Another important advantage for the USFWS is that the SHA can help eliminate the perverse incentive created by ESA regulations. A rule that opposes the behaviour desired by the creator is supposed to constitute a perverse incitement. In this case, regulations sometimes encourage landowners to modify or preemptively remove habitat, as the risk of ESA regulatory sanctions increases (Langpap and Wu 2004; Lueck and Michael 2000). In exchange for measures that contribute to the restoration of species classified on non-federal lands, participating property owners receive formal assurances from the Service that the service, if it meets the SHA requirements, does not require any additional or different management activity from participants without their consent. In addition, at the end of the contract period, participants can return the registered property to the basic conditions that existed at the beginning of the SHA. There is an example of a Safe Harbor decision on the European Data Protection Directive. The directive establishes a relatively strict protection of the privacy of EU citizens. It prohibits European companies from transferring personal data to foreign jurisdictions with weaker data protection laws. Five years later, a decision created exceptions in which foreign data recipients voluntarily agreed to comply with EU standards under the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles. In October 2015, the EU-US Safe Harbor Agreement was cancelled following a decision by the European Court of Justice because the United States does not offer an equally adequate level of protection against monitoring the data transferred there. The Safe Harbour Privacy Principles was developed between 1998 and 2000. They should prevent private organizations in the European Union or the United States that store customer data from accidentally revealing or losing personal data. U.S.
companies could opt for a program and be certified if they stick to seven principles and 15 frequently asked questions and answers in accordance with the directive.  In July 2000, the European Commission (EC) decided that US companies that adhere to the principles and register their certification are allowed to transmit EU data to the United States. This is called the Safe Harbor decision.  An example of a refuge is the completion of a Phase I environmental assessment by a real estate buyer: due diligence and a safe harbor result when future contamination is found by a former owner. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, received a request from Susan Sorrells (requester) to improve the survival authorization (authorization) under the Endangered Species Act. The application contains a draft Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) to facilitate the reintroduction and restoration of Confederal-threatened Amargosa moults on non-federal lands in California. We have prepared a draft Environmental Action Statement (EAS) for our preliminary conclusion that the SHA decision and the approval of the National Environmental Policy Act can be categorically excluded. We ask the public to review and comment on the application for authorization, the SHA project and the EAS project.