[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60727-60731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29216]



[[Page 60727]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 222

[Docket No. 980414094-9287-02; I.D. No. 091797A]
RIN 0648-AK55


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Definition of 
``Harm''

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule defines the term ``harm'', which is contained 
in the definition of ``take'' in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 
purpose of this rulemaking is to clarify the type of actions that may 
result in a take of a listed species under the ESA. This final rule is 
not a change in existing law. It provides clear notification to the 
public that habitat modification or degradation may harm listed species 
and, therefore, constitutes a take under the ESA as well as ensuring 
consistency between NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This 
final rule defines the term ``harm'' to include any act which actually 
kills or injures fish or wildlife, and emphasizes that such acts may 
include significant habitat modification or degradation that 
significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns of fish or 
wildlife.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Mobley, NMFS, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, phone (301)713-1401 or Garth Griffin, 
NMFS, 525 NE Oregon St, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232, phone (503)231-
2005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 1, 1998, NMFS published a proposed rule and request for 
comments. NMFS proposed to define the term ``harm'', which is contained 
in the definition of ``take'' in the Endangered Species Act (63 FR 
24148). In that proposed rule, NMFS solicited public comments on the 
proposed definition. On June 11, 1998, NMFS announced the availability 
of, and solicited comments on, a draft Environmental Assessment on the 
proposed definition (63 FR 31962). This final rule takes into 
consideration the comments received in response to the proposed rule.
    Section 9 of the ESA makes it illegal to take an endangered species 
of fish or wildlife. The definition of ``take'' is to ``harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 
attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a regulation further defining 
the term ``harm'' to eliminate confusion concerning its meaning (40 FR 
44412; 46 FR 54748). The FWS' definition of ``harm'' has been upheld by 
the Supreme Court as a reasonable interpretation of the term and 
supported by the broad purpose of the ESA to conserve endangered and 
threatened species (See Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities 
for a Great Oregon, 115 S. Ct. 2407, 2418, 1995). With the listings of 
Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks, potentially affected parties have 
questioned whether NMFS also interprets harm to include habitat 
destruction. This final rule clarifies that NMFS' interpretation of 
harm is consistent with that of FWS.

Definitions and Source of Authority

    NMFS interprets the term ``harm'' as an act which actually kills or 
injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat 
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or 
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, 
including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering 
(Compare 50 CFR 17.3).
    This rule is reasonable for the conservation of the habitats of 
listed species. Congress acknowledged these needs by stating in the 
``Purposes'' subsection of the ESA: ``The purposes of this Act are to 
provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species 
and threatened species depend may be conserved . . . .'' (16 U.S.C. 
1531(b)). In addition to the text contained in the ``Purposes'' 
subsection, which indicates the broad goals of the ESA, the structure 
and legislative history of the ESA indicate Congressional intent to 
protect the habitats of listed species (Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter 
of Communities for a Great Oregon, 115 S. Ct. 2407, 2418, 1995).

Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule

    Fifty-three written comments were submitted in response to the 
proposed rule and 9 written comments were submitted in response to the 
draft Environmental Assessment prepared for the proposed rule. These 
comments and NMFS' responses are summarized here.
    Comment 1: Explain what habitat or activities would be encompassed 
by ``spawning, rearing and migrating'' and how it is different from 
``breeding, feeding or sheltering'' in the FWS' regulation. Is it 
different or similar or the same as ``essential behavioral patterns.''
    Response: Including the terms ``spawning'', ``rearing'' and 
``migrating'' in the NMFS definition of harm makes it clear that NMFS 
considers these behaviors to be ``essential behavioral patterns''. NMFS 
believes it is important to include these terms because they describe 
essential behavioral patterns for most species under NMFS jurisdiction. 
NMFS is particularly concerned with addressing harm caused by 
significant habitat modification or degradation to anadromous and 
migratory species. Habitat destruction may occur at times when 
migratory species are not present, but may nonetheless impair essential 
behavioral patterns when the animals return, resulting in sub-lethal or 
chronic injury or mortality.
    For example, improperly sited aquaculture facilities and their 
attendant vessel traffic, fixed structures, noise pollution, artificial 
light, and human activity may obstruct marine mammal and turtle access 
to habitats of critical importance to their survival, such as haul out 
sites, breeding grounds and nesting beaches.
    It should be noted that spawning is a specific term for fish 
breeding. Salmon require clean gravel beds for successful spawning. 
Sedimentation from timber harvest operations may plug the interstitial 
spaces in gravel spawning areas, resulting in reduced survival of 
salmon eggs during their incubation period.
    Similarly, for species under NMFS jurisdiction, ``rearing'' and 
``migration'' should be broadly interpreted to include many of the 
behavioral patterns associated with ``feeding'' and ``sheltering''. For 
example, in order to successfully rear and migrate, juvenile salmonids 
must successfully feed, and also must find adequate shelter in the form 
of large woody debris and other instream structures in order to avoid 
predation. Excessive squid and pollock harvest near Steller sea lion 
rookeries may impair feeding and rearing of juvenile Steller sea lions 
by reducing their available food supply.
    ``Migration'' is a particularly important behavioral pattern in the 
anadromous life history and, therefore,

[[Page 60728]]

merits specific mention in the definition. Juveniles must be able to 
pass downstream from spawning grounds to the open ocean, and adults 
must be able to return from the ocean to spawning grounds. Human-made 
barriers to adult migration (thermal barriers, other water quality 
barriers, and physical barriers) that significantly impede spawning 
success, or result in significantly increased rates of juvenile injury 
or mortality would be considered by NMFS to be within the NMFS 
definition of ``harm'' under the ESA.
    Comment 2: One commenter opposed the use of ``spawning, rearing and 
migrating'' because interference with such activities will not in ``all 
cases result in injury to individual fish.''
    Response: NMFS disagrees. While not all impacts to a species' 
habitat impair essential behavioral patterns, any habitat modification 
that significantly impairs spawning, rearing, or migrating does 
constitute harm to the species and is a take pursuant to the provisions 
of the ESA.
    Comment 3: One commenter noted that the rule should only apply to 
``significant habitat modification'' which ``results in demonstrated 
impairment of essential behaviors.'' Another commenter stated that NMFS 
must clarify that impairment of essential behavior patterns is not 
``injury'' in and of itself but a means to injury--these are two 
separate elements in establishing harm.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. An injury is demonstrated if the habitat 
modification significantly impairs the listed species' ability to feed, 
breed, rear, migrate or any other behavior essential to its biological 
processes and behavioral patterns. ``Significant'' impairment of 
essential behavioral patterns constitutes injury; therefore, 
establishing the former with respect to listed species establishes 
harm.
    Comment 4: Several commenters stated that the public needs clear 
prospective guidance on activities that could constitute a prohibited 
take. Commenters sought greater specificity on likely results of water 
withdrawals and streambed or land clearing activities. Some commenters 
expressed concern that NMFS is relying on ``probabilistic data'' and 
not empirical evidence in determining ``harm.''
    Response: The list of examples provided in this final rule (see 
``Activities That May Constitute A Take'') as well as in the proposed 
rule is intended to provide general guidance to the public on the types 
of habitat-modifying activities that could result in injury to fish or 
wildlife. While not exhaustive, this list was developed based on direct 
experience with managing populations in their natural environment, and 
from the scientific literature. NMFS cannot provide further detailed 
guidance in this definition, since the actual impacts of a given act 
depend on situation-specific conditions. Individuals conducting 
activities similar to those listed in the examples in areas in or near 
listed species and their habitat should consult with NMFS for more 
specific guidance.
    In order to determine ``harm,'' the regulation requires that a 
causal link or relationship between a specific activity or series of 
activities and the injury or death of listed species be demonstrated. 
Injury may be shown through a variety of methods and types of evidence. 
These include, but are not limited to, field surveys and assessments, 
population studies, laboratory studies, model based procedures, 
information and data in the scientific literature, or expert witness 
testimony consisting of inferences or opinions drawn from facts 
pertaining to a given act(s) of habitat modification or degradation. In 
some instances, the effect of an activity will be measurable using 
physical evidence and scientific instruments. For example, the 
introduction of toxic chemicals can be evaluated through chemical 
analysis of water samples. Analysis of sedimentation patterns by the 
Monitoring Study Group of the California State Board of Forestry has 
demonstrated that timber-harvest roads and their associated watercourse 
crossings are among the largest contributors to sedimentation of fish-
bearing streams. Mass landslides and other failures typically related 
to road-building and maintenance activities, produced the highest 
sediment delivery to streams when compared to other erosion processes.
    Regardless of the types of evidence used, in all cases, the 
regulation requires that the causal link(s) between the habitat 
modification and the injury to listed species be shown. 
    Comment 5 : Another commenter stated that it is very difficult to 
determine when and whether modifications to aquatic habitat will injure 
fish. Sometimes it is activities occurring upstream from the apparent 
injury and sometimes it is simply cumulative degradation of the fish 
habitat.
     Response: NMFS agrees that sometimes it is difficult to isolate 
factors causing injury to listed species. All factors that reasonably 
could have caused the habitat modification or the injury itself must be 
carefully examined. Whenever an action alone or in combination with,or 
in concert with other actions is reasonably certain to injure or kill 
listed species, it will constitute a take. An action which contributes 
to injury can be a ``take'' even if it is not the only cause of the 
injury. This concept includes actions reasonably certain to contribute 
to the death or injury of listed species by significantly impairing the 
essential behavioral patterns of listed species.
    Comment 6: ``Significant modification'' should be defined or 
explained. Another commenter noted that NMFS must connect the 
maintenance of existing roads and structures or minor alterations of 
rock, gravel and soil to actual harm to listed species.
    Response: In order for a modification to be significant, it must be 
capable of resulting in the death or injury of fish or wildlife. 
Habitat modification or degradation may be considered significant even 
if it is of limited physical extent, if it causes injury or death to 
fish or wildlife. Assessing the significance of a given act of habitat 
modification or degradation will depend on an evaluation of all the 
available evidence of a specific situation or action(s), and will most 
often be determined on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment 7: The regulation is overly focused on land based 
activities compared to harvest and hatchery activities with the effect 
that the rule excludes entire industries that directly cause harm and 
kill listed fish.
    Response: Take due to harvest and hatchery activities is covered by 
other terms in the statutory definition of ``take,'' including ``wound, 
kill, * * * capture, or collect.'' The primary focus of this regulation 
is death or injury to listed fish or wildlife from acts that 
significantly modify or degrade habitat.
    Moreover, hatchery and harvest activities also impact listed fish 
through significant habitat modification or degradation. For example, 
hatchery waste discharges could degrade instream water quality and 
result in the actual injury or death of fish if not properly managed. 
Artificially produced fish competing with listed species for food, 
shelter, space or opportunities in the migration corridor may, thus, 
impair essential behavioral patterns. NMFS notes that example 6 in 
``Activities That May Constitute A Take'' concerning the introduction 
of artificially produced individuals may cause harm within the scope of 
this definition. Excessive trawl impacts to estuarine bottom habitat 
could significantly degrade juvenile rearing habitat, and over-harvest 
of prey species such as small bait fish could cause harm if feeding 
rates were thereby

[[Page 60729]]

reduced enough to cause the actual injury or death of listed fish or 
wildlife.
    Comment 8: One commenter noted that it is inappropriate for NMFS to 
use the word ``recovery'' in describing activities that may injure or 
``harm'' listed fish. Commenters noted that NMFS lacks the authority to 
link ``take'' to recovery goals.
    Response: Comment noted. The word ``recovery'' was inadvertently 
included in the first example of activities that might fall within the 
scope of the definition of harm. This has been deleted in the final 
rule.
    Comment 9: Some commenters suggested that the proposed rule, if 
adopted, would constitute an uncompensated ``taking'' in violation of 
the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
    Response: This final rule will make no change in existing law. NMFS 
is not seeking to impose a regulation that denies landowners 
economically viable use of their property.
    As stated elsewhere in this final rule under ``Incidental Take 
Exceptions'', the ESA authorizes NMFS to exempt parties from its take 
prohibitions under certain circumstances. Under the terms of ESA 
section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking of listed species that is 
incidental to, and not intended as part of, an otherwise lawful 
activity is not considered prohibited taking provided that such taking 
is in compliance with the terms and conditions of an incidental take 
statement issued by NMFS. In addition, the 1982 ESA amendments to 
section 10(a) authorize NMFS to issue incidental take permits allowing 
the incidental take of listed species in the course of otherwise lawful 
activities, provided the activities are conducted according to an 
approved Conservation Plan which to the maximum extent practicable, 
minimizes and mitigates the impacts of such taking and avoids jeopardy 
to the continued existence of the affected species. These mechanisms 
provide landowners with a means of continuing to use their property 
while addressing possible incidental take of listed species.
    As the Solicitor General explained in the Federal government's 
reply brief in Sweet Home (Gov't Reply Br. at 17), ``[t]he prohibition 
on the taking of species, in conjunction with the program for 
authorizing incidental takes, * * * rationally and flexibly addresses 
the inherent difficulties involved in defining prohibited conduct in 
light of the wide diversity of species and the range of circumstances 
in which they live.''
    Comment 10: Some commenters argued that the proposed rule is 
inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Babbitt v. Sweet 
Home. In particular, some commenters felt the rule did not require an 
actual causal relationship between the habitat modification and the 
injury or death of an individual listed species.
     Response: As stated previously, in order to constitute ``harm'', 
the regulation requires that a given act result in, or be reasonably 
certain to result in, the death or injury of listed fish or wildlife. 
The rule is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sweet 
Home upholding the FWS regulation which also defines the term ``harm'' 
to include habitat modification or degradation.
    Comment 11: One commenter suggested that NMFS must specifically 
state that it adopts the interpretation of ``harm'' articulated by the 
Solicitor General in his brief of the Sweet Home case.
    Response: NMFS believes that this final rule is consistent with the 
interpretation of ``harm'' articulated by the Solicitor General. 
However, NMFS declines to specifically adopt each aspect of the 
Solicitor General's brief which was written 5 years ago.
    Comment 12: One commenter argued that NMFS has no authority to 
promulgate the proposed rule because the Endangered Species Act expired 
in 1992 and has not been reauthorized by Congress.
    Response: The ESA has been neither repealed nor does it contain an 
automatic sunset clause and it is, therefore, enforceable law. In 
addition, both the Departments of Commerce and Interior receive annual 
appropriations to carry out the provisions of the Endangered Species 
Act, including listings, rulemakings, enforcement and the issuance of 
permits.
    Comment 13: Several commenters disagreed with NMFS' certification 
that the proposed rule will not impact a significant number of small 
businesses and urged NMFS to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility analysis.
    Response: NMFS continues to believe that this rulemaking will not 
affect a significant number of small businesses. However, a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is included with this final rulemaking.
    Comment 14: One commenter suggested that the first example of 
``take'' in the proposed rule was ambiguous because it states that 
activities modifying habitat include those ``constructing or 
maintaining barriers that eliminate or impede a listed species access 
to habitat essential for its survival or recovery''. The commenter 
stated that existing facilities that prevent or impede access to 
potential habitat that could be used for the recovery of the species do 
not cause a ``take''. Several other commenters stated that the current 
owner of a dam lawfully installed before a species is listed should not 
be liable for take based on subsequent listing. In the view of these 
commenters liability for take must be based upon some action occurring 
after the effective date of listing.
    Response: See response to comment 8 where the word recovery was 
stricken from the example in this final rule. NMFS agrees that simply 
holding title to a barrier that affects access to the habitat of listed 
species is not necessarily a take under the ESA. However, maintaining 
or improving an existing facility may actually injure or kill members 
of a listed species if it significantly impairs essential behavioral 
patterns such as spawning, rearing or migrating. Maintaining an 
existing barrier that prevents or impedes access to habitat may cause 
take of listed species, if adequate comparable habitat is not otherwise 
available to the listed population. In addition, any person who engages 
in diverting water may be engaged in a take if the diversion of water 
injures or kills listed species by significantly impairing essential 
behavioral patterns.
    Comment 15: Several commenters noted the use of ``likely to 
impair'' as inappropriate in the examples provided in the preamble to 
the proposed rule.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has made the necessary changes in this 
final rule. NMFS notes that an act must be reasonably certain to impair 
essential behavioral patterns of listed species in order to constitute 
``harm'' within this definition.
    Comment 16: Several commenters urged or stated that NMFS was 
required to specifically adopt the legal principles of ``proximate 
cause'' and ``foreseeability'' as limitations of liability for ``harm'' 
to listed species. One commenter noted that NMFS should clarify that 
the regulation does not create liability for hypothetical, speculative 
or conjectural injury.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the regulation does not create liability 
for hypothetical, speculative or conjectural injury as can be deduced 
from the term ``actual.'' NMFS notes that that same term ``actual'' 
provides for cause-in-fact liability. NMFS' definition of ``harm'' is 
consistent with the views articulated in the opinion of the U.S. 
Supreme Court in Sweet Home v. Babbitt. In that opinion, the Court did 
not limit its discussion to a single term of art for the causal links 
necessary to show ``harm'' to a species resulting from habitat

[[Page 60730]]

modification. The specific elements of causation to be proved, 
including foreseeability, will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 
Further, this document and the examples discussed in it, are intended 
to provide the public with information about activities which may 
result in injury or death of listed species. In NMFS' view, it is 
reasonably foreseeable that these activities and similar activities may 
injure or kill fish and wildlife, including listed species. While an 
action ``harms'' a listed species only if it actually results in the 
death or injury of a listed species, NMFS continues to encourage 
members of the public to consult with its staff whenever an activity is 
undertaken in the habitat of listed species and/or when listed species 
are present.
    Comment 17: One commenter noted that ``merely continuing previously 
established [water] withdrawals or diversions should not be considered 
per se an unlawful take of subsequently listed species.'' The commenter 
further noted that new water withdrawals or diversions should not be 
considered unlawful takes because Congress has a long-standing history 
of deference to state law on water rights. The commenter lastly notes 
that example 5 (see ``Activities That May Constitute A Take'') should 
be deleted in favor of an ``ad hoc, case-by-case approach'' and that 
such water diversions should be carefully reviewed and responded to as 
appropriate.
    Response: NMFS agrees that each water diversion affecting listed 
species should be carefully reviewed on a case-by-case basis to 
determine whether its operation injures or kills listed species. The 
ESA and state water law operate in cognizance of the principles of 
comity, federalism and importance of reading apparently conflicting 
laws in such a manner as to avoid conflict and promote the purposes of 
both legislative acts wherever possible. It is appropriate to note that 
the Endangered Species Act encourages this approach by declaring it 
``to be the policy of Congress that the Federal agencies shall 
cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource 
issues in concert with conservation of endangered species.'' 16 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1531(c)(2).

Activities That May Constitute a Take

    A principal purpose of this final rule is to provide clear 
notification to parties that habitat modification or degradation may 
harm listed species and, therefore, constitute a ``take'' under the 
ESA. The following list identifies several examples of habitat-
modifying activities that may fall within the scope of this final rule 
when these or similar activities cause death or injury to fish or 
wildlife, including those activities that significantly impair 
essential behavioral patterns of listed species. In all instances a 
causal link must be established between the habitat modification and 
the injury or death of listed species.
    1. Constructing or maintaining barriers that eliminate or impede a 
listed species' access to habitat or ability to migrate;
    2. Discharging pollutants, such as oil, toxic chemicals, 
radioactivity, carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens or organic nutrient-
laden water including sewage water into a listed species' habitat;
    3. Removing, poisoning, or contaminating plants, fish, wildlife, or 
other biota required by the listed species for feeding, sheltering, or 
other essential behavioral patterns;
    4. Removing or altering rocks, soil, gravel, vegetation or other 
physical structures that are essential to the integrity and function of 
a listed species' habitat;
    5. Removing water or otherwise altering streamflow when it 
significantly impairs spawning, migration, feeding or other essential 
behavioral patterns;
    6. Releasing non-indigenous or artificially propagated species into 
a listed species' habitat or where they may access the habitat of 
listed species;
    7. Constructing or operating dams or water diversion structures 
with inadequate fish screens or fish passage facilities in a listed 
species' habitat;
    8. Constructing, maintaining or using inadequate bridges, roads, or 
trails on stream banks or unstable hill slopes adjacent to or above a 
listed species' habitat; and
    9. Conducting timber harvest, grazing, mining, earth-moving or 
other operations which result in substantially increased sediment input 
into streams.
    10. Conducting land-use activities in riparian areas and areas 
susceptible to mass wasting and surface erosion, which may disturb soil 
and increase sediment delivered to streams, such as logging, grazing, 
farming, and road construction.
    This list is not exhaustive. It is intended to provide some 
examples of the types of activities that might be considered by NMFS as 
constituting a take under the ESA and its regulations. Questions 
regarding whether specific activities will constitute a violation of 
this rule and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits 
should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Incidental Take Exceptions

    The ESA authorizes NMFS to exempt parties from its take 
prohibitions under certain circumstances. Under section 7 of the ESA, 
NMFS conducts consultations on proposed Federal actions and determines 
whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of its critical habitat. If the proposed action does not 
do so, or would not if specified reasonable and prudent alternatives 
were followed, NMFS may then issue a biological opinion and incidental 
take statement. The incidental take statement estimates the expected 
incidental take of a listed species resulting from the action and 
specifies those terms and conditions required to implement the 
reasonable and prudent measures necessary or appropriate to minimize 
this incidental take. If the proposed action is conducted in accordance 
with these terms and conditions, the incidental take is exempted from 
the ESA's take prohibitions.
    Under section 10(a)(1)(B), NMFS may permit non-Federal parties to 
take a listed species if such a taking is incidental to, and not the 
purpose of, an otherwise legal activity. Prior to receiving an 
incidental take permit pursuant to 10(a)(1)(B), a non-Federal party 
must prepare a permit application and conservation plan. A conservation 
plan must contain a description of (1) the impact that will likely 
result from the taking; (2) what steps the applicant will take to 
minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable, the impacts 
and how these steps will be funded; (3) what alternative actions to the 
take were considered and why they are not being utilized; and (4) any 
measures the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) may require as being 
necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan (16 U.S.C. 
1539(a)(2)(A)). If the Secretary finds that the applicant will minimize 
and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of any 
incidental take, and will meet other requirements of section 1539 
(a)(2)(B), the Secretary may issue a permit, legally binding the 
applicant to the conservation measures set forth in the conservation 
plan.
    Congress intended that the conservation planning process be used to 
reduce conflicts between listed species and private development and to 
provide a framework that would encourage ``creative partnerships'' 
between the private sector and local, state, and Federal agencies in 
the

[[Page 60731]]

interest of endangered and threatened species and habitat conservation. 
NMFS encourages the development of conservation plans and intends to 
continue pursuing such agreements in the future with willing parties.

Change in Enumeration of Threatened and Endangered Species

    In the proposed rule, issued on May 1, 1998 (63 FR 24148), the 
definition of harm was added in alphabetical order to 50 CFR 217.12. 
Since May 1, 1998, NMFS has issued a final rule consolidating and 
reorganizing existing regulations regarding implementation of the ESA. 
In this reorganization, Sec. 217.12 has been redesignated as 
Sec. 222.102; therefore, the definition of harm has been added in this 
final rule to Sec. 222.102.

Classification

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. requires 
the preparation of an initial and final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses 
unless an agency determines that a rule, if promulgated, will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. A final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared for 
this action and is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    A Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact have been completed for this final rule.
    This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement 
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has 
determined that this rule will make no change in existing law.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 222

    Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened 
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Transportation.

    Dated: November 2, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 222 is amended 
as follows:

PART 222--GENERAL ENDANGERED AND THREATENED MARINE SPECIES

    1. The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.; 31 
U.S.C. 9701.

    2. In Sec. 222.102, the definition for ``Harm'' is added in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 222.102  Definitions.

* * * * *
     Harm in the definition of ``take'' in the Act means an act which 
actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include 
significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or 
injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential 
behavioral patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, 
feeding or sheltering.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-29216 Filed 11-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F