[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72528-72530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23146]


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

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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c7b4b2b4a6a998aba2a287aea8b4e9a3a8aee9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a494f495b5465565f5f7a535549145e5553145d554c">[email protected]</span></a>. Or contact the OWPO by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#18776a687079767d7c6f7d74746b5871776b367c7771367f776e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="462934362e2728232231232a2a35062f29356822292f68212930">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

[[Page 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?

[[Page 72530]]

    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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>