comment_texts: 00001b39232dcc30c600ed3662466e15a337b93266d01a4ec2acf7865033ced2

Comment text from the regulations.gov bulk export, decoded, one row per distinct text keyed by the SHA-256 of its bytes (n_comments = how many comments share it). Present only on builds that carry the bulk merge. Served surfaces label text from this table as 'regulations.gov bulk export (markup removed)' and prefer the API channel's text where both exist.

This data as json

body_sha256	comment_text	n_comments	body_cluster_sha
00001b39232dcc30c600ed3662466e15a337b93266d01a4ec2acf7865033ced2	Dear Acting Director Souza, I oppose the redefinition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. For more than 40 years, the harm definition has protected endangered species by prohibiting acts that result in significant habitat modification or degradation that results in actual death or injury to a species. This prohibition has been absolutely critical to saving species from extinction. It has prevented cutting of old-growth forests where spotted owls nest, stopped development in Florida panther habitat, and so much more. Stripping the definition of harm to leave out habitat destruction will open the floodgates to developers, loggers, miners, oil and gas drillers, and others to destroy endangered species habitat, driving species to extinction in the process. The harm definition has underpinned conservation of endangered species in biological opinions and habitat conservation plans for decades, requiring reasonable measures to avoid habitat destruction in exchange for incidental take permits. Rescinding the definition will upend this sensible approach and undermine existing protections that have prevented the extinction of more than 99 percent of species protected by the Endangered Species Act. I strongly urge you not to finalize rescission of this definition and uphold our commitment to saving endangered species and the natural world. Sincerely, David Strickland GA 31088	1	f2f42f73d2ec18bc0c68943784280b345c85006cf4df0236dcb32ab88570862e