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.

The Department of the Interior is preparing to remove the brown pelican from the national list of endangered species because the species has made an impressive recovery. The pelican was one of the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act nearly 38 years ago.

The recovery of the pelican is attributable not just to species management practices but to the elimination of the root cause of the pelican's decline — DDT. From The Los Angeles Times:

Pelicans suffered almost complete reproductive failure in the 1960s and early 1970s because the pesticide DDT accumulated in their bodies, weakening their eggs and killing chicks. When DDT was banned in the United States in 1972, the species started to rebound.

Today, more than 70,000 breeding pairs of pelicans inhabit California and Baja California, and total numbers have surged to about 620,000 birds along the West Coast, the Gulf Coast, and in Latin and South America.

In announcing the proposal, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall said the fish-eating, long-lived birds are no longer threatened with extinction, "either in the foreseeable future or in the long term."

According to the article, "Hall said it's important to remove high-profile species because it shows the controversial law is working." It's refreshing to hear a Bush administration official acknowledge that regulation works.

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.

Last week, Reg•Watch blogged about two pending decisions at the Department of the Interior: one to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and one to allow oil and gas drilling in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's coast.

Yesterday, Interior announced the first of the two decisions. According to The Washington Post, the department awarded "$2.6 billion in winning bids from companies seeking to drill for oil and gas in Alaska's Chukchi Sea." The polar bear decision is still pending, even though the statutory deadline for making the decision passed weeks ago.

Because of the convenient timing of the two decisions, oil and gas companies will not have to take special precautions to ensure the safety and health of the polar bear species in the Chukchi Sea — one of the polar bear's most important habitats. According to the World Wildlife Fund, "this lease sale is taking place before the ESA listing decision, allowing MMS to sell off polar bear habitat to the oil and gas industry without adhering to the protections of the ESA."

Related post: Polar Bear Trails Oil and Gas in Race to a Decision