The subject Regulatory Agenda is attached. The proposed update to decommissioning requirements (abstract below) should attract attention! I would assume that, in addition to meeting Coast Guard requirements, a toppled structure would have to be accepted into a State reefing program. Otherwise the liability risks would be unacceptably high.
REVISIONS TO DECOMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS ON THE OCS
Legal Authority: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331 to 1356a
Relevant Executive Orders: 14154
Abstract: This rule proposes to set ‘‘topple in place’’ as the default decommissioning standard, on the condition that such circumstances meet U.S. Coast Guard navigational requirements. This proposed rule would also address issues that may include to (1) idle iron by adding a definition of this term to clarify that it applies to idle wells and structures on active leases; (2) abandonment in place of subsea infrastructure by adding regulations addressing when BSEE may approve decommissioning-in-place instead of removal of certain subsea equipment; (3) BSEE approval for platform or facility toppling in place; and (4) other operational considerations.
Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite
NPRM ……………… 07/00/27
NPRM Comment Period End. 10/00/27
No date for a final Arctic drilling or decommissioning financial assurance rule is projected. With regard to the latter, many important issues were raised by commenters, and a new proposal is likely and desirable.
A rule writer’s work is never done! Entire careers have been spent updating a single regulation! 😉
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 
Bud, I need to tell you this is similar to the best Christmas/Birthday present in the world.
Thank you for sharing.
Karen Vanacor
Thanks Karen!
It seems like a get out of jail free card for decommissioning obligations. What’s your read on how this will impact states like Louisiana’s access to marine sediment resources?
The abstract is certainly provocative! I suspect the actual proposal, which is nearly a year away per the FR update, to specify acceptance in a State’s reef program and environmental review requirements (i.e. no significant change from current policy). Perhaps the intention is to better codify current reefing policy?
On one hand IBLA has affirmed the right of MMA to order full removal (pipelines), and on the other, there seems to be significant lobby emerging to make decommissioning in place of both pipelines and structures the de facto policy. https://ezell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1945 I think that is a short-sighted policy considering other resource uses in the Gulf. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/05/louisiana-gulf-abandoned-pipelines/
This is crazy the folks installing and/or owning these monster turbines should be REQUIRED to take a failed system down. That will take away one of the easy-outs for this already subsidized turbine systems and make it less affordable for them to continue to put them up at our expense and then leave defective ones’ to collapse some time in the future. Remember the damage to our beaches when one blade broke apart. There were shards of fiberglass on our beaches for months. And that’s only one blade. We should be contacting our elected officials to OPPOSE this FREE PASS.