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.

119th Congress Introduced by Brian Fitzpatrick and 3 co-sponsors

The bill nullifies the final rule redefining “harm” under the Endangered Species Act, keeping the pre-rule interpretation in force.

Introduced in House

Summary of HR 9901 (Session 119)

Purpose

HR 9901 would nullify the final rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) titled “Rescinding the Definition of ‘Harm’ Under the Endangered Species Act.” The bill states that the final rule shall have no force or effect, effectively restoring or preserving the prior interpretation of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as defined prior to that rule.

Key provisions and changes

Declares that the final rule titled “Rescinding the Definition of ‘Harm’ Under the Endangered Species Act” shall have no force or effect.

By rendering the rule void, the bill would maintain the previous definition or interpretation of “harm” under the ESA unless altered by subsequent statute or rulemaking.

The text focuses specifically on the impact of the FWS/NOAA joint rule; it does not, based on the summary, enact alternative definitions itself but prevents the challenged rule from taking effect.

Who or what would be affected

Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) within NOAA, as they administer the ESA.

Legal/Regulatory Effect: The interpretation of “harm” under the ESA would not be changed by the nullified rule, leaving the pre-rule interpretation in place (as of prior to the rule’s publication, pending any other statutory or regulatory actions).

Stakeholders: Wildlife conservation and habitat protection programs, industries and advocates affected by ESA protections (e.g., developers, energy producers, landowners, environmental groups, and state/federal partners) whose activities relate to how “harm” to listed species or critical habitats is defined and analyzed.

Procedural and timeline considerations

Status: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources (as of 2026-07-23) and introduced the same day.

Next steps (typical for such a measure):

Committee consideration, including potential hearings, amendments, and a committee vote.
If approved, advancement to the full House for debate and a vote.
Possible passage by the House and move to the Senate; potential conference or reconciliation if the Senate takes a different approach.

Effective date: The summary does not specify an immediate effective date; generally, if enacted, the bill would take effect according to its text, subject to any transition provisions or the standard process for implementing changes to agency rules.

Notes

The bill’s sponsors include four House members: Mike Quigley, Josh Gottheimer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Brian Fitzpatrick (co-sponsors).

The legislative action reflects ongoing bipartisan or cross-aisle interest in how the ESA’s “harm” standard is defined and applied in regulatory practice.

No fiscal provisions or independent regulatory analyses are indicated in the provided summary.