The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is resending to the White House a proposed policy to protect krill in U.S. waters off the west coast, according to BNA news service (subscription). Krill are small shrimp-like crustaceans abundant in the Pacific Ocean and a vital link in the marine food chain.

NOAA first proposed the policy in Feb. 2007. Even though krill is not currently fished in U.S. waters, NOAA experts — both within the agency and on an independent advisory board — recognized an opportunity to take a proactive step toward maintaining a sustainable marine ecosystem. In its proposal, NOAA's Pacific Fishery Management Council states, "The Council has agreed it is critical to take preventive action at this time to ensure that a krill fishery will not develop that could potentially harm krill stocks, and in turn harm other fish and non-fish stocks."

But, as OMB Watch reported in November, the policy was rejected by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) — the White House office in charge of reviewing federal rules and regulations.

According to BNA, NOAA officials are "cautiously optimistic" that OIRA will approve the rule the second time around. NOAA rulemakers are beefing up their argument that a disruption in krill stocks would negatively impact other kinds of fish.

Reg•Watch hopes OIRA lets the krill rule through its gauntlet but does not share NOAA's optimism. OIRA rejected the rule on the grounds NOAA had not properly identified a market failure in need of regulation. In a letter returning the rule to NOAA for reconsideration, OIRA complained NOAA did not adequately identify the need for regulation since krill is "completely unexploited" and "there are no known plans for exploitation."

Nothing has changed in regard to the potential for krill fisheries in U.S. waters, so, regardless of the quality of NOAA's analysis, OIRA's objection stands.

That's too bad, because the federal government shouldn't have to identify a market failure in order to address a problem. It seems NOAA's strategy of prevention and precaution is exactly the role we would want government to play. (Imagine if government officials had approached greenhouse gas emissions with such foresight.) As a nation, we cannot afford to stand idly by and hope that certain problems will resolve themselves.

Today, a rule that would protect the North Atlantic right whale celebrates its one year anniversary of being stuck in the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Under Executive Order 12866, OIRA has 90 days to review regulations before they are finalized. In consultation with the issuing agency (in this case, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) OIRA may extend the review period by 30 days.

NOAA submitted the whale protection rule on Feb. 20, 2007. Therefore, OIRA has exceeded the review period by about eight months, and there is no end in sight.

The North Atlantic right whale is one of the most critically endangered marine species in the world. Although the species has benefited from federal protections for years, it is still having difficulty recovering. Collisions between whales and shipping vessels are a particularly serious problem.

In response, NOAA began working in 1999 on a federal rule to limit the speed of large shipping vessels traveling along the eastern seaboard. The speed limits would vary based on geographic location and season.

NOAA published a proposed rule (which OIRA also reviewed) in June 2006. Since receiving and reviewing public comments into early 2007, NOAA has been waiting for OIRA to give its approval.

OIRA may be delaying the rule to help out the shipping industry. In a May 3 letter to OIRA Administrator Susan Dudley, the World Shipping Council expressed opposition to the rule citing economic costs and questioning the validity of NOAA's research. The World Shipping Council represents some domestic but mostly foreign shippers.

The Ocean Conservancy has a timeline on the rulemaking and reported ship strikes of the right whale. According to the Ocean Conservancy, since NOAA published the proposed rule, there have been five reported ship strikes and three confirmed deaths.

While that may not sound like many, according to the Ocean Conservancy, "Only about 350 North Atlantic right whales are left, and the loss of even one whale is detrimental to the species."

The Ocean Conservancy also has an action alert on their website where you can send a letter to OIRA administrator Susan Dudley urging her to allow NOAA to finalize the rule. See the action alert here.

Do you like OMB Watch? Would you like to boost our fragile self-esteem? Then please vote for us in the Golden Dot Awards, presented annually for excellence in online campaigning by the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University.

OMB Watch has been nominated for Best Issue Advocacy Blog. The nomination is for all three of our blogs: Advocacy Blog, Budget Blog, and Reg•Watch.

Vote here: polc.ipdi.org/GoldenDots/voting.htm

(OMB Watch has the utmost respect for the other candidates and has vowed to run a clean campaign.)

Reg•Watch in Review is a biweekly email update of recent news from the regulatory world. Reg•Watch in Review highlights regulatory process issues and stories about environmental, product safety, workplace safety, and scientific integrity policy.

Preview today's edition here, or sign up below.

Big oil is knocking on the White House's door looking for sympathy over an EPA proposal to tighten the national standard for ozone, aka smog. On January 25, representatives from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute met behind closed doors with officials from EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). (Frank O'Donnell at the Blog for Clean Air has the full story.)

EPA's bid to tighten the ozone standard (from the current level of 0.084 ppm to somewhere between 0.070 and 0.075 ppm) has raised the ire of many industry representatives and anti-regulatory lobbyists like the National Association of Manufacturers. Detractors of the proposed ozone-reduction rule claim it would impose big costs on polluters and result in economic hardships for companies, employees, and consumers.

There are two big problems with that argument. First, the Clean Air Act prohibits EPA from considering economic impact when regulating ozone. The Supreme Court has upheld the prohibition. EPA must use the best available science to set a standard that will protect public health, regardless of compliance costs.

Second, those who claim big costs are relying on a deeply flawed cost-benefit analysis prepared by EPA and OIRA. Cost-benefit analysis in public policy is rarely helpful, and EPA's ozone rule is a good example of just how ridiculous it can be.

For one of the options EPA is considering (0.070 ppm), the cost-benefit analysis concluded potential costs of $20 billion or potential benefits of $23 billion. How is anyone supposed to draw a meaningful conclusion from a $43 billion range?

Furthermore, ozone exposure can shorten lives. Therefore, reducing ozone pollution can help people live better and live longer. How can anyone put a price tag on that?

For a more detailed discussion, read a recent opinion column from OMB Watch available at OurFuture.org: "How Bush Undermines Government Regulation"

(For a really detailed discussion, read OMB Watch's report, Polluted Logic: How EPA's ozone standard illustrates the flaws of cost-benefit analysis.)

President Bush's FY 2009 budget request, announced Feb. 4, proposes level funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission — essentially a budget cut when adjusted for inflation. Bush has chosen to flat-line the agency's funding even though the public, media, and Congress are realizing resource shortfalls at CPSC have undermined its ability to ensure product safety.

A new article by OMB Watch tracks the history of budget and staffing cuts at the agency and shows how CPSC's resources have not kept pace with the growth of the industries it regulates, specifically the toy industry and the ATV industry.

Click here for excerpts and neato line graphs

Posted by Matt Madia, 11:19:29 AM

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Friday, February 01, 2008