant state is free to implement any 

standards or procedures, and take any 

resulting action, so long as the state can 

demonstrate how its actions will protect 

groundwater and other natural 

resources, public health and safety, and 

the environment? If the later approach 

is taken, how might a state demonstrate 

effectiveness in protection of 

groundwater, natural resources, public 

health and safety and the environment? 

10. Are there any other thoughts, 

innovative approaches, or comments 

pertaining to the administration of the 

RIG program? 

Applicable to Program Standards RIGs 

1. What changes to state programs 

designed to reduce orphaned well 

burdens should be considered in 

evaluating a state’s Program Standards 

RIG application? Should the 

improvements include changes to 

procurement, budgeting, staffing, or 

other actions of state governance? 

2. What factors, elements, or 

benchmarks should be used to evaluate 

a state’s financial assurance reforms? Is 

there a state or other entity that has the 

best financial assurance requirements to 

reduce the orphaning of wells? 

3. What factors, elements, or 

benchmarks should be used to evaluate 

a state’s alternative funding mechanisms 

for orphaned well programs? Is there a 

state or other entity that has strong 

alternative funding mechanisms for 

orphaned well programs? 

4. What factors, elements, or 

benchmarks should be used to evaluate 

a state’s reforms to programs relating to 

well transfer or temporary 

abandonment? Is there a state or other 

entity that has strong programs related 

to well-transfer or temporary 

abandonment? 

5. What state actions are likely to 

increase future orphaned well burdens 

on the state, and why? How should 

those actions be reversed? 

6. Should the evaluation of a state’s 

application be based on criteria that 

focuses on the text and structure of the 

programs identified in the application, 

or should an approach be taken whereby 

an applicant state is free to implement 

any programs it sees fit, so long as the 

state can show how its programs are 

designed to reduce future orphaned well 

burdens? 

7. What are the most effective 

methods or best practices a state may 

use to compel companies to properly 

plug and abandon wells at the end of 

their useful life? Are there states or 

other entities that are currently 

implementing those? 

8. What are effective methods or best 

practices a state may use to prevent a 

company from transferring its liability 

for plugging and reclamation to another 

party that may become financially 

insolvent, or will otherwise be unable to 

properly plug and abandon a well? 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
72530 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2023 / Notices 

9. What types of state enforcement 

actions, policies, and procedures have 

been found to result in timely well 

plugging and how might they be 

applicable in evaluating a RIG 

application? 

10. Is joint and several liability an 

effective means to prevent taxpayers 

from eventually paying for plugging and 

reclaiming orphaned wells, and how 

could or should joint and several 

liability be incorporated into Program 

Standards? Similarly, is an assignor’s 

retention of well-plugging liability an 

effective means to prevent a State’s 

taxpayers from being liable, in the 

future, for plugging orphaned wells? 

Why or why not? And if so, how could 

or should retention of assignor liability 

be incorporated into Program 

Standards? 

11. Are financial strength tests an 

effective method to gauge whether 

operators will likely meet plugging, 

remediation, and decommissioning 

requirements? If so, are there specific 

criteria a state should incorporate into 

its financial strength tests? 

12. How should idle wells and a 

state’s approach to managing idle wells 

be factored into the development and 

administration of Program Standards for 

RIGs? 

13. Are there any other thoughts or 

comments that should considered 

pertaining to the administration of the 

RIG program? 

Kimbra Davis, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Director 

Orphaned Wells Program Office. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23146 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4334–63–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM_ES_FRN_MO4500174413] 

Notice of Mailing/Street Address 

Change for the BLM Northeastern 

States District Office 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces 

changes to the mailing and street 

address for the Northeastern States 

District Office of the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). 

DATES: The date for the changes will be 

on or about November 1, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Navarro, Assistant District 

Manager for Support Services, BLM 

Northeastern States District; (414) 297– 

4419; rdnavarro@blm.gov. Individuals 

in the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 7–1–1 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

mailing and street address for the BLM 

Northeastern States District Office will 

be changed from 626 E Wisconsin Ave., 

Suite 200, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 

to 250 E Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1100, 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202. 

Authority: Departmental Manual 382, 

Chapter 2.1. 

Mitchell Leverette, 

BLM Eastern States State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23170 Filed 10–19–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM_OR_FRN_MO4500173143] 

Notice of Availability of the Draft Hult 

Reservoir and Dam Safety 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

Lane County, Oregon 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

announces the availability of the Hult 

Reservoir and Dam Safety Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

DATES: To afford the BLM the 

opportunity to consider comments in 

the Final EIS, please ensure that the 

BLM receives your comments within 45 

days following the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

publishes its Notice of Availability 

(NOA) of the Draft EIS in the Federal 

Register. The EPA usually publishes its 

NOAs on Fridays. The BLM will hold at 

least one public meeting in Blachly, 

Horton, or Triangle Lake; the date(s) and 

location(s) of public meetings will be 

announced at least 15 days in advance 

on the BLM National NEPA Register at: 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ 

project/99598/510. Interested parties 

can also register for email notifications 

of the scoping meetings by submitting 

an email request to: BLM_OR_NO_SIU_

Hult_Dam_EIS@blm.gov. 

ADDRESSES: The Draft EIS is available 

for review on the BLM ePlanning project 

website at https://eplanning.blm.gov/ 

eplanning-ui/project/99598/510. 

Written comments related to the Hult 

Reservoir and Dam Safety Draft EIS may 

be submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• ePlanning website: https://

eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ 

project/99598/510. 

• Email: BLM_OR_NO_SIU_Hult_

Dam_EIS@blm.gov. 

• Mail: Bureau of Land Management, 

Northwest Oregon District, ATTN: Hult 

Reservoir and Dam Safety EIS, 3106 

Pierce Parkway, Springfield, OR 97477. 

Documents pertinent to this proposal 

may be examined online at https://

eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ 

project/99598/510 and at the Siuslaw 

Field Office, 3106 Pierce Pkwy., 

Springfield, OR 97477. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dianne Olson, Public Involvement Lead, 

at (971) 213–4970 or BLM_OR_NO_SIU_

Hult_Dam_EIS@blm.gov. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services for 

contacting Ms. Olson. Individuals 

outside the United States should use the 

relay services offered within their 

country to make international calls to 

the point-of-contact in the United 

States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hult 

Reservoir and Hult Pond Dam are 

located near the community of Horton, 

Oregon. The reservoir is fed by Lake 

Creek and smaller tributaries. The 

earthen embankment dam was built in 

the 1930s or 1940s to create a log 

holding pond for the Hult Lumber 

Company sawmill. Today, the 54-acre 

reservoir and surrounding area are 

primarily used as a recreation 

destination. The dam serves no other 

water retention purposes and provides 

no flood protection. The average 

lifespan for an earthen embankment 

dam is 50 years, which the Hult Dam 

has exceeded by over 3 decades. The 

BLM believes that the dam it is at the 

end of its lifecycle. 

When the BLM took ownership of the 

reservoir and dam in a 1994 land 

exchange, the dam had been poorly 

maintained, but a 1990 Bureau of 

Reclamation inspection found it was in 

no immediate danger of failing. Since 

then, the BLM has made improvements 

to the dam, including repairs, 

reinforcement, and installation of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1