To provide that the final rule of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration titled "Rescinding the Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act" shall have no force or effect.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 9901 is a legislative action to reverse a recent administrative rule that changed the definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act, aiming to restore the prior regulatory interpretation.
What it actually does
This bill directly nullifies a specific final rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The rule, titled "Rescinding the Definition of `Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act," was published on July 14, 2026, and this bill declares it to have no force or effect, effectively reinstating the previous definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act.
Proponents argue
Proponents of H.R. 9901 argue that the rescinded definition of "harm" was crucial for robust protection of endangered and threatened species, encompassing habitat modification and degradation. They contend that the FWS/NOAA rule undermined the intent of the Endangered Species Act by narrowing this definition, thereby weakening protections and making it harder to conserve species. Supporters believe this bill is necessary to ensure federal agencies maintain strong safeguards against actions that indirectly harm species through habitat destruction.
Opponents contend
Opponents of H.R. 9901, who would likely support the FWS/NOAA rule, would argue that the previous broad definition of "harm" was overly expansive, leading to regulatory burdens and hindering economic development. They might contend that a narrower definition provides necessary clarity for landowners and industries, promoting a more balanced approach to conservation that considers human activities. They could also argue that the FWS/NOAA rule was a legitimate exercise of agency authority to refine regulations.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, requiring minimal time to read. The policy implications, however, are significant and require substantial background knowledge of environmental law.
Section 1
Nullification of FWS/NOAA Rule on "Harm" Definition
This section explicitly states that the final rule issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2026, and titled "Rescinding the Definition of `Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act," will have no legal effect. This means the bill aims to prevent the new definition of "harm" from taking effect or to revert to the definition that existed prior to the rescinded rule.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that restoring the broader definition of "harm" is essential for effective species conservation, as habitat destruction is a primary driver of endangerment. They contend that the FWS/NOAA rule weakened these protections, and this provision ensures the ESA remains a strong tool for preventing species extinction.
Critics contend
Opponents, aligning with the FWS/NOAA rule, would argue that the broader definition of "harm" creates undue regulatory burdens and uncertainty for economic activities. They might assert that a more precise definition is needed to balance conservation with economic development and private property rights, and that the FWS/NOAA rule provided this necessary balance.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between comprehensive environmental protection, particularly for habitat, and the desire for regulatory clarity and reduced burden on economic activities and private land use. It also highlights the ongoing power struggle between legislative and executive branches over regulatory interpretation.