12702 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 3330) to list Burmese (and Indian) Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, pythons, Northern African pythons, Fish and Wildlife Service FL 32960–3559; telephone 772–562– Southern African pythons, and yellow 3909 ext. 256; facsimile 772–562–4288. anacondas as injurious wildlife under 50 CFR Part 16 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob the Lacey Act. The remaining five RIN 1018–AV68 Progulske, Everglades Program species (reticulated python, boa Supervisor, South Florida Ecological constrictor, green anaconda, [Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015; Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Beni FXFR13360900000–145–FF09F14000] Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, anaconda) were not listed at that time and remained under consideration for Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing FL 32960–3559; telephone 772–469– 4299. If you use a telecommunications listing. With this final rule, we are Three Anaconda Species and One listing four of those species (reticulated Python Species as Injurious Reptiles device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service python, green anaconda, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Beni Interior. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: anaconda) as injurious wildlife under ACTION: Final rule. the Lacey Act. We are, however, Executive Summary withdrawing our proposal to list the boa SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service constrictor (Boa constrictor) as Service (Service or we) is amending its (Service) is amending its regulations injurious; we are no longer considering regulations under the Lacey Act to add under the Lacey Act to add the adding that species to the list of reticulated python (Python reticulatus), reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. DeSchauensee’s anaconda (Eunectes anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni Our rationale for this action is provided deschauenseei), green anaconda anaconda to the list of injurious under Withdrawal of the Boa (Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda wildlife. The purpose of listing the Constrictor from Consideration as an (Eunectes beniensis) to the list of reticulated python and the three Injurious Species in this rule. injurious wildlife. By this action, the anacondas as injurious wildlife is to By listing the four species, the importation into the United States and prevent the accidental or intentional importation into the United States and interstate transportation between States, introduction and subsequent transportation between States, the the District of Columbia, the establishment of populations of these District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any snakes in the wild in the United States. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United Under the Lacey Act (Act) (18 U.S.C. territory or possession of the United States of any live animal, gamete, viable 42, as amended), the Secretary of the States of any live animal, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of these four constrictor Interior is authorized to list by egg, or hybrid is prohibited, except by snakes is prohibited, except by permit regulation those wild mammals, wild permit for zoological, education, for zoological, educational, medical, or birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, medical, or scientific purposes (in scientific purposes (in accordance with amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring accordance with permit conditions) or permit conditions) or by Federal or eggs of any of the foregoing that are by Federal agencies without a permit agencies without a permit solely for injurious to human beings, to the solely for their own use. their own use. The best available interests of agriculture, horticulture, or The final economic analysis (2015) information indicates that this action is forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife and environmental assessment (2015) necessary to protect the interests of resources of the United States. We have considers four alternatives for the human beings, agriculture, wildlife, and determined that these four species of reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s wildlife resources from the purposeful large constrictor snakes are injurious. anaconda, green anaconda, Beni or accidental introduction and This determination was based on an anaconda, and boa constrictor: Alternative 1 is no action; Alternative subsequent establishment of these large extensive risk and biological assessment 2A would list all five species; nonnative constrictor snake populations by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; Alternative 2B would list four species into ecosystems of the United States. We Reed and Rodda 2009) and on the (not including the boa constrictor); are also withdrawing our proposal to criteria for injuriousness by the Service. Alternative 3 would list the three add the boa constrictor (Boa constrictor) USGS determined that these four species known to be in trade in the to the list of injurious wildlife. species have a risk of invasiveness, and the Service found that the four species United States (boa constrictor, green DATES: This rule is effective on April 9, are injurious. anaconda, and reticulated python); and 2015. On March 12, 2010, we published a Alternative 4 would list the boa ADDRESSES: This final rule and the proposed rule in the Federal Register constrictor—the only one of the five associated final economic analysis, (75 FR 11808) to list Python molurus species with a high organism risk regulatory flexibility analysis, and (which includes Burmese and Indian potential (Reed and Rodda 2009). We environmental assessment are available pythons), reticulated python (Python selected Alternative 2B. on the Internet at http:// reticulatus), Northern African python Table ES–1 (from the 2015 final www.regulations.gov under Docket No. (Python sebae), Southern African economic analysis) compares the FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015. Comments python (Python natalensis), boa economic output to the constrictor and materials received, as well as constrictor (Boa constrictor), yellow snake industry for listing under the supporting documentation used in anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), alternatives. The costs for not listing are preparing this final rule, are available DeSchauensee’s anaconda (Eunectes difficult to quantify, but include the on the Internet at http:// deschauenseei), green anaconda expenditures associated with State and www.regulations.gov under Docket No. (Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda Federal activities that address FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015; they are also (Eunectes beniensis) as injurious constrictor snake impacts, amounting to available for public inspection, by wildlife under the Lacey Act. at least $6 million from 2005 to 2014. appointment, during normal business On January 23, 2012, we published a Other costs for not listing include risk hours, at the South Florida Ecological final rule in the Federal Register (77 FR of harm (from predation, competition,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12703

pathogens) to native species, including decreased wildlife viewing endangered and threatened species, and opportunities. the potential for reduced tourism from

TABLE ES–1—ANNUAL DECREASE IN SECONDARY IMPACTS FROM BASELINE CONDITION (ALTERNATIVE 1) [Dollars in millions]

Economic output Jobs Job income Tax revenue

Alternative 2A ...... $26.5–$57.1 236–509 $9.5–$20.5 $3.6–$7.8 Alternative 2B ...... $5.3–$11.4 49–105 $1.9–$4.1 $0.7–$1.6 Alternative 3 ...... $26.5–$57.1 236–509 $9.5–$20.5 $3.6–$7.8 Alternative 4 ...... $21.1–$45.4 188–405 $7.7–$16.5 $2.9–$6.2

Previous Federal Actions (75 FR 11808) to list Burmese and three public comment periods for the Indian pythons, reticulated python, On June 23, 2006, the Service proposed rule, (2) comments from five Northern African python, Southern received a petition from the South peer reviewers, and (3) new information African python, boa constrictor, yellow Florida Water Management District acquired by the Service by the end of anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, (District) requesting that Burmese the public comment periods (July 24, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda as pythons be considered for inclusion in 2014). From this information, we injurious wildlife under the Act. The the injurious wildlife regulations under determined that four more (hereafter, proposed rule established a 60-day the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, as also may be collectively referred to as comment period ending on May 11, amended; the Act). The District was ‘‘the second four’’) of the nine proposed 2010, and announced the availability of species warrant listing as injurious at concerned about the number of Burmese the draft economic analysis and the pythons (Python molurus bivittatus) this time, bringing the total number of draft environmental assessment of the species of large constrictor snakes listed found in Florida, particularly in proposed rule. At the request of the Everglades National Park and on the as injurious to eight with this final rule. public, we reopened the comment We present a summary of the peer District’s widespread property in South period for an additional 30 days ending Florida. review comments and the public on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 38069; July 1, comments following the Lacey Act The Service published a notice of 2010). inquiry in the Federal Register (73 FR On January 23, 2012, we published a Evaluation Criteria section for the 5784; January 31, 2008) soliciting final rule in the Federal Register (77 FR second four of the nine proposed available biological, economic, and 3330) to list Burmese and Indian species. The explanations in the other information and data on the pythons, Northern African python, sections on biology and evaluation of Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera for Southern African python, and yellow the second four species will make many possible addition to the list of injurious anaconda as injurious wildlife under the of the answers to the comments self- wildlife under the Act and provided a Act. The remaining five species evident. 90-day public comment period. The (reticulated python, boa constrictor, A major source of biological, Service received 1,528 comments during green anaconda, DeSchauensee’s management, and invasion risk the public comment period that closed anaconda, and Beni anaconda) were not information that we used for the April 30, 2008. We reviewed all listed at the time and remained under proposed rule and this final rule was comments received for substantive consideration for listing. With this final derived from the USGS’s ‘‘Giant issues and information regarding the rule, we are listing four of those species Constrictors: Biological and injurious nature of species in the (reticulated python, green anaconda, Management Profiles and an Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera. Of DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Beni Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine the 1,528 comments, 115 provided anaconda). We are also withdrawing our Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, economic, ecological, and other data proposal to list the boa constrictor as and the Boa Constrictor’’ (hereafter responsive to the 10 specific questions injurious; we are no longer considering referred to as ‘‘Reed and Rodda 2009).’’ in the notice of inquiry. Most adding that species to the list of This document was prepared at the individuals submitting comments injurious wildlife under the Act. Our request of the Service and the National responded to the notice of inquiry as rationale for this action is provided Park Service; a link to the report can be though it was a proposed rule to list under Withdrawal of the Boa found at the following Internet sites: constrictor snakes in the Python, Boa, Constrictor from Consideration as an http://www.regulations.gov under and Eunectes genera as injurious under Injurious Species in this rule. Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015 the Act. As a result, most comments On June 24, 2014, we reopened the expressed either opposition or support and http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/ comment period on the 2010 proposed Publications/pub_ for listing the large constrictor snakes rule for an additional 30 days (79 FR abstract.asp?PubID=22691. species and did not provide substantive 35719). This comment period was information. We considered all of the restricted to the five remaining The Service is completing actions on information provided, focusing proposed species: The reticulated the proposed rule with publication of primarily on the 115 applicable python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, this final rule for the second four comments in the preparation of the draft green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa species (reticulated python and environmental assessment, draft constrictor. DeSchauensee’s, green, and Beni economic analysis, and the proposed For the injurious wildlife evaluation anacondas). The proposal for one rule. in this final rule, in addition to additional species (boa constrictor) is On March 12, 2010, we published a information used for the proposed rule, being withdrawn; we are no longer proposed rule in the Federal Register we considered: (1) Comments from the considering it for listing under the Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12704 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Background species (including endangered and these unique circumstances, the benefit threatened species); preventing, of an injurious wildlife listing is likely Purpose of Listing as Injurious eradicating, or reducing large to be limited without concurrent State The purpose of listing the reticulated populations would be difficult; and regulatory action, particularly in areas python and the three anacondas as other factors that are explained in the of the country where the risk of injurious wildlife is to prevent the sections Factors That Contribute to establishment is the highest. accidental or intentional introduction Injuriousness for Reticulated Python Thus, for the boa constrictor, we and subsequent establishment of and for the other three species. considered whether listing the species populations of these snakes in the wild under the Lacey Act would be the most in the United States. Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor effective means of preventing the From Consideration as an Injurious establishment and spread of populations Why the Species Were Selected for Species Consideration as Injurious Species in the wild. For this decision, the Under 18 U.S.C. 42(a), the Secretary Service assessed information available The Service has had the authority to of the Interior ‘‘may prescribe by on the number of boa constrictors list species as injurious under the Act regulation’’ species to be injurious and already imported into the United States, since the 1940s. However, we have been thus has discretion on whether to list the number of boa constrictors held in criticized for not listing species before species as injurious. The proposed rule captivity in the United States, the they became a problem (Fowler et al. published on March 12, 2010 (75 FR variety of individuals and entities that 2007). The Burmese python is one 11808), determined that the boa own boa constrictors and their use of example of a species that may not have constrictor possesses the traits of the species, how broadly in geographic become so invasive in Florida if it had injuriousness and no substantive terms the species is located in captivity been listed before it had become information to the contrary has been within the United States, the amount of established. Two of the largest snakes in provided in the public or peer review domestic breeding (for export, intrastate the world (with maximum lengths comments or otherwise obtained by the trade, and other purposes), the risk of exceeding 7 meters (m) (23 feet (ft)) are Service. Nonetheless, concurrent with escape and establishment of the species, the reticulated python and green this final rule, we are withdrawing the if and where individual snakes have anaconda, and both are present in U.S. proposal to list the boa constrictor as an been recorded or populations have trade. The reticulated python and the injurious species and hereby remove the become established in the wild in the green anaconda have been found in the species from further consideration. If we United States, and actions States have wild in south Florida. With this final decide in the future to consider the boa taken or could take to effectively rule, we are attempting to prevent any constrictor for listing as injurious, we manage the risk of snake introduction further introduction and subsequent will prepare a new proposed rule for and establishment. establishment of the reticulated python notice and comment in the Federal The number of boa constrictors that and green anaconda into vulnerable Register. have been imported and that are areas of the United States. The Service recognizes the harm that currently held in captivity is a Furthermore, we have the authority the establishment of boa constrictors significantly larger portion of the under the Act to list certain species as could pose to wildlife and wildlife current trade than for any of the other injurious even if they are not currently resources. We also recognize that, eight constrictor species that were in trade or known to exist in the United because our regulatory authority is proposed for listing. In fact, these States. Thus, we can be proactive and limited to prohibiting importation and numbers are likely higher for the boa not wait until a species is already interstate transport, we must rely on the constrictor than for all of the eight other established. As noted in the National States, Territories, and other species combined. Of the nine species Invasive Species Management Plan governmental entities in the United that were included in the proposed rule, (National Invasive Species Council States, including local jurisdictions the boa constrictor represented 61.7 2008), ‘‘prevention is the first line of (hereafter collectively referred to as the percent of the imports and domestically defense’’ and ‘‘can be the most cost- States) to regulate possession, release to bred snakes from 2008 to 2010, whereas effective approach because once a the wild, sale, intrastate transport, and the next highest species was the species becomes widespread, other activities that may need to be Burmese python at 24.5 percent (Final controlling it may require significant regulated to effectively manage the risk Economic Analysis 2012). Of the five and sustained expenditures.’’ This is of a species introduction and spread for species not yet listed, the boa why we are listing two species species that have already been imported constrictor represents 79.2 percent of (DeSchauensee’s and Beni anacondas) into and are present in the United the imports and domestically bred that are not yet found in the United States. snakes from 2011 to 2013, whereas the States but that have the requisite The regulatory prohibitions of the next highest species is the reticulated injurious traits. Lacey Act (limited to importation and python at 18.9 percent. Large zoos and None of these four species is native to interstate transport) are less effective small roadside zoos across the country the United States. The Service is when a species is widely held in maintain boas for educational displays striving to prevent the introduction and captivity in the United States in high and live animal programs. Boa establishment of all four species into numbers (both the number of animals constrictors are sold in many pet stores, new areas of the United States, due to and number of people owning the including large national chains, and are concerns about the injurious effects of animals) and when significant domestic owned as pets by children and adults in all four species, consistent with 18 breeding of such animals is occurring all States that allow possession. Boas U.S.C. 42. and would likely continue for intrastate can grow to 13 feet in length and live All four species were evaluated and trade or export purposes. Domestic for at least 20 years. The likelihood of found to be injurious because: There is breeding, whether for intrastate trade or pet boas being released or escaping is a suitable climate match in parts of the export, of widely-owned species high, because boa constrictors are adept United States to support them; they are increases the probability of escape, at escaping enclosures and they often likely to escape captivity; they are likely survival, and establishment of the listed outgrow their owner’s ability or outlive to prey on and compete with native species in the United States. Under their owner’s interest to care for them.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12705

Boa constrictors have been found on the position from that expressed in its 2010 even stronger protection than Federal loose in at least 46 States (HSUS 2014) comment letter. listing as injurious under the Lacey Act. and are known to be or assumed to be AFWA represents North America’s State laws that prohibit importation pets that escaped or were released. Boas State, territorial, and provincial fish and prevent the further spread of boa are already well established in Florida wildlife agencies. In their comment constrictors into States where they do and Puerto Rico. Therefore, the boa letter, AFWA stated that they had not currently occur and reduce the constrictor fits the circumstances where solicited comments from their network chances of establishment by limiting regulatory provisions of the Lacey Act of State nongame biologists and additional importations in States where are likely to be less effective. herpetologists, as well as members of they do already occur. Laws such as Thus, of the nine large constrictor their Amphibian and Reptile Florida’s regulations applicable to snakes evaluated by the Service, risk Subcommittee and Invasive Species Conditional Reptiles (such as for management measures by States are Committee. AFWA stated its position Burmese pythons) restrict personal particularly needed for the boa that the Service should not finalize the possession, while Hawaii prohibits both constrictor, especially where the risk of rule for any of the large constrictor possession and importation. The Service establishment is high. Risk management snakes. Specifically, AFWA stated, agrees, as AFWA suggests, that State measures include State regulations and among other things, that a national rule regulations, such as Florida’s (for other restrictions on activities with the may not be warranted; that it is the Burmese pythons) or Hawaii’s, could species, as well as measures to detect States’ responsibility to manage species serve as models for State laws, industry- and attempt to control any snakes that that occur within their borders, wide standards, or enforceable best are found in the wild. For example, the including minimizing impacts to native practices. State of Hawaii does not allow the species; that States have the right to The Pet Industry Joint Advisory importation or possession of any snakes, enact and enforce laws and regulations Council (PIJAC) also submitted and most of the U.S. Territories have that are more stringent than Federal comments on the proposed rule in both some restrictions on the importation of laws and regulations, as they see fit; that 2010 and 2014, although its 2014 snakes. In comparison, the State of Federal regulations that create undue comments were not related to the issues Florida has not listed the boa constrictor burdens on State fish and wildlife discussed here. PIJAC states that its as a conditional reptile or placed other agencies should be avoided; and that mission is to promote responsible pet restrictions on this species. According listing the constrictor snakes as ownership and animal welfare, foster to the State of Florida’s regulations injurious might not achieve the desired environmental stewardship, and ensure (FWC 2015), ‘‘[c]onditional nonnative result due to unintended consequences, the availability of pets. PIJAC, through species are considered to be dangerous such as people releasing the constrictors their comments, encouraged the Service to the ecology and/or the health and into the wild. As an alternative, AFWA to explore other alternatives to the welfare of the people of Florida. These promoted State action, such as Florida’s proposed listing of the large species are not allowed to be personally ‘‘Reptiles of Concern’’ regulations, that, constrictors. PIJAC stated that, in possessed, although exceptions are in partnership with stakeholders, communications with the Department of made by permit * * *.’’ Without any AFWA believes would both discourage the Interior, the Small Business restrictions on possession, intrastate non-serious snake owners from Administration, and State agencies, they sale, or intrastate domestic production, purchasing new reptile pets as well as believe that opportunities exist for the the benefit of a Federal injurious better regulate the industry. AFWA Federal Government to work with the wildlife listing for the boa constrictor is stated that Florida’s regulations could States and the industry to develop an substantially less than for a species, serve as a model for development of alternative approach to large constrictor such as the Burmese python, that is also industry-wide standards or enforceable management and that they are prepared held broadly in private ownership but is best practices. to work on this process. The Service has currently regulated through Florida’s The Service recognizes that the States worked with PIJAC on several national Conditional Reptile regulations. The can enact their own, more stringent laws campaigns to promote responsible lack of restrictions for boa constrictors and that a Lacey Act listing does not ownership of nondomesticated animals in States such as Florida that are at great preclude this, although States may have and thus knows that such campaigns risk perpetuates an unregulated less ability to regulate importation into can be effective in promoting pathway for escape and possible their States. However, AFWA’s position responsible use of wildlife that could be establishment, and severely reduces the is that it represents the collective harmful if they escaped or are released effectiveness of a Federal regulatory interests of the States on this issue; that to the wild. approach. the Service could allow the States to For all of the reasons explained above, In 2010 (75 FR 11808, March 12, take action, including regulatory action; the Service has decided to withdraw its 2010; and 75 FR 38069, July 1, 2010) that the Federal government could March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11808), proposal and again in 2014 (79 FR 35719; June instead focus on financial support for to list the boa constrictor in favor of a 24, 2014), the Service sought and risk analysis combined with early novel and experimental approach. The considered public comments submitted detection and rapid response programs; boa constrictor has already been on the proposed rule to list the boa and that these actions could be more imported in large numbers into the constrictor along with other species of effective at preventing the establishment United States and is owned by large constrictor snakes. The Service of constrictor snakes than Federal hobbyists, commercial breeders, and pet received more than 85,000 public listing. Given the unique circumstances owners in large numbers throughout the comments. Among the substantive of the boa constrictor, we believe that, United States, except where prohibited comments we received were comments particularly for States where the risk of by State law. AFWA, representing the from the Association of Fish and establishment is high, State action for State fish and wildlife agencies, has Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) in 2010. the boa constrictor that effectively asserted that instead of listing the Although AFWA did not submit reduces the risk of escape and constrictor snakes as injurious, the additional comments in 2014, the establishment, such as regulating Service could allow States to use their Service has received no information possession, sale, intrastate transport, or regulatory and management authorities indicating that AFWA has changed its breeding, could provide sufficient and to regulate activities with these species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12706 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

As the representative for these State fish resources of the United States. We have Burmese pythons could invade, even and wildlife agencies and determined that the reticulated python, using the MaxEnt computer program as communicator of this position, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green Pyron et al. (2008) used it. presumably AFWA is prepared to work anaconda, and Beni anaconda are • Information theory suggests 10 with its member States to do so. For the injurious and should be listed under the parameters as the appropriate number to boa constrictor, a species that has Lacey Act. use in a study like this; the Pyron et al. already been imported into the United Reticulated pythons have been found (2008) model, however, used 60. With States in large numbers and is widely in the wild in Florida and Puerto Rico, this number, the parameters essentially held in large numbers by a broad variety as well as several other States. Several become constraints, skewing the of owners for purposes that include green anacondas have also been found accuracy of the data to the point that the breeding and sale, strong State laws are in the wild in Florida. These species fit resulting model is not scientifically indeed more likely to be effective at the circumstances where regulatory sound. preventing the escape or release and provisions of the Lacey Act are likely to • The newer USGS paper highlights establishment of the species in the wild, be effective. The threat posed by the the statistical dangers inherent in given that prohibitions under the Lacey reticulated python and the three indiscriminately searching for Act are limited to importation and anacondas will be explained in detail correlations among a large number of interstate transport. This is especially below under Factors that Contribute to possible parameters. true when combined with efforts by Injuriousness for Reticulated Python • Factors other than climate may industry groups such as PIJAC, which and each of the other species. limit a species’ native distribution, has committed to work with the Service The USGS risk assessment used a including the existence of predators, and the States on programs that would method called ‘‘climate matching’’ to diseases, and other local factors (such as promote responsible holding and use of estimate those areas of the United States major terrain barriers), which may not boa constrictors. exhibiting climates similar to those be present when a species is released in This action gives additional States, experienced by the species in their a new country. Therefore, the areas at such as Florida, the opportunity to respective native ranges (Reed and risk of invasion often span a climate demonstrate the efficacy of coordinated, Rodda 2009). Considerable uncertainties range greater than that extracted State-based measures to address the exist about the native range limits of mechanically from the native range invasive nature of boa constrictors, many of the giant constrictors, and a boundaries, as was done by Pyron et al. including promulgating their own laws myriad of factors other than climate can (2008). regarding the species. We are also influence whether a species could Rodda et al. (2011) does not change providing the pet trade industry with establish a population in a particular the previous USGS risk assessment, or the opportunity to act voluntarily location. Nonetheless, this method the Service’s interpretation of the USGS within its own industry and in represents the most accurate means to risk assessment, that Burmese pythons cooperation with the States, the Service, predict and anticipate where a could find suitable climatic conditions and others to address prevention and nonnative species may be able to in roughly a third of the United States. containment of the boa constrictor as an survive and establish populations The paper also confirms that the climate alternative to Federal Lacey Act within the United States (Bomford et al. matches for the four species in this final restrictions. PIJAC and other industry 2009). The authors used the same rule would not change from those groups can work with boa constrictor method to match the climate for all nine described in the March 12, 2010 (75 FR owners to develop practices to prevent species in the proposed rule, because 11808), proposed rule. escape or release into the environment the method is not species-specific and While we acknowledge that and options for finding homes for can be used equally as well for pythons, uncertainty exists, these tools also serve unwanted animals as an alternative to boas, and anacondas. as a useful predictor to identify release to the wild. Some interested parties, including vulnerable ecosystems at risk from The Service recognizes that this is an other scientists such as Pyron et al. injurious wildlife prior to the species untested approach and will monitor (2008), criticized Reed and Rodda’s actually becoming established (Lodge et whether States and industry groups put (2009) climate-matching method. In al. 2006). Based on climate alone, many in place effective measures to prevent response, the authors published a species of large constrictors are likely to the escape or release and establishment clarification of how they used the model be limited to the warmest areas of the of boa constrictors. If States and (Rodda et al. 2011). This paper more United States, including parts of industry groups in regions where the clearly explained Reed and Rodda’s Florida, extreme south Texas, Hawaii, risk of boa constrictor survival and (2009) method and compared that and insular territories. For a few establishment in the wild is high fail to method to Pyron et al.’s (2008) method species, larger areas of the southern take appropriate actions, or if these for analyzing potential invasiveness for United States appear to have suitable State and industry-based measures the Burmese python. We mention a few climatic conditions according to Reed prove ineffective, we may again evaluate of Rodda et al.’s (2011) findings here: and Rodda’s (2009) climate-matching whether listing the boa constrictor as • Pyron et al. (2008) incorrectly method. injurious under the Act is appropriate. rejected many sites that are suitable for The record cold temperatures in south Burmese python invasion because their Florida during January of 2010 Need for the Final Rule use of an excessive number of produced the coldest 12-day period Under the Lacey Act, the Secretary of parameters actually ended up acting as since at least 1940, according to the the Interior is authorized to prescribe by filters. Using too many filters means that National Weather Service in Miami regulation those wild mammals, wild too many sites that are truly at risk of (NOAA 2010). A record low was set for birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, python establishment get filtered out. 12 consecutive days with the amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring • Additionally, the authors temperature at or below 45 °F or eggs of any of the foregoing that are eliminated four data points of blood (Fahrenheit; 7.2 °C (Celsius)) in West injurious to human beings, to the pythons (Python brongersmai) that Palm Beach and Naples. Other interests of agriculture, horticulture, or Pyron et al. (2008) used erroneously. minimum temperatures for that period forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife This significantly changed the area that were broken in Moorehaven, tied in Fort

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12707

Lauderdale, and the coldest in Miami cold winter. Without time to suitably measures of mean temperature; (2) since 1940. Despite the record cold, we acclimate to a significantly colder Indian and Burmese pythons are know that many pythons survived in climate, all of the snakes in this study physiologically and behaviorally Florida. For example, nearly 150 died. The artificial refugia may not have different in relation to thermal Burmese pythons were removed been suitable compared to natural tolerance; and (3) the incorrect (captured or found dead) from the refugia (such as gopher tortoise assumption of thermal critical minima population in Everglades National Park burrows), which were not available in structure of the range limits of the and vicinity in 2011; more than 250 the study. Use of adults, as well as use snakes that can behaviorally were removed in 2012, and more than of individuals that did not come from thermoregulate. 200 were removed in 2013 (NPS 2014). the colder parts of their native range, The only comparably large native The largest Burmese python found in may have caused the snakes to not be reptile in the southeastern United the wild in Florida was found in adaptable to colder temperatures. States, the American alligator (Alligator Everglades National Park in March 2012 Dorcas et al. (2012) state that their mississippiensis), has been known to (Krysko et al. 2012). Large constrictors results suggest that Burmese pythons survive freezing air temperatures. A of several species continue to be present from the population currently study at the Savannah River Ecology and to breed in south Florida. If established in Florida are capable of Laboratory in South Carolina found that thermoregulatory behavior or tolerance withstanding conditions substantially adult alligators could survive freezing to cold is genetically based, we would cooler that those typically experienced temperatures by adjusting their expect large constrictor snake in southern Florida, but may not be able behavior. Adults could break the ice and populations to persist, rebound, and to survive severe winters in regions as breathe above the ice, whereas the possibly increase their genetic fitness temperate as central South Carolina. juveniles could not break the ice and and temperature tolerance as a result of They noted that some snakes currently apparently drowned (Brandt and natural selection pressures resulting inhabiting Florida could survive typical Mazzotti 1990). from cold weather conditions such as winters in areas of the southeastern The alligator study shows that even those that occurred in south Florida in United States more temperate than the individual reptiles of the same species January 2010 (Dorcas et al. 2011). region currently inhabited by pythons. (juveniles compared to adults) may have Two studies by scientists from several The authors also noted that, if different abilities to survive. Such research institutions, including the thermoregulatory behavior is heritable, reasoning could be applied to large University of Florida, studied the effects selection for appropriate constrictors. In Dorcas et al. (2011), 10 of the 2010 winter cold weather on thermoregulatory behavior will be wild-captured male Burmese pythons Burmese pythons. These studies are strong as pythons expand their range from 2 to 3.5 m (6.5 to 11.5 ft) total relevant to the four species in this final northward through the Florida length were released into outdoor rule because, like the Burmese python, peninsula. Consequently, future enclosures in South Carolina. All the four species are poikilothermic generations of pythons and anacondas eventually died ostensibly of cold stress, (body temperature varies with may be better equipped to invade we surmise that perhaps individuals surrounding temperature, also known as temperate regions than those currently either larger or smaller could have cold-blooded). Snakes typically inhabiting southern Florida, particularly survived. maintain their body temperatures given the climate flexibility exhibited by Scientists continue to learn more within thermal tolerance limits the Burmese python in its native range about the adaptability of constrictor (ectothermy) through their behaviors (as analyzed through USGS’ climate- snakes. Whereas salinity had been (thermoregulation; Dorcas et al. 2011), matching predictions in the United suggested to be a limiting factor in the such as sunning in open areas in cool States). distribution of reptiles in coastal weather or seeking naturally insulated A study that used air temperatures to habitats, such as the Florida Keys burrows in cold weather. predict that Burmese pythons would not (Dunson and Mazzotti 1989), a later Thus, the reptiles seek locations (even likely expand to or colonize more study disproved that. Hart et al. (2012) small refugia) that can help them temperate areas of Florida and adjoining found that hatchling Burmese pythons maintain a comfortable body States (Jacobson et al. 2012) did not survived in a laboratory setting at full temperature. In Mazzotti et al. (2010), offer any new data, other than saltwater conditions for at least a the authors noted that all populations of summaries of ambient air temperature month. This further supports our listing large-bodied pythons and boa in Florida and South Carolina. Using the of the Burmese python and may be constrictors inhabiting areas with cool rationale in the study, based on air applicable to the species in this final winters, including northern populations temperature, we could conclude that rule because they are closely related. of Burmese pythons in their native even native snakes could not survive in Another study sought to explain why range, appeared to rely on use of refugia most of the United States, which is not Burmese pythons became such (safe locations) to escape winter the case. Snakes in the wild use a successful invaders in Florida (Reed et temperatures. Pythons and anacondas variety of physiological and behavioral al. 2012). With all of the nonnative can seek such refugia as underground mechanisms, not available to them in reptiles that have been introduced into burrows, deep water in canals, or the captive studies, to regulate their the State, the Burmese python is the similar microhabitats to escape the cold body temperatures or escape excessive only exotic snake (other than the worm- temperatures. Those snakes that air temperatures. sized Brahminy blindsnake survived in Florida were apparently Another paper that reviewed the (Ramphotyphlops braminus)) to have able to maintain body temperatures effects of cold weather on Burmese successfully colonized a large area using microhabitat features of the pythons does not appear to introduce (greater than 1,000 square kilometers landscape (Mazzotti et al. 2010). any new data that can be used to answer (km2) (386 square miles (mi2))) of the Dorcas et al. (2011) reported on the questions of temperature tolerances United States. Reed et al. (2012) cold tolerance of adult Burmese pythons (Engeman et al. 2014). Several concluded that attributes related to body taken directly from the Everglades and conclusions drawn are seemingly based size and generalism (such as general placed in outdoor enclosures in South on untested hypotheses: (1) Measures of habitat use and general prey) appeared Carolina just prior to an unseasonably minimum temperature are superior to to be particularly applicable to the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12708 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Burmese python’s ability to spread and difficult to detect in the field, and other disease vectors that may be impact ecosystems in Florida. The complicating efforts to identify the carried by these four species of attributes with the greatest scores were range of populations or deplete nonnative constrictor snakes. high reproductive potential, low populations through visual searching Listing Process vulnerability to predation, large adult and removal of individuals. No body size, large offspring size, and high currently available tools appear The regulations contained in 50 CFR dietary breadth. All of these attributes adequate for eradication of an part 16 implement the Act. Under the are shared with the reticulated python established population of giant snakes terms of the Act, the Secretary of the and three anaconda species in this final once they have spread over a large area. Interior is authorized to prescribe by rule, and all of these attributes Therefore, preventing the introduction regulation those wild mammals, wild contribute to the species’ ability to into the United States and dispersal to birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, become invasive. new areas of these invasive species is of amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring The Service and Everglades National critical importance to the health and or eggs of any of the foregoing that are Park asked USGS to assess the risk of welfare of native wildlife. injurious to human beings, to the invasion of nine species of snakes to For the purposes of this rule, a hybrid interests of agriculture, horticulture, or assist in the Service’s determination of is any progeny from any cross involving forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife injuriousness. Of the nine large parents of one or more species from the resources of the United States. The lists constrictor snakes assessed by Reed and four constrictor snakes evaluated in this of injurious wildlife species are found at Rodda (2009) (Burmese python (which rule. Such progeny are likely to possess 50 CFR 16.11–16.15. Reed and Rodda refer to as Indian the same biological characteristics of the In this final rule, we evaluated each python), reticulated python, Northern parent species that, through our of the four constrictor snake species African python, Southern African analysis, leads us to find that they are individually and determined each to be python, boa constrictor, yellow injurious to humans and to wildlife and injurious and appropriate for listing. anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, wildlife resources of the United States. Therefore, as of the effective date of the green anaconda, and Beni anaconda), Anderson and Stebbins (1954) stated listing (see DATES, above), their five were shown to pose a high risk to that hybrids may have caused the rapid importation into, or transportation the health of the ecosystem, including evolution of plants and animals under between, the States, the District of the Burmese python, Northern African domestication, and that, in the presence Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto python, Southern African python, of new or greatly disturbed habitats, Rico, or any territory or possession of yellow anaconda, and boa constrictor. some hybrid derivates would have been the United States by any means The remaining four large constrictors— at a selective advantage. Facon et al. whatsoever is prohibited, except by the reticulated python, green anaconda, (2005) stated that invasions may bring permit for zoological, educational, Beni anaconda, and DeSchauensee’s into contact related taxa that have been medical, or scientific purposes (in anaconda—were shown to pose a isolated for a long time. Facon et al. accordance with permit regulations at medium risk. None of the large (2005) also stated that hybridization 50 CFR 16.22), or by Federal agencies constrictors that the USGS assessed was between two invasive taxa has been without a permit solely for their own classified as low overall risk. A rating of documented, and that in all these cases, use, upon filing a written declaration low overall risk is considered as hybrids outcompeted their parental with the District Director of Customs acceptable risk and the organism(s) of taxa. Ellstrand and Schierenbeck (2000) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service little concern (ANSTF 1996). See Lacey concluded that dispersal of organisms Inspector at the port of entry. This rule Act Evaluation Criteria, below, for an and habitat disturbance by humans both does not prohibit intrastate (within State explanation of how USGS assessed risk. act to accelerate the process of boundaries) transport of the listed There is a medium risk that the four hybridization and increase the constrictor snake species. Any large constrictors evaluated in this final opportunities for hybrid lineages to take regulations pertaining to the transport or rule, if they escape or are released into hold. use of these species within a particular the wild, will establish populations Furthermore, snakes in general have State will continue to be the within their respective thermal and been found to harbor ticks (such as the responsibility of that State. precipitation limits due to common life- nonnative African tortoise tick) that We used the Lacey Act Evaluation history traits that make them successful cause heartwater disease (from the Criteria as a guide to evaluate whether invaders. These traits include being bacterium Cowdria ruminantium). a species does or does not qualify as habitat generalists (able to utilize a wide Heartwater disease, although harmless injurious under the Act. The analysis variety of habitats) that are tolerant of to its reptilian hosts, can be fatal to developed using the criteria serves as a urbanization and capacity to hunt and livestock and related wild hoofed basis for the Service’s regulatory eat a wide range of size-appropriate mammals, such as white-tailed deer. decision regarding injurious wildlife vertebrates (reptiles, mammals, birds, According to the U.S. Department of species listings. A species does not have amphibians, and fish; Reed and Rodda Agriculture (USDA) (March 2000), to be established, currently imported, or 2009). These large constrictors are ‘‘Heartwater disease is an acute, present in the wild in the United States highly adaptable to new environments infectious disease of ruminants, for the Service to list it as injurious. The and opportunistic in expanding their including cattle, sheep, goats, white- objective of such a listing is to prevent geographic range. Furthermore, since tailed deer, and antelope. This disease that species’ importation and likely they are a novel (new to the system) has a 60 percent or greater mortality rate establishment in the wild, thereby predator at the top of the food chain, in livestock and a 90 percent or greater preventing injurious effects consistent they can threaten the stability of native mortality rate in white-tailed deer.’’ The with 18 U.S.C. 42. ecosystems by altering the ecosystem’s ticks have been found in Florida. form, function, and structure. Agricultural agencies are trying to stop Introduction Pathways for Large These four species are cryptically the spread of the ticks as a way of Constrictor Snakes marked and often dwell in trees or stopping the deadly disease. This rule For the four constrictor snakes submerged in water with only their will help to stop the spread into and analyzed in this final rule, the primary heads protruding, which makes them around the United States of the ticks pathway for the entry into the United

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12709

States is, or would likely be, the trade in constrictor snakes is this new location, and expand their commercial pet trade. In the last few international as well as domestic. From geographical range beyond the point of decades, most introductions of large 2004 to 2013, more than 1.2 million live initial establishment. Releases of large constrictor snakes have been associated constrictor snakes of 13 species (Python numbers of individuals often enable the with the international trade in reptiles spp., Eunectes spp., and Boa spp.) were incipient (newly forming), nonnative as pets. This trade includes wild-caught imported into the United States (Final population to withstand the inevitable snakes, captive-bred, or captive-hatched Economic Analysis 2015). Besides the decreases in survival or reproduction juveniles from areas within their native species proposed for listing, these caused by the environment or countries. In their native ranges, a included ball python (Python regius), a demographic accidents. species may be captured in the wild and blood python (P. curtus), another blood The release of many individuals into directly exported to the United States or python (P. brongersmai), Borneo python one location essentially functions as a other destination country, or wild- (P. breitensteini), Timor python (P. source pool of immigrants, thus caught snakes may be kept in the timoriensis), and Angolan python (P. sustaining an incipient population even country of origin to breed for export of anchietae), none of which has been if the initial release was of insufficient subsequent generations. The main ports proposed for listing as injurious. From size (or badly timed) to facilitate long- of entry for constrictor snakes are 2004 to 2013, approximately 26,591 term establishment. Natural disasters, Miami, Los Angeles, Dallas-Ft. Worth, large constrictor snakes of two species such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992, may Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, San listed by this rule were imported into have provided a mechanism for the Francisco, and Houston. From there, the United States (Final Economic accidental release of snakes, especially many of the live snakes are transported Analysis 2015; two species in this rule in light of large numbers of juvenile to animal dealers, who then transport were not imported). pythons frequently held by breeders and the snakes to pet retailers. Large Of all the constrictor snake species importers prior to sale and distribution constrictor snakes are also bred in the imported into the United States, the (Willson et al. 2010). United States and sold within the selection of nine constrictor snakes for Large or consistent releases of country. evaluation as injurious wildlife in the individuals into one location may A typical pathway of a large March 12, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR enable the incipient population to constrictor snake includes a pet store. 11808) was based on concern over the overcome behavioral limitations or Often, a person will purchase a giant size of these particular snakes other problems associated with small hatchling snake (0.55 m (22 inches (in)) combined with their quantity in population sizes. This is likely the case at a pet store or reptile show for as little international trade or their potential for at Everglades National Park, where the as $25. The hatchling grows rapidly, trade. The world’s four largest species of core nonnative Burmese python even when fed conservatively, so a snakes (Burmese python, Northern population in Florida is now located. strong escape-proof enclosure is African python, reticulated python, and Because all four snakes in this final necessary. All snakes are adept at green anaconda) were selected, as well rule share traits that foster intentional or escaping, and constrictors are especially as similar and closely related species unintentional release events, allowing powerful when it comes to breaking out and the boa constrictor. These large unregulated importation and interstate of cages. In captivity, they are most constrictor snakes constitute an elevated transport of these nonnative snakes will frequently fed pre-killed mice, rats, risk of injuriousness in relation to those increase the risk of these species rabbits, and chickens. A tub of fresh taxa with lower trade volumes; are becoming established through increased water is needed for the snake to drink massive, with maximum lengths opportunities for release. The release of from and soak in. As it outgrows its tub, exceeding 6 m (20 ft; except for boas up large constrictor snakes at different the snake will need to soak in to 4 m (13 ft)); and have a high times and locations improves, in turn, increasingly larger containers, such as a likelihood of establishment in various the chance of their successful bathtub. Under captive conditions, habitats of the United States. The establishment. pythons and anacondas will grow very DeSchauensee’s and Beni anacondas As a first step in understanding the fast. After 1 year, a python may be 2 m exhibit many of the same biological ecology of these snakes and their (7 ft) and after 5 years it could be 7.6 characteristics associated with a risk of potential impact on the Everglades m (25 ft), depending on how often it is establishment and negative effects in the ecosystem, the National Park Service fed and other aspects of husbandry. A United States. began tracking Burmese pythons using female reticulated python, for example, The strongest factor influencing the radio-telemetry in the fall of 2005. The can grow to more than 8.7 m (28.5 ft) chances of these large constrictors radio-tagged pythons have since long, weigh 140 kilograms (kg) (308 establishing in the wild are the number demonstrated that female pythons make pounds (1bs)) or more, live more than of release events and the numbers of few long-distance movements 25 years, and must be fed larger prey, individuals released (Bomford et al. throughout the year, while males roam such as rabbits. Although the reticulated 2009; 2005). A release event occurs widely in search of females during the python is longer, the anaconda is the when one or more individuals of a breeding season (December–April). heaviest snake, with a 4-m (13-ft) green nonnative species is either intentionally These results indicate an ability to move anaconda having bulk comparable to a or unintentionally let loose in the wild. long distances in search of prey and 7-m (23-ft) reticulated python. With a sufficient number of either mates. Pythons also have a ‘‘homing’’ Owning a giant snake is a difficult, intentional or unintentional release ability. After being released far from long-term, and somewhat expensive events, these species will likely become where they were captured, they responsibility. This is one reason that established in ecosystems with suitable returned long distances (up to 78 some snakes are released by their conditions for survival and kilometers (km); 48 miles (mi)) in only owners into the wild when they can no reproduction. In most cases, for a few months. These findings suggest longer care for them. Other snakes may nonnative species to cause economic or that pythons searching for a suitable escape from inadequate enclosures, ecological harm, they must first be home range have the potential to which is a common pathway for large transported out of their native range and colonize areas far from where they were constrictor snakes to enter the released within a novel locality, released (Snow 2008; Harvey et al. ecosystem (Fujisaki et al. 2009). The establish a self-sustaining population in 2008). A related study further supported

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

that Burmese pythons released in They are found from sea level up to and, combined with their streamlined Everglades National Park have more than 1,300 m (4,265 ft) and inhabit shape, makes them remarkably adept at navigational senses, which may lowland primary and secondary tropical climbing, passing through dense brush, contribute to the invasion dynamics of wet forests, tropical open dry forests, and even swimming. Burmese pythons and similar species tropical wet montane forests, rocky Reticulated pythons are primarily (Pittman et al. 2014). These scrublands, swamps, marshes, silent hunters that lie in wait along characteristics of Burmese pythons are plantations and cultivated areas, and pathways used by their prey and then likely shared by reticulated pythons and suburban and urban areas. Reticulated ambush them; the pythons kill by may also be shared by the anaconda pythons occur primarily in areas with a wrapping their muscular bodies around species analyzed in this rule. wet tropical climate. Although they also their victims, squeezing tighter as the A second factor that is strongly and occur in areas that are seasonally dry, prey exhales until the victims suffocate. consistently associated with a species reticulated pythons do not occur in The methods of predation used by the becoming invasive is a history of the areas that are continuously dry or very reticulated python (whether sit-and-wait species successfully establishing cold at any time (Reed and Rodda 2009). or actively hunting, or whether diurnal elsewhere outside its native range. We or nocturnal), as well as the other three have no documentation of reticulated Biology species of large constrictor snakes in pythons or the three anacondas being Three scientific names are mainly this final rule, work as well in their invasive elsewhere in the world. associated with the reticulated python: native ranges as in the United States. However, this lack of data could be the Python reticulatus, Broghammerus The reticulated python is an result of the lack or low volume of these reticulatus, and Malayopython opportunistic predator capable of species being imported into other reticulatus. Please see Reed and Rodda preying on a wide range of species, countries that have similar climatic (2009) for a discussion of the taxonomy including chickens, rats, monitor conditions as the species’ native range. and nomenclature of the latter two lizards, civet cats, bats, an immature A third factor strongly associated with names. Reynolds et al. (2014) considers cow, various primates, deer, wild boars, establishment success is having a good the genus as Malayopython, which may goats, cats, dogs, ducks, rabbits, tree climate or habitat match between where have merit. Therefore, we are including shrews, porcupines, frogs, fish, and the species naturally occurs and where this as another synonym, so that if the many species of wild birds (Reed and it is introduced. Exotic (nonnative) genus does change, it is clear to which Rodda 2009). Prey size is roughly reptiles and amphibians have a greater species we are referring. correlated with the python’s body size, chance of establishing if they are The reticulated python is most likely with young or small pythons eating introduced to an area with a climate that the world’s longest snake. Adults can small prey and larger pythons eating closely matches that of their original grow to a length of more than 8.7 m larger prey. range. Species that have a large range (28.5 ft) (Reed and Rodda 2009), with a Reticulated pythons frequently swim over several climatic zones are report of one in the Philippines at 10 m in waterways, where they hunt for predicted to be strong future invaders. (32.8 ft) (Headland and Greene 2011). aquatic prey. Waterways also facilitate The suitability of a country’s climate for The maximum reported weight is 150 kg the pythons’ dispersal to new areas. the establishment of a species can be (330 lb) (Reed and Rodda 2009). As with Smaller pythons can also climb trees to quantified on a broad scale by all snakes, pythons can grow throughout prey on arboreal animals, avoid measuring the climate match between their lives (Reed and Rodda 2009). predators, and thermoregulate. that country and the geographic range of Like all pythons, the reticulated A host of internal and external a species. Climate matching sets the python is oviparous (lays eggs). The parasites plague wild reticulated broad parameters for determining if an clutch sizes range from 8 to 124, with pythons (Auliya 2006). The pythons in area is suitable for a nonnative large typical clutches of 20 to 40 eggs. general are hosts to various protozoans, constrictor snake to establish. Recently, this species was documented nematodes, ticks, and lung arthropods These three factors have all been to reproduce by parthenogenesis (egg (Reed and Rodda 2009). Captive consistently demonstrated to increase develops without fertilization by a male) reticulated pythons can carry ticks of the chances of establishment by all when an 11-year-old female laid a agricultural significance (potential invasive vertebrate taxa, including the clutch of 61 eggs without a male present threat to domestic livestock) (Burridge four large constrictor snakes in this final for more than 2 years (Booth et al. 2014). et al. 2000, 2006; Clark and Doten 1995). rule (Bomford 2008, 2009). However, as The reticulated python’s life history is Several studies (Burridge et al. 2000, stated above, a species does not have to fairly representative of large constrictors Kenny et al. 2004, Reeves et al. 2006) be established, currently imported, or because juveniles are relatively small have shown disease agents in the ticks present in the wild in the United States when they hatch, but nevertheless are that travel internationally on reptiles, for the Service to determine that it is independent from birth, grow rapidly, which may serve in the introduction of injurious. The objective of such a listing and mature in a few years. Hatchlings disease agents that could impact the is to prevent that species’ importation, are at least 61 cm (2 ft) in total length health of local wildlife, domestic release into the wild, survival, and (Reed and Rodda 2009). We have no animals, and humans (Corn et al. 2011). likely establishment in the wild, thereby data on life expectancy in the wild, but The reticulated python can be an preventing injurious effects consistent several captive specimens have lived for aggressive and dangerous species. Reed with 18 U.S.C. 42. nearly 30 years (Reed and Rodda 2009). and Rodda (2009) cite numerous sources Reticulated pythons are extremely of people being bitten, attacked, and Species Information capable predators. Like all of the large even killed by reticulated pythons in Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus) constrictors, they are cryptically their native range. However, the only colored. In general, constrictor snakes occurrences of human fatalities in the Native Range have especially strong musculature, United States from reticulated pythons Although native range boundaries are which enables them to hold onto were caused by captive specimens. disputed, reticulated pythons struggling live prey almost as large as Outside of the United States, such as in conservatively range across much of themselves. The giant size of reticulated the Philippines, reticulated pythons Southeast Asia (Reed and Rodda 2009). pythons makes them especially strong, have been reported to kill and even

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12711

consume humans in remote hunter- 3 to 27 (mean 10.6 ± 9.6) in a sample green anaconda that was kept in gatherer cultures (Headland and Greene of five museum specimens (Pizzatto and captivity for 26 years with no access to 2011). In that study, 11 of 19 Filipinos Marques 2007), a range far greater than males gave birth to 23 females. This died from attacks by reticulated reported in some general works (for raises the possibility that green pythons; no attacks were by captive example, three to seven offspring; Walls anacondas are facultatively snakes. Of reticulated pythons that 1998). parthenogenetic, and that, theoretically, attacked people in the Philippines, the DeSchauensee’s anaconda is reported a single female green anaconda could longest was 10 m (32.8 ft) (Headland to consume mammals, fish, and birds, establish a population. and Greene 2011). and its overall diet is assumed to be The green anaconda is considered a similar to that of the yellow anaconda top predator in South American DeSchauensee’s Anaconda (Eunectes (Reed and Rodda 2009). DeSchauensee’s ecosystems. Small anacondas appear to deschauenseei) anacondas frequently swim in primarily consume birds, and as they Native Range waterways, where they hunt for aquatic grow larger, they shift to eating larger DeSchauensee’s anaconda is known prey. Anacondas appear to use rivers to mammals and reptiles. The regular from a small number of specimens and disperse (McCartney-Melstad 2012). inclusion of fish in the diet of all has a limited range in northeast South Smaller anacondas can also climb trees anacondas increases their dietary niche America. As currently understood, the to prey on arboreal animals, avoid breadth in relation to the other large ‘‘yellow anacondas’’ comprise two predators, and thermoregulate. constrictors, which rarely consume fish. Green anacondas consume a wide species with entirely disjunct Green Anaconda (Eunectes murinus) distributions (Reed and Rodda 2009). variety of endotherms (so-called warm- The northern form, DeSchauensee’s Native Range blooded animals) and ectotherms from anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei), is The native range of green anaconda higher taxa, including such large prey as known from a small number of includes aquatic habitats in much of deer and crocodilians (alligators are a specimens and has a limited range in South America below 850 m (2,789 ft) type of crocodilian). The regular northeast South America. The southern elevation plus the insular population on inclusion of fish, turtles, and other form, the yellow anaconda (Eunectes Trinidad, encompassing the Amazon aquatic organisms in their diet increases notaeus) has a larger distribution in and Orinoco Basins; major Guianan their range of prey even beyond that of subtropical and temperate areas of rivers; the San Francisco, Parana, and reticulated or Burmese pythons. South America, and has received more Paraguay Rivers in Brazil; and extending Vertebrate animals that regularly inhabit scientific attention. We published a south as far as the Tropic of Capricorn aquatic habitats are likely to be most final rule to list the yellow anaconda as in northeast Paraguay. The range of commonly consumed by green injurious on January 23, 2012 (77 FR green anaconda is largely defined by anacondas (Reed and Rodda 2009). 3330). availability of aquatic habitats. Green anacondas would have a ready The DeSchauensee’s anaconda is Depending on location within the wide food supply anywhere that the climate largely confined to the Brazilian island distribution of the species, these appear and habitat matched their native range. of Marajo´, nearby areas around the to include deep, shallow, turbid, and Since green anacondas are known to mouth of the Amazon River, and several clear waters, and both lacustrine and prey upon crocodilians, they could drainages in French Guiana. Although riverine habitats (Reed and Rodda potentially prey on alligators, which are not well studied, DeSchauensee’s 2009). common in the southeastern United anaconda apparently prefers swampy States. Biology habitats that may be seasonally flooded. Green anacondas frequently swim in DeSchauensee’s anaconda is known Reed and Rodda (2009) describe the waterways, where they hunt for aquatic from only a few localities in northeast green anaconda as truly a giant snake, prey. Anacondas appear to use rivers to South America, and its known climate having a very stout body and fairly disperse (McCartney-Melstad 2012). range is accordingly very small. While reliable records of lengths over 7 m (23 Smaller anacondas can also climb trees the occupied range exhibits moderate ft). The females typically outweigh the to prey on arboreal animals, avoid variation in precipitation across the males. Very large anacondas are almost predators, and thermoregulate. year, annual temperatures tend to range certainly the heaviest snakes in the Beni Anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) between 25 °C (77 °F) and 30 °C (86 °F). world, ranging up to 200 kg (441 lb) We do not know whether the species (Bisplinghof and Bellosa 2007), even Native Range could tolerate greater climatic variation. though reticulated pythons, for The Beni anaconda is a recently example, may attain greater lengths described and poorly known anaconda Biology (Reed and Rodda 2009). closely related to the green anaconda DeSchauensee’s anaconda appears to The green anaconda bears live young. (Reed and Rodda 2009). The native be the smallest of the anacondas, The maximum recorded litter size is 82, range of the Beni anaconda is the although the small number of available removed from a Brazilian specimen, but Itenez–Guapore River in Bolivia along specimens does not allow unequivocal the typical range is 28 to 42 young. the border with Brazil, as well as the determination of maximal body sizes. Neonates (newly born young) are Baures River drainage in Bolivia. The Dirksen and Henderson (2002) record a around 70 to 80 centimeters (cm) (27.5 green and Beni anacondas are similar in maximum total length of available to 31.5 inches (in)) long and receive no size, and the range of the Beni anaconda specimens as 1.92 m (6.3 (ft)) in males parental care. As with all the large is within the range of the green and 3.0 m (9.8 (ft)) in females. constrictor snakes, hatchlings can fall anaconda (Bolivia). In captivity, a DeSchauensee’s prey to other animals. If they survive, anaconda was reported to live for 17 they grow rapidly until they reach Biology years, 11 months (Snider and Bowler sexual maturity in their first few years Eunectes beniensis is a recently 1992). The DeSchauensee’s anaconda is (Reed and Rodda 2009). While described species from northern Bolivia, live-bearing. Clutch sizes of reproduction is typically sexual, Reed previously considered to be contained DeSchauensee’s anacondas ranged from and Rodda (2009) report that a female within E. murinus. Eunectes beniensis

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12712 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

was discovered in the Beni Province of TABLE 1—FOUR SPECIES OF LARGE • Any potential ecological benefits to Bolivia—thus the common name of Beni CONSTRICTOR SNAKES AND WHETH- introduction. anaconda and another alias of Bolivian ER THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN To obtain some of the information for anaconda. To an experienced THE WILD IN THE UNITED STATES, the above criteria, we referred to Reed herpetologist, E. beniensis is easily ARE KNOWN TO BE REPRODUCING and Rodda (2009). Reed and Rodda recognizable by its brown to olive- IN THE WILD IN THE UNITED STATES, (2009) developed the Organism Risk brownish ground color in combination OR HAVE BEEN IMPORTED FOR Potential scores for each species using a with five head stripes and fewer than widely utilized risk assessment TRADE (2004 TO 2013)—Continued 100 large, dark, solid dorsal blotches procedure that was published by the that always lack lighter centers. To a Re- Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force novice, E. beniensis and E. murinus are Re- pro- Im- (ANSTF), called ‘‘Generic similar in appearance. E. beniensis is ported ported Species in the ducing into U.S. nonindigenous aquatic organisms risk primarily aquatic and eats a wide wild in in the for analysis review process (for estimating variety of prey, including fish, birds, wild in U.S.? U.S.? trade? * risk associated with the introduction of mammals, and other reptiles. nonindigenous aquatic organisms and Beni anacondas frequently swim in DeSchauensee’s No ..... No ..... No.** how to manage that risk)’’ (ANSTF waterways, where they hunt for aquatic anaconda. 1996). The ANSTF was created under prey. Anacondas appear to use rivers to Green anaconda Yes ... No ..... Yes. the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance disperse (McCartney-Melstad 2012). Beni anaconda ... No ..... No ..... No.** Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 Smaller anacondas can also climb trees * Data from Law Enforcement Management U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) to provide a way for to prey on arboreal animals, avoid Information System (LEMIS; USFWS 2014) government agencies to develop a predators, and thermoregulate. ** It is possible that this species has been national program to reduce the risk of imported into the United States incorrectly unintentional introductions, ensure Presence of the Four Constrictor Snakes identified as one of the other species listed by this rule or the January 23, 2012, final rule (77 prompt detection and response, and in the United States FR 3330); however, none has been reported. control established species. Of the four constrictor snake species Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria The ANSTF (1996) procedure that we are listing as injurious in this incorporates four factors associated with final rule, two have been reported in the We use the criteria below to evaluate probability of establishment and three wild in the United States, but none have whether a species does or does not factors associated with consequences of been confirmed as reproducing in the qualify as injurious under the Lacey establishment, with the combination of wild in the United States (see Current Act, 18 U.S.C. 42. The analysis that is these factors resulting in an overall Nonnative Occurrences, below); two of developed using these criteria serves as Organism Risk Potential (ORP) for each the four have been imported a general basis for the Service’s decision species. For the four constrictor snakes commercially into the United States regarding injuriousness (not just for the in this final rule, the overall potential during the period 2004 to 2013 (Final four snake species we are listing in this risk of establishment was medium. final rule). Biologists within the Service Economic Analysis 2015). Species Certainties were highly variable ‘‘reported in the wild’’ are ones that who are knowledgeable about a species being evaluated assess both the factors within each of the seven elements or have been found in the wild but without factors of the risk assessment mentioned proof to date that they have reproduced that contribute to and the factors that reduce the likelihood of injuriousness. above, varying from very uncertain to in the wild. The greatest opportunity for very certain. In general, the highest preventing a species from becoming (1) Factors that contribute to being considered injurious: certainties are associated with species injurious is to stop a species from • unequivocally established in new ranges entering the wild; the second greatest The likelihood of release or escape; • Potential to survive, become because of enhanced ecological opportunity is before a species becomes information on these species from established in the wild (reported but not established, and spread; • Impacts on wildlife resources or studies in both their native range and in reproducing); and the smallest ecosystems through hybridization and Florida. The way in which these opportunity is when a species has competition for food and habitats, subscores are obtained and combined is become established (reproducing in the habitat degradation and destruction, set forth in an algorithm created by the wild). predation, and pathogen transfer; ANSTF (Table 2). • Impact to endangered and TABLE 1—FOUR SPECIES OF LARGE threatened species and their habitats; TABLE 2—THE ALGORITHM THAT THE CONSTRICTOR SNAKES AND WHETH- • Impacts to human beings, forestry, ANSTF (1996) DEFINED FOR COM- ER THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN horticulture, and agriculture; and BINING THE TWO PRIMARY SUB- THE WILD IN THE UNITED STATES, • Wildlife or habitat damages that SCORES (REED AND RODDA 2009) ARE KNOWN TO BE REPRODUCING may occur from control measures. IN THE WILD IN THE UNITED STATES, (2) Factors that reduce the likelihood Probability of Consequences Organism of the species being considered as establish- of establish- Risk Poten- OR HAVE BEEN IMPORTED FOR ment ment tial (ORP) TRADE (2004 TO 2013) injurious: • Ability to prevent escape and High ...... High ...... High. Re- establishment; Medium ...... High ...... High. Re- Im- • Potential to eradicate or manage Low ...... High ...... Medium. ported pro- ported Species in the ducing into U.S. established populations (for example, High ...... Medium ...... High. wild in in the for making organisms sterile); Medium ...... Medium ...... Medium. wild in • Low ...... Medium ...... Medium. U.S.? U.S.? trade? * Ability to rehabilitate disturbed ecosystems; High ...... Low ...... Medium. • Medium ...... Low ...... Medium. Reticulated Yes ... No ..... Yes. Ability to prevent or control the Low ...... Low ...... Low. python. spread of pathogens or parasites; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12713

Similar algorithms are used for Puerto Rico but could occur in many endangered and threatened species deriving the primary subscores from the States. The States listed were merely the where present. Their natural diet secondary subscores. However, the ones for which we have reports. Other includes mammals, birds, reptiles, and scores are fundamentally qualitative, in occurrences may not have been reported fish. An adverse effect of reticulated the sense that there is no unequivocal or the species not identified. See python on endangered and threatened threshold that is given in advance to Introduction Pathways for Large species is likely to be moderate to high. determine when a given risk passes Constrictor Snakes, above, for the Native fauna have no experience from being low to medium, and so forth. explanation of how release events are defending against such a novel, giant Therefore, we viewed the process as one relevant to the potential establishment predator as the reticulated python. As of providing relative ranks for each of reticulated pythons. discussed above under Biology, the reticulated python can grow to a length species. Thus, a high ORP score Potential Introduction and Spread indicates that such a species would greater than 8.7 m (28.5 ft) and the likely entail greater consequences or The likelihood that a reticulated maximum reported weight is 150 kg greater probability of establishment than python will be released or will escape (330 lb). This is longer than any native would a species whose ORP was from captivity is high as evidenced by terrestrial predator (including bears) in medium or low (that is, high > medium a number of reports as discussed above the United States and its territories, and > low). Medium-risk species include the in Current Nonnative Occurrences and heavier than most native predators four species being designated as because they possess the physical traits (including black bears and many injurious by this rulemaking: that contribute to release or enable alligators). In comparison with the Reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s escape. Relatively few private pet reticulated python, the longest snake anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni owners can maintain such a large native to the United States is much anaconda. Medium-risk species, if species properly throughout its lifetime, smaller. The longest native snake is the established in this country, would put leading to intentional release or escape. indigo snake (Drymarchon corais), portions of the U.S. mainland, Hawaii, Once out of captivity, reticulated attaining a maximum length of about 2.5 and insular territories at risk and pythons are highly likely to survive in m (8 ft) (Monroe and Monroe 1968). A constitute a great potential ecological natural ecosystems (primarily extreme subspecies of the indigo snake is the threat. As stated above, we use this southern habitats) of the United States. eastern indigo snake (D. corais couperi), information in our evaluation to Reticulated pythons have a somewhat which grows to the same length as D. tropical native distribution, so the area determine if a species meets the criteria corais. The eastern indigo snake of the mainland United States showing of being injurious, but it is not the only inhabits Georgia and Florida, and is a climate match is exclusively information we use. The following listed as federally threatened by the subtropical, and limited to southern sections on ‘‘Factors That Contribute to Service. The native, endangered Puerto Florida and extreme southern Texas. Injuriousness * * *’’ and ‘‘Factors That Rican boa’s (Epicrates inornatus) Low- and mid-elevation sites in the Reduce or Remove Injuriousness * * *’’ maximum size is approximately 2 m United States’ tropical territories (Guam, explain how we arrived at our (6.5 ft) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Mariana Islands, American determinations of injuriousness for each 1986). Samoa, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico) and Unlike prey species in the reticulated species. Hawaii also appear to be climate- python’s native range, none of our Factors That Contribute to matched to the requirements of native species has evolved defenses to Injuriousness for Reticulated Python reticulated pythons. If they escape or are avoid predation by such a large snake. intentionally released, they are likely to Thus, native wildlife in the United Current Nonnative Occurrences survive and become established within States where reticulated pythons exist In Florida, reticulated pythons have their respective thermal and would be very likely to fall prey to the been observed or removed from precipitation limits. Reticulated pythons pythons (or any of the other three Bradenton, Clearwater, Miami, were recently documented to be able to constrictor snakes we are listing in this Sebastian, and Vero Beach. For reproduce parthenogenetically, meaning rule). At all life stages, reticulated example, a 5.5-m (18-ft) reticulated that females do not need males to lay pythons can and will compete for food python was struck by a person mowing viable eggs (Booth et al. 2014). Thus, with native species; in other words, grass along a canal in Vero Beach in even just one female python could baby pythons will eat small prey, and 2007, and a reticulated python was potentially create a population. the size of their prey will increase as the removed along Roseland Road in Reticulated pythons are highly likely to pythons grow. Once reticulated pythons Sebastian (B. Dangerfield, pers. comm. spread and become established in the are introduced and established, they 2010). In the Commonwealth of Puerto wild due to common traits shared by all may outcompete native predators (such Rico, reticulated pythons have been the large constrictors we are listing as as the federally protected Florida collected in the western region of the injurious in this rule, including: Rapid panther, eastern indigo snake, native island (Aguadilla and Mayaguez), and growth to a large size with production boas, and hawks), feeding on the same the southern region of the island of many offspring; ability to survive prey and thereby reducing the supply of (Guayama), including a 5.5-m (18-ft) under a range of habitat types and prey for the native predators. long specimen (J. Saliva, pers. comm. conditions (habitat generalist); ability to Reticulated pythons are generalist 2009). adapt to live in urban and suburban predators that consume a wide variety Media accounts from 1980 to 2014 areas; ability to disperse long distances; of mammal and bird species, as well as report that reticulated pythons have and ability to conceal themselves and reptiles, amphibians, and occasionally escaped captivity or were spotted in the ambush a wide variety of prey. fish. This constrictor can easily adapt to wild in the following States: California, prey on novel wildlife (species that they Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New Potential Impacts to Native Species are not familiar with), and they need no Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, (Including Endangered and Threatened special adaptations to hunt, capture, and West Virginia (HSUS 2014). This Species) and consume them. illustrates that the potential for release Reticulated pythons are highly likely The United States, particularly the or escape is not confined to Florida and to prey on U.S. native species, including Southeast, has a diverse faunal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

community that is potentially that are federally endangered or recreational, and economic values vulnerable to predation by the threatened that would be at risk of currently provided by native wildlife reticulated python. Juveniles of these predation or competition for prey. Guam and healthy ecosystems. Educational large constrictors will climb trees and has seven bird species and two values would also be diminished rocks to remove prey from bird nests mammals that are federally endangered through the loss of biodiversity and and capture perching or sleeping birds. or threatened that would be at risk of ecosystem health. The southernmost part of the United predation. States has suitable climate and habitat According to the climate suitability Factors That Reduce or Remove for reticulated pythons. The greatest maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), Injuriousness for Reticulated Python biological impact of an introduced endangered and threatened species from Control parts of Florida, southern Texas, predator, such as the reticulated python, Eradication, management, or control Hawaii, and Puerto Rico would be at is the additional stress placed on of the spread of reticulated python will risk from the establishment of imperiled native species, which may be highly unlikely once the species is preclude their recovery. Based on the reticulated pythons. In addition, Guam, established. No effective tools are food habits and habitat preferences of the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other currently available to detect and remove the reticulated python in its native territories would have suitable habitat large, nonnative constrictor populations. range, the species is likely to invade the and climate to support reticulated Traps with drift fences or barriers are habitat, prey on, and further threaten pythons, and these also have federally the best option, but their use on a large many of the federally endangered or endangered and threatened species that scale is prohibitively expensive. threatened fauna in climate-suitable would be at risk if reticulated pythons Additionally, some areas cannot be areas of the United States (Reed and became established. effectively trapped due to the expanse of Rodda 2009). Potential Impacts to Humans Reticulated pythons are also likely to the area and type of terrain, the decrease the populations of numerous Like all pythons, reticulated pythons distribution of the target species, and potential candidate animals for Federal are nonvenomous. The reticulated the effects on any nontarget species (that protection by hunting and eating them. python can be an aggressive and is, trapping native wildlife). While the Candidate species are plants and dangerous species of giant constrictor to Department of the Interior, USDA animals for which the Service has humans. Reed and Rodda (2009) cite Animal and Plant Health Inspection sufficient information on their numerous sources of people being Service (APHIS), and State of Florida biological status and threats to propose bitten, attacked, and killed by entities have conducted some research them as endangered or threatened under reticulated pythons in their native on control tools, no currently available the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as range. Headland and Greene (2011) tools are adequate for eradication of an amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), but determined that 26 percent of a segment established population of large, for which development of a proposed of hunter-gatherer Filipinos had been nonnative constrictor snakes, such as listing regulation is precluded by other attacked by reticulated pythons, some the reticulated python, once they have higher priority listing activities. fatally. The only human deaths in the spread over a large area. The final environmental assessment United States from reticulated pythons Efforts to eradicate large, nonnative for the four species in this final rule that we are aware of were from captive constrictor snakes in Florida have (Final Environmental Assessment 2015) snakes (in Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, intensified to keep the expansion to a includes lists of species that are Louisiana, Nevada, Texas, and Virginia; minimum as species are reported in new federally or State endangered or HSUS 2014). An established population locations across the State. Natural threatened in some climate-suitable of reticulated pythons would be resource management agencies are States and territories: Florida, Hawaii, expected to create the greatest public expending scarce resources to devise Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin safety risk of all large constrictor snakes methods to capture or otherwise control Islands. Other States have federally or evaluated. any large, nonnative constrictor snake State endangered or threatened species Captive reticulated pythons can carry species. These agencies recognize that that would be suitable prey for large, ticks of agricultural significance control of large constrictor snakes (as nonnative constrictor snakes, including (potential threat to domestic livestock) major predators) on lands that they the reticulated python. These lists in Florida (Burridge et al. 2000, 2006; manage is necessary to prevent the include only the species of the sizes and Clark and Doten 1995), and likely to likely adverse impacts to the ecosystems types that would be expected to be livestock outside of Florida. African tick occupied by the invasive snakes. directly affected by predation by species that use pythons as hosts may be The final economic analysis was reticulated pythons and the other large, vectors of heartwater, and these ticks prepared for the four constrictor snakes nonnative constrictors. For example, have been observed to transfer to other that are the subjects of this final rule plants and marine species are excluded. hosts, including other giant constrictors, (USFWS 2015) and provides the In Florida, 13 bird species, 15 mammals, other reptiles, and dogs. Because following information about the and 2 reptiles that are federally multiple python species are typically expenditures for research and endangered or threatened could be held captive in close proximately to eradication in Florida, primarily for preyed upon by reticulated pythons or each other in the commercial trade, Burmese pythons, which provides some be outcompeted by them for prey. such proximity provides tick transfer indication of the efforts to date. Control Hawaii has 34 bird species and 1 opportunities to occur prior to retail methods used for Burmese pythons may mammal that are federally endangered sales (Reed and Rodda 2009). also be applied to other large constrictor or threatened that would be at risk of The introduction or establishment of snakes. The Service spent more than predation. Puerto Rico has 9 bird reticulated pythons would likely have $600,000 over a 3-year period (2007– species and 10 reptile species that are negative impacts on humans primarily 2009) on python trap design, federally endangered or threatened that from the loss of native wildlife deployment, and education in the would be at risk of predation or biodiversity and as carriers of livestock Florida Keys to prevent the potential competition for prey. The Virgin Islands diseases, as discussed above. These extinction of the endangered Key Largo has one bird species and three reptiles losses would affect the aesthetic, woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli) at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12715

Crocodile Lake National Wildlife therefore, nearly impossible to see in the endangered and threatened species); are Refuge. More recently, the Service and wild. Most of the protective measures likely to be disease vectors for livestock USGS have spent up to $20,000 over the available to prevent the escape of or native wildlife; cannot be easily 2012–2013 period on planning efforts to reticulated pythons are currently (and eradicated, prevented from establishing, address constrictor snake infestations expected to remain) cost-prohibitive and or reduced from large populations or and expect to spend between $25,000 labor-intensive. Even with protective new locations; and are likely to disturb and $50,000 from 2014 to 2018 (U.S. measures in place, the risks of ecosystems beyond the point of Fish and Wildlife Service, Rebekah accidental escape are not likely to be recoverability, the Service finds the Gibble, personal communication 2014). eliminated. Since effective measures to reticulated python to be injurious to The South Florida Water Management prevent the establishment or eradicate, humans, agricultural interests, and District spent $334,000 between 2005 manage, or control the spread of wildlife and wildlife resources of the and 2009, and anticipates spending an established populations of the United States. additional $156,600 on research, reticulated python are not currently salaries, and vehicles in the next several available, the ability to rehabilitate or Factors That Contribute to years. An additional $300,000 will go recover ecosystems disturbed by the Injuriousness for DeSchauensee’s for the assistance of USDA Wildlife species is low. Anaconda Services (part of USDA Animal and Potential Ecological Benefits for Current Nonnative Occurrences Plant Health Inspection Service). The Introduction We do not know of any occurrences USDA Wildlife Research Center of the DeSchauensee’s anaconda in the (Gainesville (FL) Field Station) spent While the introduction of reticulated $15,800 in 2008–2009 on salaries, pythons could potentially provide a United States. travel, and supplies. The USGS, in food source for some native carnivores, Potential Introduction and Spread species native to the United States are conjunction with the University of DeSchauensee’s anacondas share Florida, has spent over $1.5 million on unlikely to possess the hunting ability similar traits with the other three research, radio telemetry, and the for such large, camouflaged snakes and species of constrictor snakes, although development, testing, and would not likely turn to reticulated they are smaller. A smaller-sized implementation of constrictor snake pythons as a food source. However, constrictor may be more desirable to traps. Miami-Dade County Parks and juvenile snakes could fall prey to native some potential pet owners who want a Recreation Department, Natural Areas wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, constrictor snake but do not want to Management and Department of coyotes, and birds of prey. In addition, handle the larger species, and thus Environmental Resources Management a large constrictor snake could prey on DeSchauensee’s anacondas may have spent $60,875 annually on other nonnative species such as green eventually be imported into the United constrictor snake issues. The National iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The Park Service has spent an average of risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh States as an alternative species. Because $380,000 annually from 2004 to 2014, these unlikely benefits. There are no DeSchauensee’s anacondas possess the on various programs related to other potential ecological benefits from same traits as other large constrictor constrictor snake issues in the the introduction into the United States snakes, such as powerful musculature, Everglades National Park (National Park or establishment in the United States of streamlined body, and fast growth rate, Service, Carol Mitchell, personal reticulated pythons. this species is likely to escape or be released into the wild if imported into communication 2014). All these Conclusion expenditures total $6.5 million from the United States. DeSchauensee’s 2004 to 2014 (estimated for 2014), or The reticulated python can grow to a anacondas are highly likely to spread roughly an average of $586,000 per year. length of more than 8.7 m (28.5 ft); this and become established in the wild due Despite this investment, all of these is longer than any native, terrestrial to common traits shared by many large efforts have failed to provide a method animal in the United States and at least constrictors, including: Rapid growth to for eradicating large, nonnative as long as any snake species in the a large size with production of many constrictor snakes in Florida. world. Native fauna have no experience offspring; ability to survive under a Kraus (2009) exhaustively reviewed defending against this type of novel, range of habitat types and conditions the literature on invasive herpetofauna. giant predator. Several captive (habitat generalist); ability to disperse While he found a few examples of local reticulated pythons have lived for long distances; and ability to conceal populations of amphibians that had nearly 30 years. The reticulated python themselves and ambush prey. been successfully eradicated, he found can be an aggressive and dangerous Reed and Rodda’s (2009) map no such examples for reptiles. He also species to humans. An established identified no areas of the continental states that, ‘‘Should an invasive population of reticulated pythons would United States or Hawaii that appear to [nonnative] species be allowed to spread be expected to create the greatest public have precipitation and temperature widely, it is usually impossible—or at safety risk from all large constrictor profiles similar to those observed in the best very expensive—to eradicate it.’’ snakes evaluated. Reticulated pythons species’ native range, although the The reticulated python is unlikely to be can carry ticks of agricultural southern margin of Puerto Rico and its one of those species that could be significance (potential threat to out-islands (for example, Vieques and eradicated. Witmer and Fuller (2011) domestic livestock). Culebra) appear suitable. However, we also found no reports of eradications of Because reticulated pythons are likely do not know whether the species’ native introduced reptiles in the United States. to escape from captivity or be released distribution is limited by factors other Eradication will almost certainly be into the wild if imported; are likely to than climate. Reed and Rodda (2009) unachievable for a species that is hard survive, become established, and spread extended the climate match globally, to detect and remove at low densities, if they escape captivity or are released meaning they used the climate data which is the case with all of the four into areas of the United States that have from the native range and found that large constrictor snakes that are the suitable climate and habitat; are likely they matched other parts of the Amazon subjects of this final rule. They are well- to prey on and compete with native Basin and tropical areas of the world. camouflaged and stealthy, and, species for food and habitat (including This leads to the conclusion that climate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12716 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

is not the limiting factor but instead species that would be at risk if Conclusion could be biogeography, competition, or DeSchauensee’s anacondas became DeSchauensee’s anacondas are likely other factors. If the small, native range established. Guam has seven bird to establish and spread to suitable is attributable to ecological (for species and two mammal species that permanent surface-water areas because example, competition with green are endangered or threatened that could of their large size, high reproductive anacondas), or anthropogenic (for be at risk of predation. The Virgin potential, early maturation, rapid example, habitat loss) factors, then Reed Islands has one bird species and three growth, longevity, and generalist and Rodda’s (2009) qualitative estimate reptile species that are endangered or surprise-attack predation. of the climatically suitable areas of the threatened that could be at risk of DeSchauensee’s anacondas are highly United States would represent an predation. likely to survive in natural ecosystems underprediction. Potential Impacts to Humans of a small but vulnerable region of the Potential Impacts to Native Species United States, including the southern (Including Endangered and Threatened The introduction or establishment of margin of Puerto Rico and its out- Species) DeSchauensee’s anacondas would likely islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and have negative impacts on humans other U.S. islands. The DeSchauensee’s anaconda would primarily from the loss of native Because DeSchauensee’s anacondas likely have a similar impact as the are likely to escape captivity or be yellow anaconda, which we listed as wildlife biodiversity, as discussed above released into the wild if imported into injurious in 2012. DeSchauensee’s in the discussion for the reticulated the United States; are likely to survive, anacondas eat mammals, fish, and birds python. These losses would affect the become established, and spread if they in their native range and will prey on aesthetic, recreational, and economic escape captivity or are released; are native species, including select values currently provided by native likely to prey on and compete with endangered and threatened species if wildlife and healthy ecosystems. native species for food and habitat they become established in the United Educational values would also be (including endangered and threatened States. Anacondas employ both diminished through the loss of species); cannot be easily eradicated, ‘‘ambush predation’’ and ‘‘wide- biodiversity and ecosystem health. prevented from establishing, or reduced foraging’’ strategies (Reed and Rodda Agricultural interests may be negatively from large populations or new locations; 2009). Endangered and threatened affected by imported anacondas carrying wildlife occupying the DeSchauensee’s ticks that transfer harmful pathogens to and are likely to disturb ecosystems anaconda’s preferred habitats would be livestock. beyond the point of recoverability, the Service finds the DeSchauensee’s at risk. Factors That Reduce or Remove The DeSchauensee’s anaconda is anaconda to be injurious to humans and Injuriousness for DeSchauensee’s to the wildlife and wildlife resources of larger (reported to 3 m (9.8 ft)) than the Anaconda largest snake native to the continental the United States. United States. See Potential Impacts to Control Factors That Contribute to Native Species (Including Endangered Injuriousness for Green Anaconda and Threatened Species) for the Prevention, eradication, management, reticulated python for comparison to or control of the spread of Current Nonnative Occurrences native predators. DeSchauensee’s anacondas will be An individual green anaconda Please also see Potential Impacts to highly unlikely. Please see the (approximately 2.5 m (8.2 ft) total Native Species (Including Endangered ‘‘Control’’ section for the reticulated length) was found dead on U.S. 41 in and Threatened Species) under Factors python for reasons why DeSchauensee’s the vicinity of Fakahatchee Strand that Contribute to Injuriousness for anacondas would be difficult to control, Preserve State Park in Florida in Reticulated Python for a description of all of which apply to this large December 2004 (Reed and Rodda 2009). the impacts that DeSchauensee’s constrictor. Two medium-sized adults and a anacondas would have on native Potential Ecological Benefits for juvenile green anaconda were observed species. These impacts are applicable to Introduction but not collected in this general area. A DeSchauensee’s anacondas by 3.65-m (12-ft) green anaconda was comparing their prey type with the While the introduction of removed from East Lake Fish Camp in suitable climate areas and the listed DeSchauensee’s anacondas could northern Osceola County, Florida, on species found in those areas. potentially provide a food source for January 13, 2010. This was the first live According to the climate suitability some native carnivores, species native green anaconda to be caught in the wild maps (Reed and Rodda 2009; Final to the United States are unlikely to in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Environmental Assessment 2015), possess the hunting ability for such Conservation Commission 2010). endangered and threatened species from large, camouflaged snakes and would part of Puerto Rico would be at risk not likely turn to DeSchauensee’s Potential Introduction and Spread from the establishment of anacondas as a food source. However, Green anacondas have escaped DeSchauensee’s anacondas. In addition, juvenile snakes could fall prey to native captivity or been released into the wild the global climate match produced by wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, in Florida. They are likely to escape or Reed and Rodda (2009) showed a coyotes, and birds of prey. In addition, be released because they can grow in broader tropical range than that of the a large constrictor snake could prey on captivity to enormous sizes (which native range, and that other tropical other nonnative species such as green makes them exceedingly powerful) and areas of the world appear to be iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The they must be fed a diet that could be climatically similar. Because Guam, the risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh prohibitively expensive. Green U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. this unlikely benefit. There are no other anacondas are likely to survive in the territories are tropical, the climate may potential ecological benefits from the appropriate natural ecosystems of the be suitable. Puerto Rico has 9 bird introduction into the United States or United States. Much of peninsular species and 10 reptile species that are establishment in the United States of Florida (roughly south of Gainesville) federally endangered or threatened DeSchauensee’s anacondas. and extreme south Texas exhibit

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12717

climatic conditions similar to those federally endangered or threatened that iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The experienced by green anacondas in their could be preyed upon by green risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh large South American native range, but anacondas or be outcompeted by them these unlikely benefits. There are no the rest of the continent appears to be for prey. Hawaii has 34 bird species and other potential ecological benefits from too cool or arid. Lower elevations in 1 mammal that are endangered or the introduction into the United States Hawaii and all of Puerto Rico have threatened that would be at risk of or establishment in the United States of apparently suitable climates. Within the predation. Puerto Rico has 9 bird green anacondas. climate-matched area, anacondas are species and 10 reptiles that are federally Conclusion likely to establish in sites containing endangered or threatened that would be surface water. The primarily nocturnal at risk if green anacondas became The green anaconda is the world’s anaconda species tends to spend most of established. Because Guam, the U.S. heaviest snake. Large adults are heavier its life in or around water. Green Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories than almost all native, terrestrial anacondas are highly likely to spread are tropical, the climate there also may predators in the United States, even and become established in the wild due be suitable. Guam has seven bird many bears, and longer than all native to their propensity for rapid growth to species and two mammal species that wildlife. Native fauna have no a large size and high reproductive rate; are endangered or threatened that would experience defending themselves are capable of surviving under a range be at risk of predation. The Virgin against this type of novel, giant of habitat types and conditions (habitat Islands has one bird species and three predator. The range of the green generalist); have behaviors that allow reptile species that are endangered or anaconda is largely defined by the them to escape freezing temperatures; threatened that would be at risk of availability of aquatic habitats. These can live in urban and suburban areas; predation. include deep and shallow, turbid and can disperse long distances; and are clear, and lacustrine and riverine well-concealed ambush predators. There Potential Impacts to Humans systems. Most of these habitats are is evidence that green anacondas are The introduction or establishment of found in Florida, including the facultatively parthenogenetic and could green anacondas would likely have Everglades, which is suitable climate for therefore reproduce even if a single negative impacts on humans primarily the species, as well at Texas, Hawaii, female is released or escapes. from the loss of native wildlife and Puerto Rico. Green anacondas are Potential Impacts to Native Species biodiversity, as discussed above in the top predators in South America, (Including Endangered and Threatened discussion for the reticulated python. consuming birds, mammals, fish, and Species) These losses would affect the aesthetic, reptiles; prey size includes deer and recreational, and economic values crocodilians. This diet is even broader Green anacondas will prey on native currently provided by native wildlife than the diet of Burmese and reticulated species, including endangered and and healthy ecosystems. Educational pythons. Evidence exists that female threatened species, if they become values would also be diminished green anacondas may be facultatively established in the United States. They through the loss of biodiversity and parthenogenetic and could therefore are primarily aquatic and eat a wide ecosystem health. Agricultural interests reproduce even if a single female is variety of prey, including fish, birds, may be negatively affected by imported released or escapes into the wild. mammals, and other reptiles. The size of anacondas carrying ticks that transfer Because green anacondas are likely to the prey also varies, depending on the harmful pathogens to livestock. escape or be released into the wild if age of the snake, with baby anacondas imported into the United States (note able to eat small prey, and large Factors That Reduce or Remove that the green anaconda has already anacondas able to eat larger prey, such Injuriousness for Green Anaconda been found in the wild in Florida); are as tapirs, peccaries, deer, sheep, and Control likely to survive, become established, caimans (Reed and Rodda 2009). The green anaconda is generally Prevention, eradication, management, and spread if they escape captivity or considered the heaviest snake in the or control of the spread of green are released; are likely to prey on and world (reported to 200 kg (441 lb)), with anacondas once established in the compete with native species for food lengths over 7 m (23 ft) (Reed and United States will be highly unlikely. and habitat (including endangered and Rodda 2009), much larger than the Please see the ‘‘Control’’ section for the threatened species); cannot be easily largest snake native to the continental reticulated python for reasons why eradicated, prevented from establishing, United States. See Potential Impacts to green anacondas will be difficult to or reduced from large populations or Native Species (Including Endangered control, all of which apply to this large new locations; and are likely to disturb and Threatened Species) for the constrictor. ecosystems beyond the point of reticulated python for comparison to recoverability, the Service finds the Potential Ecological Benefits for native predators and anticipated effects green anaconda to be injurious to Introduction on native wildlife from green humans and to wildlife and wildlife anacondas. Moreover, the green While the introduction of green resources of the United States. anaconda is a novel predator against anacondas could potentially provide a Factors That Contribute to which native species would not have food source for some native carnivores, Injuriousness for Beni Anaconda evolved defenses. species native to the United States are According to the climate suitability unlikely to possess the hunting ability Current Nonnative Occurrences maps (Reed and Rodda 2009; Final for such large, camouflaged snakes and We do not know of any occurrences Environmental Assessment 2015), would not likely turn to green of the Beni anaconda in the United endangered and threatened species from anacondas as a food source. However, States. parts of Florida, Hawaii, and most of juvenile snakes could fall prey to native Puerto Rico would be at risk from the wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, Potential Introduction and Spread establishment of green anacondas. coyotes, and birds of prey. In addition, Beni anacondas are closely related to Florida has 13 bird species, 15 a large green anaconda could prey on green anacondas. Because Beni mammals, and 2 reptiles that are other nonnative species, such as green anacondas share similar traits with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12718 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

other constrictor snakes, individuals are established in the United States. They Factors That Reduce or Remove likely to escape because of their large are primarily aquatic and eat a wide Injuriousness for Beni Anaconda size, powerful musculature, and variety of prey, including fish, birds, Control streamlined shape. Pet anacondas are mammals, and other reptiles. The size of also likely to be released into the wild, the prey also varies, depending on the Prevention, eradication, management, in part because of their growth to a large age of the snake, with baby anacondas or control of the spread of Beni size (which pet owners may not able to able to eat small prey, and large anacondas once established in the deal with) and because of the difficulty anacondas able to eat very large prey. United States will be highly unlikely. in finding suitable food. Because Beni Anacondas employ both ‘‘ambush Please see the ‘‘Control’’ section for the anacondas are difficult for a novice to predation’’ and ‘‘wide-foraging’’ reticulated python for reasons why Beni distinguish from green anacondas, Beni strategies (Reed and Rodda 2009). anacondas would be difficult to control, anacondas may appear in the pet trade Endangered and threatened wildlife all of which apply to this large in place of green anacondas. Beni occupying the Beni anaconda’s constrictor. anacondas are highly likely to survive in preferred habitats would be at risk. the appropriate natural ecosystems of The Beni anaconda is similar in size Potential Ecological Benefits for the United States. to the green anaconda, which is Introduction The Beni anaconda is known from generally considered the heaviest snake While the introduction of Beni few specimens in a small part of Bolivia, in the world (Reed and Rodda 2009), anacondas could potentially provide a and Reed and Rodda (2009) judged the much larger than the largest snake food source for some native carnivores, number of available localities to be native to the continental United States. species native to the United States are insufficient for an attempt to delineate See Potential Impacts to Native Species unlikely to possess the hunting ability its climate space or extrapolate this (Including Endangered and Threatened for such large, camouflaged snakes and space to the United States. Beni Species) for the reticulated python for would not likely turn to Beni anacondas anacondas are known from sites with comparison to native predators and as a food source. However, juvenile low seasonality (mean monthly anticipated effects on native wildlife snakes could fall prey to native wildlife temperatures in a narrow range of from Beni anacondas. Moreover, the such as alligators, raccoons, coyotes, approximately 22.5 to 27.5 °C (72 to 77 Beni anaconda is a novel predator ° and birds of prey. In addition, Beni F), and mean monthly precipitation against which native species would not anacondas could prey on other about 5 to 30 cm (2 to 12 in). Whether have evolved defenses. nonnative species such as green Florida has 13 bird species, 15 the species’ native distribution is iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The mammals, and 2 reptiles that are limited by factors other than climate is risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh federally endangered or threatened that unknown as well as whether the small these unlikely benefits. There are no could be preyed upon by Beni native range is attributable to ecological other potential ecological benefits from (for example, competition with green anacondas or be outcompeted by them the introduction into the United States anacondas), or anthropogenic (for for prey; many of those protected or establishment in the United States of example, habitat loss) factors. If the species live in the warmest part of the Beni anacondas. native distribution is not limited by State. Hawaii has 34 bird species, and climate, then Reed and Rodda’s (2009) 1 mammal that are endangered or Conclusion qualitative estimate of the climatically threatened that would be at risk of Large Beni anaconda adults are suitable areas of the United States predation. Puerto Rico has 9 bird heavier than almost all native, terrestrial would represent an underprediction. As species and 10 reptile species that are a component of the risk assessment, the federally endangered or threatened predators in the United States, even Beni anaconda’s colonization potential species that would be at risk if Beni many bears. Native fauna have no is described by Reed and Rodda (2009) anacondas became established. Guam experience defending themselves as capable of survival in small portions has seven bird species and two mammal against this type of novel, giant of the mainland or on the United States’ species that are endangered or predator. The range of the Beni tropical islands (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, threatened that would be at risk of anaconda is largely defined by the American Samoa, Guam, Northern predation. The Virgin Islands has one availability of aquatic habitats. Beni Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands). bird species and three reptile species anacondas are top predators in South The Beni anaconda is highly likely to that are endangered or threatened that America, consuming birds, mammals, spread and become established in the would be at risk of predation. fish, and reptiles; prey size includes wild due to its rapid growth to a large deer and crocodilians. This diet is even Potential Impacts to Humans size, early maturation and high broader than the diet of Burmese and reproductive potential, a sit-and-wait The introduction or establishment of reticulated pythons. style of predation, ability to survive Beni anacondas would likely have Because Beni anaconda specimens are under a range of habitat types and negative impacts on humans primarily likely to escape captivity or be released conditions (habitat generalist), behavior from the loss of native wildlife into the wild if the species is imported that allows it to escape freezing biodiversity, as discussed above in the into the United States; are likely to temperatures, adaptability to living in discussion for the reticulated python. survive, become established, and spread urban and suburban areas, ability to These losses would affect the aesthetic, if they escape captivity or are released; disperse long distances, and cryptic recreational, and economic values are likely to prey on and compete with concealment. currently provided by native wildlife native species for food and habitat and healthy ecosystems. Educational (including endangered and threatened Potential Impacts to Native Species values would also be diminished species); cannot be easily eradicated, (Including Endangered and Threatened through the loss of biodiversity and prevented from establishing, or reduced Species) ecosystem health. Agricultural interests from large populations or new locations; Beni anacondas will prey on native may be negatively affected by imported and are likely to disturb ecosystems species, including endangered and anacondas carrying ticks that transfer beyond the point of recoverability, the threatened species if they become harmful pathogens to livestock. Service finds the Beni anaconda to be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12719

injurious to humans and to wildlife and Peer Review of the Proposed Rule Peer Review Comments wildlife resources of the United States. In accordance with peer review We reviewed all comments we Summary of Injurious Evaluations guidance of the Office of Management received from peer reviewers for and Budget ‘‘Final Information Quality Based on the Service’s evaluation of substantive issues and new information Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ released the criteria for injuriousness, regarding the proposed rule. We substantive information we received December 16, 2004, and Service consolidate the comments and during the public comment periods and guidance, we solicited expert opinion responses into key issues in this section. from the peer reviewers, along with on information contained in the March We refer to them as PR (Peer Reviewer) other information regarding the large 12, 2010, proposed rule (for nine 1 through 5. We revised the final rule to constrictor snakes (in Florida, Puerto species) from five knowledgeable reflect peer reviewer comments, where Rico, and elsewhere), the Service individuals selected from specialists in appropriate, and the most current concludes that the four constrictor the relevant taxonomic group and scientific information, including the species should be added to the list of ecologists with scientific expertise that results of the newer USGS climate injurious reptiles under the Lacey Act. includes familiarity with alien match publication (Rodda et al. 2011), herpetological introductions and plus a number of new peer-reviewed Comments Received on the Proposed invasions, predictive tools for risk journal articles. We have taken our best Rule assessment, and invasion biology. In effort to identify the limitations and During the two public comment 2010, we posted our peer review plan uncertainties of the climate-matching periods for the proposed rule for the on the Service’s Region 4 Web site models and their projections used in the nine species (75 FR 11808, March 12, (http://www.fws.gov/southeast/ March 12, 2010, proposed rule. We have 2010; and 75 FR 38069, July 1, 2010) informationquality), explaining the peer also taken our best effort to correct any and one comment period for the five review process and providing the public grammatical or biological errors and species (79 FR 35719, June 24, 2014), we with an opportunity to comment on the clarify certain ambiguous statements. received more than 85,000 comments, peer review plan. No comments were Because some of the comments referred including form letters, petitions, and received regarding the peer review plan. only to those constrictor snake species postcards. We received comments from The Service solicited independent we listed on January 23, 2012 (77 FR Federal agencies, State agencies, local scientific reviewers who submitted 3330), we omit those comments from governments, commercial and trade individual comments in written form. this final rule; we summarize and organizations, conservation We avoided using individuals who had respond to them in the January 23, 2012, organizations, nongovernmental already expressed strong support for or final rule to list the Burmese python and organizations, and private citizens; all opposition to the petition and three other species. were in English with the exception of a individuals who were likely to few in Dutch, French, German, and experience personal gain or loss Comment PR1: In regard to the USGS Italian. The comments provided a range (financial, prestige, etc.) as a result of publication ‘‘Giant Constrictors: of views on the proposed listings as the Service’s decision. Department of Biological and Management Profiles and follows: (1) Unequivocal support for the the Interior employees were not used as an Establishment Risk Assessment for listings with no additional information peer reviewers. Nine Large Species of Pythons, included; (2) unequivocal support for We received responses from five peer Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor,’’ the listings with additional information reviewers. Two peer reviewers found which includes management profiles provided; (3) equivocal support for the that, in general, the proposed rule discussing colonization potentials with listings with or without additional represented a comprehensive and up-to- climate-matching maps, very few details information included; (4) unequivocal date compilation of the best scientific or data are presented that would allow opposition to the listings with no information known about the nine an independent test of the model, additional information included; and (5) constrictor snake species and that predictions, or assumptions. At a unequivocal opposition to the listings conclusions drawn from both published minimum, the threshold values that with additional information included. and unpublished sources were were used in the climate space model To accurately review and incorporate scientifically robust, and justified the should be explicitly stated for each the publicly provided comments in our proposed rule. Two peer reviewers species. This would allow reviewers to final determination, we worked with expressed concern with the climate- evaluate the data and the assumptions researchers in the Qualitative Data matching methods and assumptions. used in the construction of the model. Analysis Program at the University of In addition, all peer reviewers stated Response PR1: This general critique is Massachusetts Amherst and the that the background material on the incorrect; all of the species-specific University of Pittsburgh—developers of biology, invasive potential, and information used to assess risks is the Public Comment Analysis Toolkit potential tools for control of each snake presented in the document mentioned. (PCAT) and the successor DiscoverText species represented a solid compilation That this procedure cannot be reduced analytical platform. The PCAT and of available information. They further to mathematical certainty is the reason DiscoverText enhanced our ability to stated that the information as presented a risk assessment (rather than a review large numbers of comments, justified the conclusion that the snake calculation) was conducted. This including large numbers of similar species should be listed as injurious. All specific critique is also incorrect. The comments on our proposed listings, five peer reviewers concluded that the requested threshold values are provided allowing us to identify similar data and analyses we used in the graphically for each of the species in comments as well as individual ideas, proposed rule were appropriate and the Reed and Rodda (2009). For example, data, recommendations, or suggestions conclusions we drew were logical and the Python reticulatus values are in on the proposed listings. We are also reasonable. Several peer reviewers Figure 5.3 (page 84) (heavy and dashed responding to some comments that are provided additional insights to clarify black lines), the Eunectes murinus and out of the purview of this rule in a points in the proposed rule, or Eunectes beniensis values are in Figure concerted effort to explain our rationale references to recently published studies 9.3 (page 224) (heavy black lines), and to the public. that update material in the rule. so forth.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

For readers who want to duplicate the management measures to reduce risks in of large constrictor snakes qualify as climate match results, the USGS has regions where the species have not yet injurious and, therefore, should be published a data series report with data been introduced. Thus, risk assessments added to the list of injurious reptiles. used for modeling and the equations should concentrate on evaluating The rule does not address under what corresponding to these lines (http:// potential risk. circumstances a person may qualify for pubs.usgs.gov/ds/579/) (Jarnevich et al. Uncertainty, as it relates to the exception to the importation or 2011), but the graphical representations individual risk assessment, can be interstate transportation prohibitions in Reed and Rodda (2009) provide the divided into three distinct types: (a) under the zoological purposes same information with the precision Uncertainty of the process (method); (b) provisions. Therefore, this comment is that is appropriate for the use of these uncertainty of the assessor(s) (human outside of the scope of this rulemaking. values. Use of these values with greater error); and (c) uncertainty about the Public Comments precision would not be appropriate organism (biological and environmental given the conceptual and scientific unknowns). All three types of We reviewed all comments we uncertainties that attend state-of-the-art uncertainty will continue to exist received from the public, particularly implementation of climate matching. regardless of future developments. The for substantive issues and new Comment PR2: The data used for the inferential estimation of organism risk information regarding the March 12, risk assessment seems fair. This can be rated using high, medium, or 2010, proposed rule to list the nine large reviewer, however, was not convinced low. The biological and other constrictor snakes. Therefore, the public that the assignment of low, medium, information assembled under each comments generally refer to the nine and high establishment and element will drive the process, forcing species in the proposed rule, unless consequence scores was sufficiently the assessor to use the biological otherwise stated, and we respond for all objective or transparent. The process information as the basis for his or her nine species, unless otherwise stated. appears to involve high levels of decision. Thus, the process remains Because some of the comments referred uncertainty (pp. 253, 259: Reed and transparent for peer review. The high, only to those constrictor snake species Rodda 2009). Though there is not really medium, and low ratings of the we listed on January 23, 2012 (77 FR an alternative with the amount of data individual elements contributing to the 3330), we omit those comments from available, the approach would be more probability of organism establishment this final rule; we summarize and acceptable if it was transparent (what (such as organism with pathway, entry respond to them in the January 23, 2012, constitutes each level of certainty and potential, colonization potential, and final rule to list the Burmese python and how one decides on high, medium, or spread potential) cannot be defined or three other species. We consolidated the low for each contributing factor). measured: The assessor has to use following comments and our responses Response PR2: The risk assessment professional judgment because the into key issues that are not in any process allows for analyzing, values of the elements contained under particular order. identifying, and estimating the ‘‘Probability of Establishment’’ are not Health and Welfare of Human Beings dimension, characteristics, and type of independent of the rating of the risk. By applying analytical methods ‘‘Consequences of Establishment.’’ (1) Comment: Some people have been while acknowledging the assumptions Specific traits or biological killed and more have been injured in and uncertainties involved, the process characteristics were assessed for each the United States by nonnative large allows the assessors to utilize snake species to arrive at each high, constrictor snakes that were kept as qualitative and quantitative data in a medium, or low rating. The strength of pets. systematic and consistent fashion. The the analysis is not in the element-rating Our Response: The Humane Society assessment strives for theoretical but in the detailed biological and other of the United States submitted a list of accuracy while remaining relevant information that supports the 577 reports that included accounts of comprehensible and manageable, and rating. Reed and Rodda (2009) followed human injuries and fatalities from the scientific and other data compiled the ANSTF 1996 (see Lacey Act nonnative constrictor snakes, nonnative for each snake species in the bio-profiles Evaluation Criteria section, above, for constrictor snakes that escaped or were is organized and recorded in a formal explanation of this method) guidelines spotted in the wild, and nonnative and systematic manner. The assessment for combining scores and noting that constrictor snakes kept in inhumane provides a reasonable estimation of the certainty levels for each component of conditions that were reported in the overall risk. The authors were careful to the process were followed by the risk media that occurred in the United States ensure that the process clearly assessors. The logic that was applied to between 1978 and mid-2014. The explained the uncertainties inherent in develop every step of the risk accounts included reports of Burmese the process and to avoid design and assessment analysis can be found in pythons, African (rock) pythons, implementation of a process that Chapter Ten of Reed and Rodda (2009). reticulated pythons, boa constrictors, reflected a predetermined result. Comment PR3: [Refers to previously green anacondas, and yellow anacondas, Quantitative and qualitative risk listed species; see 77 FR 3330, January and unidentified large constrictor assessments should always be buffered 23, 2012] snakes. The list contains accounts from with careful professional judgment. If Comment PR4: [Refers to previously 46 States, including Alaska and Hawaii. every statement was certain, we would listed species; see 77 FR 3330, January The reports included dozens of attacks not need a risk assessment. The need to 23, 2012] on people, 14 of which resulted in balance risks with uncertainty can lead Comment PR5: The term ‘‘zoological’’ human fatalities. Burmese python assessors to concentrate more on the is ambiguous and could lead to a attacks reportedly resulted in five uncertainty than on known facts that potential loophole for those activities deaths. African (rock) pythons (not may affect impact potential. Risks for which permitted importation could distinguished by species) reportedly identified for nonnative, invasive, large be allowed; hence, any activity attacked one person fatally. Reticulated constrictor species (and other pertaining to these snakes could be python attacks reportedly resulted in nonnative, invasive species besides claimed to be ‘‘zoological.’’ the deaths of seven people. A 25-pound large constrictors) in other regions often Response PR5: This rulemaking red-tailed boa constrictor killed a 34- provide the justification in applying addresses whether the identified species year-old man.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12721

USARK’s Web site posts this extremely low. We also note that, in arise before the pet owners acquire the statement under their ‘‘Best their native ranges, reports of large animals. Management Practices’’ Web page constrictor snake attacks on humans in Another consideration is the risk (USARK 2014): ‘‘We understand that the wild are rare, although they have involved with transporting large, there are occupational hazards involved occurred (Reed and Rodda 2009). powerful snakes. While keeping a snake in the captive husbandry of the largest However, the remoteness of the native in a sedentary home cage may not in examples of five large snake species, ranges of any of the species may itself be a difficult task, the situation and venomous reptiles. It is the position preclude deaths from being reported. A may change when a 20-ft (6-m) snake of USARK that only experienced and study of a small tribe of hunter-gathers weighing 200 pounds (91 kg) is serious keepers should work with these (the Agta) in the Philippines transported in a car to a veterinarian. animals.’’ summarized attacks by reticulated Unless the snake is transported in an We acknowledge reports of deaths pythons (Headland and Greene 2011). escape-proof cage from the house to the and injury due to encounters with Of 19 rural men and women attacked, automobile to the veterinarian, snakes nonnative large constrictor snakes, but 11 died. While Reed and Rodda (2009) may find more opportunities for escape. the accounts identified by the also state that virtually all known Conversely, small snakes may escape commenter involved snakes held in human fatalities are associated with pet more easily than large ones because they captivity. Human fatalities from manipulation, Snow et al. (2007) and are more likely to be transported nonvenomous snakes in the wild are Harvey et al. (2008) noted that large casually, such as carried for show. For rare (Reed and Rodda 2009). An indirect constrictors crossing roads could cause example, a boa constrictor that was risk is that large snakes may stretch traffic accidents. In general, we agree transported around on its owner’s neck across roads to obtain heat from the that the risk to human safety is not in on a Boston subway escaped and pavement on cool days, posing a hazard itself a substantial factor in listing any survived for a month on the heated train to motorists who swerve to avoid hitting of these species as injurious. See also in January 2011 before being captured them (Snow et al. 2007; Harvey et al. our response to Comment 1. (Associated Press 2011). We have based our determination on 2008). Please see ‘‘Potential Impacts to (3) Comment: Boa constrictors should our evaluation of injuriousness to Humans’’ in the ‘‘Factors That be removed from the rule. These snakes wildlife and wildlife resources and the Contribute to Injuriousness * * *’’ have never killed their keepers, nor likelihood that any of the four large section for each species, above, for have they killed anyone else. There has constrictor snakes could escape, become further information. never been a documented human death (2) Comment: The actual physical established, and cause harm. by a boa constrictor. danger that large constrictors pose to (5) Comment: These snakes are not humans and public safety has been Our Response: For reasons discussed injurious wild animals. They are grossly overstated, and only 12 human above in the section Withdrawal of the domesticated pets. fatalities have been attributed to these Boa Constrictor from Consideration as Our Response: We recognize that snakes since 1980, an average of 0.4 an Injurious Species, we are many snakes are kept in captivity with deaths per year. Those fatalities are withdrawing our proposal to list the boa no negative incidences and that they usually a direct result of either improper constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR seem tame. However, the fact that care and handling of the animal, or 11808; March 12, 2010). various species of wildlife may be kept feeding-related errors on the part of the Large Constrictor Snakes as Pets and as pets does not remove these species keeper or pet owner. Another Hobby from the scope of U.S. wildlife laws. commenter stated 10 human fatalities Under the injurious wildlife provisions occurred from 1990 to 2012, or 0.43 per (4) Comment: Most people in the of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), all four year, by captive constrictors. reptile hobby who choose to own these of these species are wild. Therefore, we Our Response: We agree that, while larger species are very responsible and have the authority to list all of the four 13 human deaths that we know of have do well in keeping their pets and species of constrictor snakes once we occurred since 1980, this number is investments healthy and safe, and this determine that they are injurious. We small relative to other causes of death. includes preventing their escape. It does base our determination as injurious on We agree that the preeminent issue is not stand to reason that the actions of their effect on any one of the following: not one of public safety, because we this very limited amount of negligent the interests of human beings, know of few large constrictor snake owners should affect millions of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, attacks in the United States from free- responsible pet owners. wildlife, or wildlife resources of the ranging snakes. A study in Everglades Our Response: While we do not United States. National Park (Reed and Snow 2014) dispute that most constrictor snake (6) Comment: I have kept more of summarized occurrences of apparently owners try to be responsible, the volume these animals than anyone you will ever unprovoked strikes to humans by large of imports and domestically bred snakes meet, and I can assure you, they are not constrictors and the circumstances is large enough (averaging 29,520 injurious in any way. surrounding each of the five reported annually (for 2011 to 2013) for the four Our Response: We recognize that incidents, which occurred between 2006 species that are being listed in this final there are various meanings of and 2012. All strikes were from rule and the boa constrictor; of that, ‘‘injurious.’’ However, under the Burmese pythons and directed toward 6,135 for the four species that are being Service’s authority, the Lacey Act (18 biologists moving through flooded listed this final rule; Final Economic U.S.C. 42), and for the purpose of this wetlands; two strikes resulted in minor Analysis 2015, Table 8) that accidents rule, injurious wildlife are wild injury and three in no injury. No strikes do happen, resulting in snakes escaping mammals, wild birds, amphibians, are known to have been directed at park or snakes being intentionally released. reptiles, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and visitors. The study concludes that, Shipping containers may be damaged— their offspring or gametes that are while risks to humans should not be and live snakes able to escape— injurious to the interests of human completely discounted, the relative risk anywhere between the port of import beings, agriculture, horticulture, of a human being killed by a python in and the destination of the pet owner’s forestry, wildlife, or wildlife resources Everglades National Park appears to be home. In that case, the problem could of the United States. A wildlife species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12722 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

does not need to be injurious to all of kept by so many hobbyists would be are other species, such as feral cats, the above interests to be listed. If a unprecedented. dogs, rats, pigeons, starlings, and pigs, species is injurious to wildlife or (10b) Comment: Other widely held that each cause more damage to the wildlife resources of the United States pets have been banned by the Federal environment of South Florida. (including its territories and insular Government. For example, in 1975, the Our Response: As the commenter possessions), we have the authority to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) correctly points out, many species of list that species. banned the sale or distribution of turtles feral domesticated animals are (7) Comment: We agree that with shells that measure less than 4 considered invasive and have caused ownership of certain animals should be inches in length in response to findings harm to humans and natural resources restricted; however, we feel that that pet turtles were responsible for a in south Florida and other parts of the banning the species Boa constrictor fails substantial number of Salmonella United States. However, under the to address current concerns, is infections nationwide. These were Lacey Act, the Service has the authority unnecessarily restrictive, and primarily the baby red-eared sliders only to list ‘‘wild’’ birds and ‘‘wild’’ counterproductive. This species also (Trachemys scripta) that were mammals as injurious wildlife; under 18 represents the largest portion of the nine commonly sold in pet stores in the U.S.C. 42(a)(2), the term ‘‘wild’’ is species proposed for listing as injurious. 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s, and even given specific to any animals that, whether or Our Response: For reasons discussed away for free. not raised in captivity, are normally above in the section Withdrawal of the Our Response: The Lacey Act does found in a wild state. Dogs, cats, and Boa Constrictor from Consideration as not preclude listing a species that is horses are considered domesticated an Injurious Species, we are prevalent in the pet industry, provided animals under our regulations at 50 CFR withdrawing our proposal to list the boa that the species meets the criteria for 14.4 and, therefore, cannot be listed as injuriousness. In addition, this constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR injurious wildlife. regulation is not a ban on possessing or Based on the best available 11808; March 12, 2010). selling any of the species. Other animals information, we have found that the (8) Comment: This rule will destroy in the pet trade have been banned by the four species covered by this final rule the ability of animal hobbyists, who are Federal Government. For example, with are injurious to human beings, to the our future biologists and the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 interests of agriculture, or to the wildlife conservationists, to explore and learn (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), Congress or wildlife resources of the United about these specific animals, thus banned imports of many exotic bird States. This does not mean that we limiting exposure to the natural world at species that were common in the pet believe these snakes to be the most large. trade to ensure that their native injurious of all wild animals. Our Response: The commenters did populations are not harmed by Effort To Ban Pets not explain how the rule will destroy international trade. Another example is the ability of animal hobbyists to learn the Food and Drug Administration (12) Comment: This snake ban opens about these animals. Hobbyists will still banning small turtles common in the pet the door to many other animals being be allowed to keep their snakes and trade (see Comment 10b). States may banned. If this rule is passed, then next offspring, and to acquire additional ones also have their own restrictions, and it will be foreign reptiles all together, within their State (and consistent with these restrictions may be more stringent followed closely by a different ban, their State’s own laws). The long lives than this Federal rule. For example, followed by an eventual ban on reptiles, of these species improve the chances individual States may ban possession of period. Next it will be cats, dogs, fish, that the hobbyists will have their pets any of these snake species. This final and birds. for one or more decades, generally much rule only establishes a prohibition Our Response: This rule does not ban longer than amphibian and tropical fish against importation and interstate possession of any species. As stated hobbyists. Hobbyists still have many transportation of listed species without above in the SUMMARY and elsewhere in other species of snakes and other a permit. Furthermore, only one of the this rule, this rule prohibits only the reptiles to choose from that are not species that we are listing (reticulated importation into the United States and listed as injurious. We hope that, with python) is regularly in the reptile trade, interstate transportation of reticulated this rule, future biologists and although infrequently; the other three python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, conservationists will learn about the constrictor species are rarely or not green anaconda, and Beni anaconda. ecological role of these species in their traded. Lastly, the establishment of the Prohibiting importation and interstate native lands and in lands where they Burmese python (listed as injurious in transportation is the only authority become invasive. a final rule we published on January 23, provided to the Secretary of the Interior (9) Comment: A number of 2012, at 77 FR 3330) in South Florida by Congress under the injurious wildlife commenters in active duty in the is unprecedented anywhere in the provisions of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. military and who live off base stated United States for a large predator from 42). Two of the four species of large that their snakes help them to cope with the pet trade and demonstrates what constrictor snakes in this final rule are stress from traumatic events. If they get could happen if other large constrictors already in captivity in the United States transferred, they will not be able to have the opportunity to establish. and are available for acquisition within bring their pet snakes. Oftentimes, such new situations call for each State (unless otherwise regulated Our Response: The commenters are more stringent solutions than previously by your State’s laws). In addition, any correct that, if they are transferred, they adopted. species under consideration for listing could not transport their pet snakes, as injurious is evaluated on a case-by- unless the transfer is to a location in the Other Animals More Injurious case basis, using all available same State. (11) Comment: A better argument information relevant to whether it is or based on safety and health statistics is not injurious. Therefore, this rule Unprecedented Regulation could be made to ban horses or dogs, as does not set up a trend to regulate any (10a) Comment: A ban placed by the the average American is more likely to particular species or groups of species. government on a group of animals that be injured or killed by either of those Second, the Lacey Act does not provide is so prevalent in the pet industry and animals than any reptile. Certainly there the authority to list domesticated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12723

mammals and birds as injurious; see our • Contacting a veterinarian or pet the harsh conditions of being shipped response to Comment 11 for more retailer for guidance on humane overseas. Snakes are often marketed as information. However, any reptile can disposal of animals.’’ low-maintenance pets, and the families be considered for injurious wildlife For those pet owners who move to who take them home can become listing if it meets the listing criteria (see another State, we also suggest overwhelmed at the level of care Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria, above, for contacting a local herpetology club or a required. explanation). national reptile organization with local Our Response: From the Service’s members to find someone to adopt those Law Enforcement Management Effect of Rule on Welfare of Large constrictor snakes. And finally, if you Information System (LEMIS) data, we Constrictor Snakes live in Florida, ‘‘Anyone who possesses estimate that approximately 26,591 (13) Comment: This rule change a conditional snake or lizard but cannot snakes of the four species we are listing basically represents a death sentence for keep it can surrender the animal to a in this rule were imported from 2004 to millions of reptiles in the United States. licensed recipient (adopter) at any time 2013. Some were probably captured Many of these snakes will be abandoned with no penalties’’ (FWC 2014). from the wild. Imported snakes are then and set free where they will surely (14) Comment: What would happen to usually sent to animal dealers before suffer and die. the businesses operated by thousands of being shipped to pet retailers. Finally, Our Response: We disagree that this families in the industry with this rule? the snakes are typically acquired at a pet rulemaking will result in the death of It is doubtful that those animals would retailer and transported to a home or millions of reptiles currently being held be humanely euthanized (due to other location. Large constrictor snakes in captivity. We have been clear that all finances and ethical objections), so may become ill, injured, or die during owners of any of the snakes listed as those animals would either be subjected transport. Since this listing will place injurious will be allowed to keep them to inhumane practices or become prohibitions on importation and under this rule. For animals already in liabilities to those persons who have interstate movement of the four species, the United States, this rule only restricts them. It would be a cruel irony that the it is reasonable to assume that fewer transport between States. We emphasize animal rights agenda of eliminating animals will therefore die from that it will be lawful for pet owners to these animals from the pet trade would importation and interstate transport. keep their pets (if allowed by State law). result in the destruction of millions of Although animal welfare is regulated by Therefore, we have no reason to believe animals that have proven to be the Federal Government for some taxa that responsible, caring owners will kill nondangerous. (that is, primarily warm-blooded Our Response: Family businesses will or release them into the wild. Breeders species) under such laws as the Animal still be able to operate, provided they may still be able to export through a Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), this either sell within their State or have a port in their own State (see response to was not a factor considered in our port of export directly from their State Comment 68 for exporting explanation). injurious wildlife evaluation and did (see response to Comment 68 for For breeders who can no longer export, not influence our final determination. exporting explanation). Businesses may they may find buyers in their own State. switch to other species of snakes that Benefits of Having Large Constrictor For information on how to find a home are not listed. Please see our response to Snakes in the United States for a snake that a person can no longer Comment 13 on alternatives for (16) Comment: While Burmese keep, we posted some suggestions on disposing of animals that you can no pythons do consume native species http://www.regulations.gov at the time longer keep. Owners are encouraged to such as wading birds, waterfowl, the proposed rule was published on find legal alternatives, such as trading muskrats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, March 12, 2010 (separate file species with someone in their own State and even bobcats and white-tailed deer, ‘‘Questions and Answers’’). We who has a species that is not listed and they are probably just as likely to prey explained: who is able to keep a listed species in upon the more common exotic species, ‘‘If you are in a position where you that State. We emphasize that it will be such as feral cats and dogs, nonnative must give up your pet [large constrictor lawful for pet owners to keep their pets rats and mice, starlings, pigeons, snake], and zoos and humane societies (if allowed by State law) but unlawful collared doves, spiny-tailed iguanas, have declined your efforts to donate the to transport them across State lines. green iguanas, cattle egrets, and animal, you should contact either your With the removal of the boa constrictor muscovy ducks. State fish and wildlife agency or your from consideration for listing, the effect Our Response: We agree that large local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to businesses is greatly reduced. constrictor snakes can potentially prey office. These two government agencies Regarding the statement that these on other nonnative species, and that this are the legal authorities that co-manage snakes are nondangerous, we emphasize could be beneficial to native wildlife. fish and wildlife in this country, and that we distinguish between Snow et al. (2007) reported that they can help you to resolve this issue. ‘‘nondangerous,’’ which we assume the domestic cats, Old World rats, domestic The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is commenter means ‘‘does not harm chickens, and domestic geese have been working with States around the country people,’’ and ‘‘injurious,’’ which has a found in Burmese python digestive and the pet and aquarium industry different meaning under the Lacey Act. systems in Florida. However, of greater through a campaign called We agree that these four species of conservation and management concern HabitattitudeTM to help pet owners snakes pose only a small risk of harm are the effects that invasive species pose adopt environmentally responsible to people; however, we are listing them to native populations of wildlife and actions for surrendering their pets, such for their injuriousness. wildlife resources—in particular, those as: (15) Comment: Thousands of snakes’ that are endangered or threatened or • Contacting the retailer for proper lives will be spared because the majority otherwise at risk of extinction (Clavero handling advice or for possible return; of reptiles die during capture from the and Garcia-Berthou 2005). Reed and • Giving or trading with another pet wild or subsequent transport or within Rodda (2009) listed a total of 64 State- owner; the first year of captivity. Banning the listed endangered or threatened species • Donating to a zoo, humane society, importation of these species will ensure at risk from pythons or other large nature center, school, or pet retailer; and that many snakes will not fall victim to constrictors in Florida alone. This

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

includes the highly endangered Key that are scientifically designed to spread; likelihood of release or escape; Largo wood rat, which has been found provide conservation benefits to species impact to endangered and threatened in the stomachs of Burmese pythons, in their native range. The listing of these species and their habitats; and so on. and whose population may number only species as injurious will not prevent We have determined that the four in the hundreds. As demonstrated in conservation breeding programs run by species of large constrictor snakes that our injurious wildlife evaluation, we dedicated herpetologists and hobbyists are the subjects of this rule are injurious believe that the risks posed by large from providing a conservation benefit to and should be listed. constrictor snakes to native wildlife and any of these species (see our response to Rule Will Not Be Effective wildlife resources far outweigh the Comment 17). possible benefits they may have as (21) Comment: This regulation change State Issue (Not Federal Government) predators of nonnative wildlife in the will not make the established United States. We do not have (19) Comment: The constrictor snakes population of Burmese pythons in information on what the other feral should be listed by individual States, Florida disappear. constrictor snakes have eaten, but we not by the Federal Government. Our Response: [Refers to previously assume there would be similar effects Our Response: Many commenters listed species; see 77 FR 3330, January from these four species due to the traits suggested that we should not list any of 23, 2012] they share with the Burmese python. these species and we should allow the (22) Comment: Such a rule change The negative effect of predation on rare States to regulate these species as they disallowing the interstate trade of these native species is greater than the effect see fit. The Service is responsible for species is counterintuitive and a non on exotic species because any decrease implementing and enforcing laws such sequitur to ban trade between every in populations of rare species makes it as the Lacey Act, under which authority other State in the Union. less likely for those populations to we are listing these species. We believe Our Response: From our evaluation of rebound. implementation of the injurious wildlife each species (under the section ‘‘Factors (17) Comment: Some commenters provisions reflects the shared State- That Contribute to Injuriousness * * *’’ own boa constrictors from regions of Federal governance of invasive species for each species), we find that Brazil that no longer have boa challenges facing the United States as prohibiting the interstate trade of these constrictors due to deforestation. Many originally intended by Congress. Since species, along with prohibiting of the reptiles present in captive these snakes have been found to be importation of them, will reduce the collections are representative of injurious to human beings and to risk of these species becoming more vanishing bloodlines of wild wildlife and wildlife resources, we widespread to new areas of the United populations of these species. They are believe federally regulating movements States, including the territories and conserving wild species. of these four species of constrictors into insular possessions. Please also see Our Response: Listing the four species the United States and between States Need for the Final Rule, above. in this final rule as injurious will not and territories is an important step in (23) Comment: The Lacey Act has impact legitimate conservation efforts limiting their effects. The States and never stopped the introduction or that U.S. breeders can carry out for other jurisdictions within the United eradicated the feral populations of any species that may be negatively impacted States retain the ability to regulate these invasive species, which makes it wholly by natural and manmade events within species as they determine appropriate ineffective in this case. their native range. In general, the within their boundaries. For reasons Our Response: The commenter is Service supports ex-situ conservation discussed above in the section correct that no eradication of efforts, such as captive breeding, when Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from established feral populations has been done in a scientific manner for the Consideration as an Injurious Species, accomplished merely by the listing of a conservation of a species within its we are giving the States and other areas species as injurious, but we did not native range. The Act also still allows under U.S. jurisdiction the opportunity expect that result. Merely preventing export of listed species that could be to demonstrate the efficacy of State- introductions of new individuals will used in reintroduction activities or other based measures to address the potential not result in the eradication of existing in-situ conservation efforts. The Act invasive nature of boa constrictors, populations. The most likely way for the allows for the issuance of permits including, if appropriate, promulgating injurious listing provisions to be authorizing interstate movement or their own regulations regarding the boa successful is if they are applied before imports for scientific or zoological constrictor. a species is present in the United States purposes, including conservation (20) Comment: Mere presence of a or in vulnerable parts of the United breeding operations. For reasons species does not equate the threat of States. The Beni and DeSchauensee’s discussed above in the section harm, especially when individuals are anacondas that we are listing as Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from sighted in environments in which they injurious in this final rule may be Consideration as an Injurious Species, cannot establish. If this is solid prevented from becoming established in we are withdrawing our proposal to list justification for listing a species as Florida, as well as other vulnerable the boa constrictor as an injurious injurious, the Service will need to list areas of the country. Furthermore, the reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). every organism that has ever—and is purpose of listing the reticulated python (18) Comment: Many keepers I know ever—spotted outside of captivity in the and green anaconda in all areas of the are concerned about the worldwide United States. country is to prevent any areas of the decline of species, and a distributed Our Response: The Service undergoes country that do not currently have those network of determined keepers may a rigorous evaluation before determining species (see Potential Introduction and prove the only hope for the survival of that any species is injurious. Mere Spread sections for each species, above) several of the species addressed. For presence does not qualify a species as from becoming invaded. Fowler et al. example, the natural population of the injurious. The Service evaluates each (2007) discuss the effectiveness of the Burmese python has been on a steady species based on numerous criteria (see Lacey Act listings by looking at all of decline due to habitat loss. Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria, above). the species that are currently listed as Our Response: The Service strongly We also consider the potential to injurious. They state that, ‘‘None (0%) supports ex-situ conservation programs survive, become established, and of the 7 species that were absent from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12725

the country at the time of listing have species, so the institutions may already will increase, nor do we know whether subsequently established populations, be familiar with the process. As of this the price of these species on the market and two of the taxa that were present final rule, the Service has already issued will increase, decrease, or remain only in captivity (raccoon dog and such permits for the four previously unchanged. Furthermore, zoos may brushtail possum) did not establish wild listed constrictor snakes (77 FR 3330, become a primary beneficiary of populations. [T]wo taxa that were January 23, 2012). constrictor snakes from owners who established outside captivity at the time The commenter is correct that the decide to give up their pets because they of the listing (European rabbit and Java double-escape-proof containment is a are moving out-of-State or for another sparrow) have not spread between requirement for listed specimens that reason. [S]tates since listing.’’ In general, if the have been permitted. Moreover, as (26) Comment: The rule will impact rule can prevent introductions to stated above, this requirement applies our non-outreach collection; the permit vulnerable parts of the country, it will not only when the snake is being preparation time, administrative costs, be effective. transported outside the zoo, but applies permit fees, and time delays will be a within the zoo as well. However, we major hindrance to continuing the Educational and Zoological Use have found that most zoos already management of these species as part of Curtailed contain their reptiles in double-escape- the broader zoo network within the (24) Comment: The rule will impact proof containment (such as a display Association of Zoos and Aquariums educational outreach at zoos. Educators case within a building). As such, they (AZA). Replacing specimens in a timely travel to neighboring States. Burmese are already meeting this requirement or fashion will be extremely difficult for pythons are a flagship species for these could meet it with a minimal extra cost our zoo and others. Ultimately, these outreach education activities. The Act over the standard housing requirements species may have to be eliminated from as currently written requires strict and for the species. However, the our collections. uninterrupted double containment for containment of any injurious species is Our Response: As stated earlier, the injurious species. The inclusion of these consistent with the preventative rule does not affect intrastate movement four taxa of snakes on the list of measures of the injurious wildlife of these species nor does it restrict injurious wildlife will make the use of provisions of the Lacey Act. ownership or even captive breeding. It any of these species in interstate (25) Comment: The cost of specimen is anticipated that most zoos that education programs virtually replacement to zoos will increase already have these species have the impossible. dramatically. capacity either to breed animals already Our Response: Zoos around the Our Response: The Service has no held at the zoo or obtain additional country commonly use live animals for reason to believe that the cost of specimens within their State. Zoos may education at the zoo and offsite. The replacement would significantly become a primary beneficiary of listing of species as injurious will not increase beyond the cost of applying for constrictor snakes from owners who prevent the continued use of these any required permits or authorization, decide to give up their pets because they species, such as reticulated pythons, for nor did the commenter provide any are moving out-of-State or for other education, although some restrictions or evidence of costs increasing. One of the reasons. If this is not sufficient, the Act permitting may be required. Provided species we are listing (reticulated does have provisions for obtaining the animal has never been permitted python) is currently available from specimens from other States or even under the Act (either the species was breeders in many States and can be from foreign sources. The Service not listed under the Act and, therefore, obtained within a State without a permit recognizes that the permitting process authorization was previously not once the listing goes into effect. Two imposes some increased administrative required for the animal to move in others (DeSchauensee’s and Beni costs and is committed to exercising interstate transport, or the species was anacondas) have not been imported into available flexibilities under its Lacey listed under the Act after the animal the United States, and one (green Act permitting authority to minimize arrived in the State and never left), there anaconda) is not readily available due to permit application preparation and would be no restrictions for using the limited captive breeding. If importation processing times and to reduce animal for educational programs within is required to acquire new animals, zoos administrative costs. As the AZA the State where the zoo is located. The would need to apply for an importation pointed out in their comment (‘‘We restrictions under the Act, such as permit. The cost of a permit is $100 for commend FWS for working with AZA double escape-proof containment, only importation or to acquire the species for staff * * *’’), we are issuing permits apply once an animal has been the first time from outside the State that authorize multiple interstate ‘‘permitted.’’ If the zoo never takes the where the zoo is located, which covers movements for educational purposes animal out of the State, no permits or the whole shipment, even for multiple over extended periods. The Service is authorization is required. However, if species and individuals. The cost is $25 committed to finding ways to minimize zoo personnel want to travel across for a permit to transport or move the time it takes for facilities to obtain State lines with one of the listed animals from one exhibit to another authorization for interstate transport or species, the Act would come into effect. within a permitted institution or importation so that zoos can continue The Act requires that the zoo obtain a between institutions that are already their active management of these permit to carry out any interstate permitted to maintain the same species. We do not believe that this movement of a listed species and the injurious species. The commenter did listing or the January 23, 2012, listing specimens being moved would need to not explain how often zoos replace will result in any zoo having to be in double-escape-proof containment. specimens, so we do not know how eliminate these species from their Permit applications to carry out much the cost will increase. Since most collections. interstate movement of listed species for of these species have lifespans in (27) Comment: With my collection, I educational purposes can be submitted captivity of 20 to 30 years (see Biology do school and library visits to give kids to the Service. This is a similar section for each species), we expect this who generally do not get the chance to procedure used by zoological and need will not be frequent. As for the see these animals up close the educational institutions to obtain cost of the snakes, the commenter experience to see them. In my mind this permits for endangered and threatened provided no information that this cost is one step needed in educating people

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12726 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

on wildlife conservation as well as four species, the number of alternative confused with Federal laws. Our responsible pet keeping. I take large ‘‘giant’’ snakes that could be imported response to (a) above is that pet owners snakes and lizards from all over the or moved across State lines would be are free to locate a veterinarian in their world to kids who would normally reduced. However, there are more than own State, and veterinarians may make never be able to see them. If you ban 25 other species of constrictor snakes in house calls in another State if licensed these reptiles, my life dream will be the pet trade that are not regulated as in that State. The pet industry and ruined, and I will not be able to injurious wildlife and would not require veterinary organizations could work continue my life mission to show a Federal permit. For example, the together to help the owners of the listed people these amazing creatures up amethystine python (Morelia species to locate willing veterinarians close. amethistina) and scrub python (Morelia within a reasonable driving distance. Our Response: We recognize that kinghorni) are giant constrictors and are Our response to (b) above is that people many people present large and small not listed as injurious. While some of who are moving should seek live animal programs in communities all the species in trade may not be alternatives such as those suggested in over the country. We agree that such considered giant, they are nevertheless our response to Comment 13. programs are important to teach very large. Furthermore, zoological conservation and the value of wildlife. institutions that wish to display the The subject of violations under the However, this new rule will not prevent listed species may continue to display Lacey Act has frequently been these programs from occurring. ones currently in their possession or misunderstood and caused undue Providing no State lines are crossed, you obtained within the State without consternation among animal owners. can continue your educational programs obtaining a permit or they could request We will explain here how the Lacey Act without the need for a permit from the a permit to obtain snakes from outside will address the new injurious listings. Service. Furthermore, educators may their State. To date, the Service has not A person would violate the injurious apply to the Service for a permit to denied any applications submitted by a wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act (18 transport these species across State lines zoological institution that meets the U.S.C. 42, also known as title 18) if he for educational purposes, and we have issuance criteria under the Act. or she did one of the following with any already issued such permits for the four one of the constrictor species listed as Violations and Penalties previously listed constrictor snakes (see injurious: (a) Transported between the 77 FR 3330, January 23, 2012). Lastly, (30) Comment: If enacted, this States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, educators can also teach conservation rulemaking would have the the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or principles by using snake skins, photos, unprecedented effect of putting as many any territory or possession of the United and other tools to teach people about as a million American citizens in States by any means whatsoever; or (b) the problems of releasing nonnative possession of injurious wildlife and imported into the United States from species in the United States. We believe subject to potential felony prosecution another country. In either case, conservation can be taught without the under the Lacey Act. It could effectively notwithstanding there may be other exact live specimens of every animal create a new class of criminal out of laws being broken by the action that we being discussed. law-abiding American citizens. This are not considering here, these (28) Comment: This rule will regulation would turn hobbyists’ current violations are considered misdemeanors eliminate a reptile culture for sharing by activities into a Federal crime. and carry penalties of up to 6 months Our Response: These listings under future generations. in prison and a $5,000 fine for an Our Response: The commenter did the Lacey Act will have no effect on the individual or a $10,000 fine for an not explain how the reptile culture majority of owners of these four species organization under 18 U.S.C. 42. If, would be eliminated. This rule will not (two of which are likely not in U.S. result in the elimination of reptile trade or ownership). Pet owners who however, another law was also broken, ownership or interest in reptiles. The keep their snakes within their own State the violation could become a felony listing does not prohibit ownership of will not be affected. Examples of owners under 16 U.S.C. 3372 (also known as these species or any other reptile who will be affected are: (a) People who title 16, which is the wildlife trafficking species. While the listing will probably wish to take their pets to a veterinarian provisions of the Lacey Act), which result in fewer specimens of these in another State; (b) people who wish to carries higher penalties. For example, if species being available commercially transport their pets across a State line the owner of a reticulated python in because the listing may reduce the for another reason, such as if the owners Florida did not have a permit as economic incentive for some current are moving; and (c) people who keep required by Florida State law, and that breeders from continuing to breed the large constrictor snakes as a business person transported the snake to another species, we do not believe that all and sell to other States. However, many State, then the fact that the State law captive breeding would stop. An States have laws against possessing wild was broken and the snake was unfortunate aspect of the need to protect animals, and these snakes may not be transported across State lines makes that our native wildlife and ecosystems by allowed into those States by State law action a title 16 violation. Therefore, listing these species as injurious is that anyway. Examples are Hawaii (all while the listing of the species as some people or organizations that snakes), Florida (for reticulated python, injurious may put ‘‘as many as a million currently possess these species will be green anaconda, and other species), American citizens’’ in possession of affected. Iowa (reticulated and other pythons and injurious wildlife, no one will be in (29) Comment: If the additional all Eunectes spp.), Louisiana violation of the Lacey Act automatically, species under consideration are listed, (reticulated and other pythons and all because possession is not prohibited. there will be no alternative giant snakes, Eunectes spp.), New York (reticulated Furthermore, unless these people break and all institutions wishing to exhibit or and other pythons and green anaconda), laws under title 16, they would not be breed large constrictors will have to and Texas (reticulated and other subject to potential felony prosecution undertake the regulatory burden that pythons and green anaconda) (see our under the Lacey Act. Hobbyists’ current comes with the listing. Final Environmental Assessment 2015). activities would not become crimes Our Response: The commenter is State laws may be more stringent than provided their snakes stayed in-State or correct that, with the listing of these Federal laws and should not be were exported directly out of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12727

country from a designated port within could contact reptile enthusiasts in the constrictor snakes pose to the United their State’s borders. new State to see if any snakes were States, looking at both the probability (31) Comment: The illegal snake available for adopting. While that is not that the snakes would become industry thrives in Hawaii. The the same as keeping the same snake, it established and the resulting proposed ban will not stop the pet does present a responsible alternative. consequences. Burmese pythons will eat industry in utilizing smuggling as a We believe that most people will a wide variety of reptiles, birds, and means of selling illegal species. choose to keep their snakes and also, of mammals of all sizes, and can deplete However, Lacey Act violations are those owners who cannot because they vulnerable species. serious and can result in steep penalties are moving to another State or similar Our Response: We agree that there is for offenders. Eliminating the legal situation, they have options as an environmental threat to native source of snake imports and increasing presented above in this response and species in the United States, similar to the risks to black marketers will our response to Comment 13. While that posed by the Burmese python, from certainly lower the odds that a male and some misinformed pet owners or the four species we are listing in this female of any particular species would breeders might release their snakes, we rule. We have explained this threat in escape together to initiate a naturalized do not believe that this activity will be our Environmental Assessment and in invasive population. widespread. The Service believes that the sections ‘‘Potential Impacts to Our Response: We agree that the the potential illegal conduct of a few Native Species (Including Endangered injurious wildlife provisions of the irresponsible pet owners should not and Threatened Species’’) for each Lacey Act serve an important role in cause us to refrain from listing species species above. We concur that this invasive species management, and we that we have determined to be injurious. threat is part of the justification for hope that the rule reduces the risk of (33) Comment: This rule will create a listing the four species as injurious. smuggling and the opportunity for these lucrative black market in the trade of (36) Comment: The Burmese python four invasive snake species to establish these nine species that will cost billions invasion is an ecological calamity in in the wild. in tax dollars to enforce. Ultimately, the progress. It is directly undermining the animals will suffer. There will always multibillion-dollar, nationally Unintended Consequences be unscrupulous dealers who will take supported Everglades restoration project (32) Comment: Pet owners will release advantage of prohibition. because the monitoring and success of their snakes and the problem will be Our Response: The commenter that project are tied to measures of worse. The Lacey Act will do nothing to provides no supporting evidence that a native wildlife ‘‘indicator’’ populations, help the problem; if anything, it would black market will be created for any of which are now being consumed and have an adverse effect on the the nine species in the March 12, 2010, reduced by these human-introduced environment. Snake breeders who had proposed rule. Therefore, we assume predators. Had the Service considered been fully responsible beforehand may that the commenter is basing the the risk of the Burmese python under its release their now worthless investments statement on historical events with Lacey Act listing authority 20 years ago, into the wild in retaliation of the rule other species. We do not know if a black the agency might have prevented this change. Caring snake owners that market will be created, although we invasion. cannot move across State lines with acknowledge that some unscrupulous Our Response: The South Florida their beloved pets may instead release dealers may take advantage of people. Water Management District petitioned them as a means of avoiding forced However, we believe that the pet owners us to list the Burmese python in 2006, euthanasia. The trust of responsible prefer to be law-abiding citizens and because the species was undermining snake owners would be debilitated, and would find legal ways of dealing with their Everglades restoration effort, and a large portion of snake owners new situations. we finalized the listing of that species deliberately becoming irresponsible (34) Comment: This rule will cause as injurious on January 23, 2012 (77 FR poses a much larger risk than a few airlines to embargo snakes. They will 3330). The four species we are listing in isolated irresponsible owners. refuse to transport them. this rule share many of the traits of the Our Response: Many commenters Our Response: We hope that this rule Burmese python that create the risk of stated that responsible owners would does not influence airlines to implement injuriousness. We agree that, if we had release or euthanize their snakes if this an unnecessary embargo on transporting listed the species 20 years ago, the rule is finalized. We do not believe that snakes within the injurious wildlife current problem might have been this would be the case since pet owners provisions of the Lacey Act (that is, averted. This evidence gives further will still be allowed to keep their snakes intrastate or with a permit). It is our support for our listing of the four and sell or give them away within their understanding that, unrelated to this species of large constrictor snakes in State. Many States, including Florida rule or any injurious wildlife listing, this final rule before this situation (FWC 2014), have laws making it illegal some carriers have declined to transport happens with these species. to release nonnative animals into the live animals or specific dangerous (37) Comment: One recent paper wild. We posted some suggestions on animals. Shippers with the appropriate linked declines up to 99 percent of http://www.regulations.gov at the time Federal permits, specifying how the small- and medium-sized mammals in the proposed rule was published on animals should be transported in Everglades National Park with the March 12, 2010 (see separate file escape-proof containers, should be able increased occurrence of Burmese ‘‘Questions and Answers’’), for how to to find a carrier. pythons. find a home for a snake that a person Our Response: The study referred to can no longer keep; see our response to Environmental Threat correlated a decline of raccoons (99.3 Comment 13, where they are repeated. (35) Comment: The peer-reviewed percent), opossums (98.9 percent), With social networking so available research (‘‘Giant Constrictors: Biological rabbits (possibly 100 percent), foxes on the Internet, a person moving to and Management Profiles and an (possibly 100 percent), and bobcats another State could possibly find a Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine (87.5 percent) with the timing and reptile enthusiast in their current State Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, geographic spread of the presence of to adopt the pet. When the person and the Boa Constrictor’’) quantified the Burmese pythons (Dorcas et al. 2012). moved to the new State, the person ecological risk that nine species of large Although the study is based on Burmese

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12728 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

pythons in Everglades National Park, we banned, the boa constrictor * * * has brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) believe that the constrictor species in * * * established more introduced invasion (Smithsonian National this final rule could have a similar populations than any other boa or Zoological Park). On Kauai, all the devastating effect on small- and python species, clearly posing a threat remaining endemic forest birds that medium-sized mammals wherever the to public safety and ‘‘the interests of have not gone extinct are endangered. snakes are found because all species in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, [and] They would not likely survive treetop this final rule prey on similar animal wildlife’’ * * *. Boa constrictors are predators such as boas. types. already established in Florida and Our Response: We understand (38) Comment: Another paper Puerto Rico, continue to threaten other Hawaii’s and the other islands’ sensitive describes the establishment of boa areas such as Hawaii, where loose boa position. In this rule, we are adding constrictors in Puerto Rico that could constrictors are being found with greater reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s severely impact native species, frequency; and are established and have anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni especially endangered and threatened negatively affected the native species in anaconda to the list of injurious species. Cozumel and Aruba, providing a wildlife. For reasons discussed above in Our Response: The commenter refers frightening predictor of the damaging the section Withdrawal of the Boa to Reynolds et al. (2012), which impact they will have on U.S. States and Constrictor from Consideration as an documents an established population of Territories if they remain in the pet Injurious Species, we are withdrawing boa constrictors in Puerto Rico. We trade and import of such species is not our proposal to list the boa constrictor recognize that there is an established prohibited. as an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; population of boas in Puerto Rico. For Our Response: For reasons discussed March 12, 2010). reasons discussed above in the section above in the section Withdrawal of the (43) Comment: The pet industry Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from Boa Constrictor from Consideration as disregards the real danger posed by Consideration as an Injurious Species, an Injurious Species, we are importing exotic animals around the we are withdrawing our proposal to list withdrawing our proposal to list the boa globe, but the proof of the trade’s risk the boa constrictor as an injurious constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR is all around us. On Kauai, this includes reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 11808; March 12, 2010). a growing population of rose-billed (39) Comment: A study published in (41) Comment: The Florida Fish and parakeets threatening agriculture and 2012 in Wildlife Research found that the Wildlife Conservation Commission spreading invasive seeds long distances danger of establishment of reptiles after (FWC) is committed to preventing the throughout the forest. These were introduction is actually much higher introduction of high-risk nonnative released pets. On the Big Island, than previously thought—above 40 species, while assessing and managing escaped Jackson Chameleons percent. Reptile establishment success the risks of species in trade, including established breeding populations and was 43 percent in North America, with large constrictors. Appropriate are consuming native insects and snails. an astounding 72 percent for islands. regulatory measures, along with Our Response: We understand The report concluded, ‘‘[t]his suggests outreach and education, are a key part Hawaii’s and the other islands’ that we should focus management on of preventing the establishment of ecologically sensitive positions. In this reducing the number of herptile species invasive exotic wildlife. FWC supports rule, we are adding reticulated python, introduced because both reptiles and the efforts of the Service to reduce the DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green amphibians have a high likelihood of potential of large constrictor snakes anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list establishing.’’ Compounding the dire becoming established invasive species. of injurious wildlife. For reasons results of this study is the fact that once FWC looks forward to partnering with discussed above in the section established, not a single invasive reptile the Service to prevent future invasions Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from species has ever been eradicated of high-risk nonnative species. Consideration as an Injurious Species, through management efforts.’’ Thus, it is Our Response: The Service we are withdrawing our proposal to list imperative that the Service take appreciates the support by FWC. FWC the boa constrictor as an injurious aggressive action to curtail the sponsors Pet Amnesty Days, and FWS reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). importation and interstate trade in assists with those, so potential for (44) Comment: In a letter to Secretary injurious species. release of snakes should be minimal. Jewell in March 2014, the Governor of Our Response: Conventional Because the listing as injurious does not Hawaii explained the importance of perception has been that, of all the prohibit ownership and because pet biosecurity to Hawaii and that this animals introduced into an area, only a owners have alternatives to releasing importance is recognized by The small percent (around 10 percent) their snakes, we believe there will be Republic of Palau, Federated States of survive, and of those survivors, only a few cases where people would feel the Micronesia, and Republic of the small percent (around 10 percent) need to release their snakes and that Marshall Islands. The letter lists four reproduce and establish populations. these few cases do not justify not listing resolutions that the State adopted to The study referred to by the commenter them. We applaud FWC for being coordinate the State’s position on (Ferreira et al. 2012) found that this committed to preventing introduction of Federal invasive issues. One resolution small percentage of establishment high-risk nonnative species. (13–3) supports amendments to adding underestimated reptiles. As the reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s comment states, reptile establishment Comments From Organizations, anaconda, green anaconda, Beni was 43 percent on the North American Political Leaders, and Academia From anaconda, and boa constrictor to the list continent and 72 percent on islands. Hawaii of injurious wildlife under the Lacey These results underscore how important (42) Comment: Several endemic Act. it is to keep reptiles from being species that evolved on the islands are Our Response: We understand introduced into new areas. declining, already extinct, or at a high Hawaii’s and the other islands’ (40) Comment: ‘‘Boa constrictors are risk of extinction due to other ecologically sensitive positions. In this an injurious species and must be listed introduced invasive species. On Guam, rule, we are adding reticulated python, under the Lacey Act. Of the nine snake six endemic bird species were either DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green species originally proposed to be extirpated or went extinct due to the anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12729

of injurious wildlife. For reasons Hawaiian Islands. The comment for injurious snake research; they are discussed above in the section compares boas to brown tree snakes, expert at it. Because of this history and Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from because both are arboreal, produce the the fiscal incentives involved, a tangible Consideration as an Injurious Species, same number of offspring, and feed on potential exists for bias, impropriety, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the same prey. and a lack of impartiality. Due to the the boa constrictor as an injurious Our Response: In this rule, we are obvious possibility of conflict of interest reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). adding reticulated python, and bias, the USGS should have recused (45) Comment: One of the greatest DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green itself from the contract and funding to tourist attractions of Hawaii is that it is anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list create this report. So far, the USGS a snake-free tropical ecosystem. If the of injurious wildlife. For reasons ‘‘report’’ provides the only scientific perception that Hawaii is a safe place to discussed above in the section evidence (if one can actually call it hike in the jungle is lost, it will cost the Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from scientific) that would justify any Federal State significant economic activity. In Consideration as an Injurious Species, regulatory action regarding these nine 2013, tourism represented 21 percent of we are withdrawing our proposal to list tropical snake species. the GPD (gross domestic product) and the boa constrictor as an injurious Our Response: The Service, the was the largest single contributor to the reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). National Park Service, and the USGS State’s economy. carefully segregated their roles in this Political Pressure Our Response: We understand rulemaking process so that policy Hawaii’s and the other islands’ (48) Comment: Politics are running objectives did not bias scientific results. ecologically sensitive positions. In this the process. This entire movement is USGS does not undertake any regulatory rule, we are adding reticulated python, driven by animal rights extremists with efforts associated with injurious wildlife DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green deep pockets and a political agenda, and so that it may concentrate specifically anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list not science and reason. It is designed to on the science of the issues. The Service of injurious wildlife. For reasons end the trade in nonnative wildlife. and the National Park Service discussed above in the section Our Response: We received a petition contracted with USGS to prepare the Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from from the South Florida Water report on risk assessment because of Consideration as an Injurious Species, Management District in 2006 to list the USGS’s extensive expertise on the we are withdrawing our proposal to list Burmese python. They were concerned subject. Part of this expertise comes the boa constrictor as an injurious about the ecological danger posed by from their similar work on brown tree reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). Burmese pythons to the health of the snakes, which were added to the list of (46) Comment: A group coordinating Everglades. In our effort to address this injurious reptiles in 1990 (55 FR 17439, Hawaii’s alien pest control efforts petition, we realized that other species April 25, 1990). The risk assessment on supports adding reticulated python, of large constrictors were becoming the constrictor snakes provided an DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green increasingly commonly found in extensive review of the literature of the anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa Florida, and, therefore, we expanded species, and while this information was constrictor to the list of injurious our evaluation to include other species. used by the risk assessment’s authors to wildlife. The comment notes how many The Service has been criticized in the provide measures of risk on each snakes are still being reported on the past for being too late in listing species species, the extensive literature review islands despite a State prohibition on as injurious. We took a proactive was also used separately by the Service possession of snakes. The comment approach to prevent future problems. biologists who wrote this rule. explains that any snake can threaten The regulatory process to list the four Therefore, this rule and the risk unique island species. The comment species that are the subjects of this final assessment were developed from adds, ‘‘Some may view Hawaii as rule was guided by biologists. We independent scientific papers from relatively unimportant to the received peer-reviewed scientific authors all around the world. continental [United States], but invasion documentation (the risk assessment) In addition, the peer reviewers of the by snakes is a serious threat to military from a separate bureau (see our March 12, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR operations, the visitor industry, and the responses to Comments 49 and 99 on 11808) and supporting documents state trans-Pacific trade routes.’’ the USGS risk assessment). We also that the listing of all nine large Our Response: In this rule, we are received comments from five constrictor snakes is scientifically adding reticulated python, independent peer reviewers on the justified and an appropriate step to DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green proposed rule and supporting protect native wildlife in the United anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list documents. This rule is an action to States from the risks posed by the nine of injurious wildlife. For reasons regulate the importation and interstate species. The 2011 USGS document discussed above in the section transport of four species of large entitled ‘‘Challenges in Identifying Sites Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from constrictor snakes that have been found Climatically Matched to the Native Consideration as an Injurious Species, to be injurious. Much of the trade in Ranges of Animal Invaders’’ also we are withdrawing our proposal to list these species of snakes can continue underwent peer review before it was the boa constrictor as an injurious legally (except where States have their published. Please see also our response reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). own prohibiting laws). We received tens to Comment 99 for more information on (47) Comment: The commenter of thousands of comments from both the USGS peer review process. supports adding reticulated python, animal rights supporters and pet trade (50) Comment: The rule was steered DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green supporters. We considered the by the USGS. anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa comments of all submitters equally. Our Response: The USGS’s role was constrictor to the list of injurious (49) Comment: It is not hard to to prepare one of the supporting wildlife. The comment refers to the understand why the USGS and documents (‘‘Giant Constrictors: brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) and biologists would be strongly interested Biological and Management Profiles and the economic potential toll it could take in seeing more species added to the an Establishment Risk Assessment for ($593 million to $2.14 billion annually) Injurious Wildlife List. They have Nine Large Species of Pythons, if the brown tree snake got into the decades of experience getting funding Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12730 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

This rule was written by the Service, 996, introduced in 2013, addresses a permit process will be affected because using the risk assessment document for broader suite of invasive wildlife issues of a backlog of permit applications. its excellent summaries of the biology of by Congress. We can only address Our Response: While processing time the four species, as well as for its comments regarding our specific rule. for any application can vary due to assessment of the risks. However, the To ensure their comments on any completeness of the application or Service has used the criteria set forth by Congressional bill are heard, the public current workload being handled by the the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task should submit those comments to their Division of Management Authority, the Force (ANSTF 1996) to determine risks members of Congress. Division is committed to processing any and its own injurious wildlife injurious wildlife application in the evaluation criteria to determine which More Burdens on Service most timely and efficient manner species should be listed. The Service (53) Comment: This proposal will possible. Based on the number of thoroughly considered each species, most likely create more burdens on the applications that we received since using biological information compiled already taxed Office [Division] of 2012, when the first four constrictors by the USGS risk assessment authors Management Authority and enforcement were listed, we anticipate receiving and other available information. sections of the Service. fewer than 25 applications requesting Because the risk assessment authors did Our Response: Both the Division of authorization to conduct activities with such a thorough job of comprehensively Management Authority and the Office of all listed constrictors, and applications compiling literature (more than 600 Law Enforcement are fully prepared to will typically be completed within 30 references) on the nine species that were handle any increase in work that may days. Since any permit issued for the subjects of the March 12, 2010 result from this rule. We anticipate that interstate transport of a listed species is proposed rule (75 FR 11808), we were the rule will not generate a significantly valid for 1 year or more and covers a able to utilize the report extensively for large increase in permit applications specific geographic range where our own injurious wildlife evaluation of being submitted or increase in activities could occur, we do not the four species that are the subjects of inspections at the ports. The Division of anticipate that a 30-day processing time this rule. This compilation of references Management Authority receives more will result in any significant impacts to in one location greatly facilitated our than 7,000 applications and issues more a zoo’s ability to carry out educational evaluations, but it should not be than 20,000 permits annually. Based on work outside their State of operation. construed that USGS directed our other listing activities involving species Predecisional Proposed Rule determinations. that are traded more frequently than the (56) Comment: The proposed rule is listed constrictors, the Division of Misinterpretation of the Rule predecisional. It is prejudicially Management Authority anticipates an (51) Comment: The government does constructed and telegraphs a increase of no more than 1 or 2 percent predetermined end. not have the right to ban animals that annually. are so widely kept as pets. It is Our Response: By the nature of a While the listing of species as unconstitutional. It is my constitutional proposed rule (in general for all injurious that are already widely kept right to be able to express myself and I agencies), the agency publishes what it and sold as pets will present unique law do that through reptiles. is proposing to be the regulation, Our Response: Many commenters enforcement challenges with respect to including any findings that support the believe that the rule will ban possession interstate transport, the interception of proposal. Therefore, all proposed rules of the four species of constrictor snakes injurious wildlife to prevent both entry indicate the agency’s position on a we are listing as injurious in the rule. into the United States and spread of particular situation. A final rule may This is not true. An injurious wildlife such species once they are in the differ from what an agency proposes, designation prohibits importation into country constitutes an investigative but it may be exactly the same as the the United States and transport across priority for Service Law Enforcement proposed rule. The purpose of a State lines (including the District of when such transport represents a threat proposed rule is to obtain additional Columbia and U.S. Territories and to U.S. wildlife resources and habitat. information, give the public notice of possessions). Pet owners will be The fact that the listing of these the proposal, and give the public the allowed to keep their pets, sell them, or constrictor snakes will create additional opportunity for comment. We review all give them away within their own State, work for enforcement officers does not the comments for new information and if allowed by State law. There is no outweigh the ecological importance of evaluation of our proposal, as we did for Constitutional right to unregulated addressing the problems created by the this rule. We clearly stated in our importation and interstate import and interstate transport of these proposed rule that ‘‘We are evaluating transportation of wildlife found to be snakes. each of the nine species of constrictor injurious. (54) Comment: Will the Department of snakes individually and will list only the Interior properly fund this rule those species that we determine to be Confusion With S 373 (Senate Bill 373) change when more pressing and injurious.’’ Thus, we made it clear that and HR 996 (House of Representatives immediate crises to the environment are we left it open for us to list fewer than Bill 996) happening? nine species, or none at all, if none was (52) Comment: S 373 or HR 996 Our Response: This comment is determined to be injurious based on should (or should not) be enacted. outside of the scope of the rule. The new information. In fact, we listed four Our Response: Many commenters funding to support this rule change after species in 2012 (77 FR 3330, January 23, cited S 373 as the action on which they it takes effect will be in the form of law 2012), we are listing four more in this were commenting. We assume the enforcement (such as port inspections) final rule, and we are withdrawing our commenters were referring to Senate and permit processing as needed to proposal to list one other species (boa Bill 373, which was introduced in administer the regulation. Please see our constrictor). February 2009. The bill was not passed response to Comment 53, which If an agency feels that it could benefit into law. The bill was a separate but addresses those subjects. from additional information before parallel action to the Service’s rule to (55) Comment: At our zoological proposing a rule, it may publish an list the constrictor snakes. Similarly, HR institutions, we are concerned that the advance notice of proposed rulemaking

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12731

(or a notice of inquiry; NOI) to gather we were also requesting economic Inconsistent Use of Injurious Wildlife more information. The new information information, we answered, ‘‘We Listings is used to develop a proposed rule. We currently have little information about (58) Comment: The manner in which published such a notice on January 31, the value of domestic trade in these the Service has handled invasive 2008 (73 FR 5784), from which we species, and it is our responsibility as species has been inconsistent. For received more information to apply to part of this process to gather a range of example, in Western Colorado, feral the proposed rule. information on the species of interest. ‘‘wild’’ horses and ring-necked (57) Comment: The Service failed to This includes economic data.’’ pheasants are afforded wildlife make a good faith effort to gather new • The Service was interviewed for a protection status. Both are information. story on the constrictor snake NOI, and nonindigenous, introduced, or invasive Our Response: The Service provided the story published in REPTILES ample notice and opportunity to species that compete with endemic magazine (Vol. 16, No. 5; May 2008). species. comment on the proposed action. Here • are examples of the opportunities On March 12, 2010, we published Our Response: It is correct that some provided by the Service to the public in the Federal Register (75 FR 11808) nonnative species, such as feral (wild) and stakeholders: the proposed rule to list nine species of horses and ring-necked pheasants may • The Service published a notice of large constrictor snakes, all of which receive protection under other laws. The inquiry in the Federal Register on were included in the genera from the protection for wild horses comes from January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5784), as an NOI, and for which we asked for new the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and advance notice of proposed rulemaking. information. We provided a 60-day Burros Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. 1331 et It explained why we were considering comment period for the public (ending seq.). Congress gave responsibility to the listing the genera Python, Boa, and on May 11, 2010), also a standard length Secretary of the Interior under this Eunectes (which included more species of time. We provided the proposed rule, public law to manage and protect wild than the four that we are listing in this draft economic analysis, draft horses on lands managed by the Bureau final rule), what information we needed, environmental assessment, and risk of Land Management and the Secretary and how the public could submit assessment to the public on http:// of Agriculture for Forest Service lands. information to us. We provided a 90-day www.regulations.gov. As for the pheasants, we agree that period to submit relevant information • The Service met with the Small pheasants may compete with native (ending April 30, 2008), which is a Business Administration (SBA) on April species. However, it is not correct that standard length of time. 20, 2010, to discuss what information the Service affords them protection. In • On February 29, 2008, we the SBA needed and what we needed. fact, the ring-necked pheasant is participated in a panel discussion This meeting was within the public specifically not protected under the arranged by the pet industry. comment period for the proposed rule. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Representatives of the Pet Industry Joint • The Service met with SBA on April 703 et seq.) and is also exempt from the Advisory Council (PIJAC) were present. 21, 2010, for a roundtable meeting with Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Our representative opened the pet industry, zoo, and medical research 4901 et seq.). Individual States, discussion by stating: ‘‘This notice of representatives. This meeting was however, such as Colorado, may provide inquiry is an information gathering within the public comment period for their own protections under State laws. process. I really want to stress that this the proposed rule. Regional Listing is not a proposed rule or action. As part • Because of several requests for an (59) Comment: The regulation of these of processing the petition we received to extension of the comment period, we animals cannot be addressed at a State list Burmese pythons as injurious, we added another 30-day public comment level only. Without restriction on opened up this comment period to period from July 1 to August 2, 2010 (75 importation, these animals will gather information on especially which FR 38069; July 1, 2010). species, particularly snakes such as the continue to be imported into other U.S. • We met with the SBA again on Burmese python, within these three States, including those States that are January 13, 2011, to discuss issues genera might be a threat to native directly adjacent to States that are raised by SBA during the public wildlife and wildlife resources. If there vulnerable. comment periods. is a snake that has not yet been Our Response: We agree that in most • imported into the United States that We opened another 30-day public situations it is important to prohibit might pose a threat to native wildlife, comment period on the 2010 proposed importation into the United States and this information would be very useful. rule on June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35719). interstate transportation of injurious By the way, we worked with PIJAC in Please note that this occurred after we species. There may be unique situations, addressing some of the concerns, and listed four of the constrictor snakes however, where another course of action we answered a short set of Q&As (Burmese (and Indian) python, Northern may be more effective in preventing the [questions and answers] with Reptiles African python, Southern African spread of an injurious species that has Magazine.’’ python, and yellow anaconda) on already been imported into the United • We participated in several January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3330). States and, among other things, is chatrooms with stakeholders on http:// In summary, the public has known widely located in many States. See the www.pethobbyist.com in February or since January of 2008 that we were section Withdrawal of the Boa March 2008. considering listing these three genera, or Constrictor from Consideration as an • The Service was interviewed by species from them, as injurious. We Injurious Species. We would expect PIJAC about the NOI, and the interview provided a total of 210 days for such situations to be rare. was posted by ReptileChannel.com in receiving public information and (60) Comment: The alternative of 2008. The Service explained why we comments, and we participated in cherry picking only those States with were considering action, what several meetings with stakeholders. We suitable habitat, but then applying the information we were seeking, and how believe that we have made a good faith listing to all States, is legally suspect, the public could provide their effort to gather information from the particularly because the Service has information. When we were asked why public. never initiated public notice and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12732 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

comment rulemaking on the Lacey Act species because of higher road densities corresponding sections for the three Evaluation Criteria. here. The Service has not properly other species. Our Response: The listing is based on accounted for other threats in urban Permitting many factors, but habitat suitability is areas, including persecution from only one of them. The factors that we humans, pollution, and paucity of (66) Comment: The Service should used were explained in the proposed natural refugia and other biophysical support a law for reptiles modeled after rule (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010), features needed for snakes to survive the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. which was open to public comment. and reproduce. Instead, the Service Such a law would limit the importation (61) Comment: No potential risk of relies almost exclusively on a climate of wild reptiles into the United States establishment in or ecological harm to envelope match that vastly while allowing captive breeding of areas within Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the overestimates the amount of suitable species currently in the United States, insular territories can be used to justify habitat for constrictors. and allowing the interstate and listing these snake species. Each of these Our Response: We believe that other international transportation of captive- jurisdictions already prohibits considerations in and around developed bred animals. importation and possession of these areas may act in favor of constrictor Our Response: The comment is animals. Their laws are enforceable survival, such as the lack of natural referring to the Wild Bird Conservation through other provisions of the Lacey controls, the abundance of small prey Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 4901–4916) Act, which carry far greater criminal (such as rats, pigeons, pets, farm (WBCA), which allows for obtaining a and civil penalties. animals), and refugia (such as houses, permit for personal pets. The WBCA Our Response: Hawaii and Puerto barns, and other buildings). The was enacted on October 23, 1992, to Rico prohibit the importation of these estimate of the potential range of the ensure that native populations of exotic snakes, but the import regulations for constrictor species uses climate match bird species are not negatively impacted the insular territories vary. The other as a guide. As we state above in Need by international trade to the United provisions of the Lacey Act that we for the Final Rule, factors other than States. Under the WBCA, the Service assume the commenter refers to is title climate may limit the native range of a may issue permits to allow import of 16 (16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), which species beyond its historic range. Other listed birds for scientific research, pertains to trafficking of wildlife and factors, such as microhabitats, may zoological breeding or display, plants. However, the comment is not provide small but significant areas that cooperative breeding programs, or correct that those jurisdictions’ laws are can support tropical species. For personal pet purposes when the simply enforceable under title 16. For a example, the State of Idaho supported applicant meets certain criteria (such as title 16 violation to occur, two acts must our listing of pythons and anacondas in a personally owned pet of an individual occur, both of which must be included 2012, because Idaho has an abundance who is returning to the United States in the required elements of the law. An of geothermal waters that could support after being continuously out of the example of a violation would be feral populations of the large, semi- country for a minimum of 1 year, except transport of wildlife in interstate aquatic snakes (Idaho 2012). that an individual may not import more commerce that is possessed in violation (64) Comment: A nationwide listing is than two exotic birds under this of a State law. By the Service listing the arbitrary and capricious and flawed regulation in any year). The Service was reticulated python and the three other policy, and less drastic alternatives not given the authority by Congress to species in this rule, title 16 becomes should be seriously analyzed and issue permits for all the same purposes applicable but it will not address every adopted. under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). If, violation of State law. Our Response: We interpret the intent by the words ‘‘support a law,’’ the (62) Comment: By its plain terms, the of Congress under the Lacey Act’s commenter is asking us to write a final Lacey Act’s prohibitions extend to injurious provisions to be national in rule that includes a permit process for importation and ‘‘shipment’’ between scope. For example, some of the species pets, we cannot do that under our the continental States as a single entity listed by Congress, such as the fruit bats current authority. By statute, we can and other listed jurisdictions, such as (Pteropus spp.), inhabit only the tropics grant permits only for zoological, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The Service and subtropics. educational, medical, or scientific lacks the authority to restrict interstate (65) Comment: If the Service insists purposes. transportation and commerce of a listed on applying an injurious listing (67) Comment: If the permitting species between and among continental nationwide, then the risk analysis for process is not made considerably more States. invasiveness must also be nationwide. efficient and flexible, individuals and Our Response: The Service interprets That is, the ANSTF algorithm for institutions engaging in these purposes the Lacey Act as giving us the authority organism risk potential must consider are likely to be negatively impacted. to restrict transportation between any of the ‘‘probability of establishment’’ and Our Response: We agree that the the States, territories, and other ‘‘consequences of establishment’’ for a permitting process must be an efficient jurisdictions (the District of Columbia) species throughout the entire United and effective process to ensure that of the United States. We believe that States, not only in the areas that Reed activities that are allowable under the this interpretation is consistent with the and Rodda (2009) identify as having Act are authorized in a timely manner. language and intent of the statute. suitable habitat. The Division of Management Authority, (63) Comment: The proposal to list Our Response: The Service has which is responsible for the permitting the remaining five species is arbitrary considered the risks and consequences process under the Act, has recently and capricious because it is based on of establishment nationwide, because undergone a significant restructuring improper speculation about the impacts the risk assessment, including the and reorganization. We do not of the species. The most notable climate matching, looked at the entire anticipate that the number of permit omission is vehicular mortality, which United States, as did the ANSTF applications that will be generated due reduces population size and fragments organism risk potential. The to this listing will be significant. habitat and which occurs more justification for listing is found above in However, we believe that the frequently in the United States than in Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness restructuring of the Division will allow the native range of the five constrictor for Reticulated Python and the for a more efficient and effective

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12733

permitting process for all permit most likely would include ball pythons, 2012 and 2014, respectively. While this applications received by the Division. which make up by far the largest is not insignificant, it is a small fraction segment of three genera of constrictor of the $3 billion quoted above. Economic Effect snakes that are imported into the United In addition, we note that the (68) Comment: Families dependent on States (78.6 percent from 2008 to 2010, importation of constrictor snakes of the reptile breeding businesses will lose and 88.1 percent from 2011 to 2013) and genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes their businesses. that we analyzed in our economic declined from the peak in 2002 (the Our Response: Most commenters who analysis (see Final Economic Analysis three genera = 233,705 snakes; Final asserted an expected loss of business 2012, 2015); ball pythons are a large Economic Analysis 2012) to 2013 (the did not explain why this would occur, segment of the domestic reptile trade. three genera =110,070 snakes; Final but some did explain that they sell one However, the same article in ‘‘The Economic Analysis 2015). The decline or more of the nine species that were the Economist’’ states, ‘‘The recession, in imports started well before we subjects of the March 12, 2010, however, has hurt what used to be a received the petition in 2006 that proposed rule mainly or entirely out-of- lucrative hobby. Fewer people want to initiated our regulatory process. The State or out of the country. Some stated splurge on snakes that cost thousands, ball python declined from 154,505 in which species they sell, and some did if not tens of thousands, of dollars. 2002, to 95,225 in 2013 (Final Economic not specify. We agree that breeders who According to Brian Barczyk, a snake- Analysis 2012, 2015). The reduced specialize in breeding only the species breeder, demand for ‘‘pet-grade’’ snakes, imports were not likely due to our we are listing in this rule as injurious which cost under $50, has sunk even impending rule. The decline in imports and who sell mainly or entirely out-of- more than demand for ‘‘investment- could be due to decreased availability of State or out of the country will be grade’’ ones, because the average person captive-bred or wild-caught snakes in greatly affected. However, those is hesitant to buy a new pet.’’ We also the export countries, the decreased breeders who live in the States with note that part of the snake breeding demand in the United States, or the designated ports (Alaska, California, industry is for the sale of snake skins, availability of domestically bred Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, and this part of the industry should not species. Furthermore, Collis and Fenili Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, be affected (dead snakes or parts thereof (2011) showed that lizard importation Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, are not listed as injurious). declined from 764,431 in 2006, to Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and In addition, the Georgetown 231,241 in 2010, a 70 percent drop. Washington) may continue to export Economic Services report (GES; Collis Another study showed that imports of from the United States through the and Fenili 2011) states that 18 percent all reptiles and amphibians decreased designated port in their State (if allowed of households (846,000) that own a from 7.57 million in 2001, to 3.55 under State law), although they may not reptile own a snake. Although the report million in 2009 (Herrel and van der continue to ship to other States. For does not say which species are the most Meijden 2014). Thus, the existing those breeders of other reptiles, this rule commonly owned, based on decline in constrictor snake importation will not affect them. Those breeders observations, kingsnakes, corn snakes, seems to be unrelated to our regulatory who supply skins of the listed species garter snakes, and ball pythons are more process, and future declines should not for the designer clothing industry, such commonly owned than any of the necessarily be attributed to the listing of as for boots and belts, will still be able species in our March 12, 2010, proposed the four species in this final rule or to to ship skins across State lines, export rule (75 FR 11808). Ball pythons the 2012 listing of the other four species them, and import them, consistent with comprised 64 percent of imports and (77 FR 3330). other applicable laws. domestic breeding of the three genera (70) Comment: It is arbitrary and (69) Comment: The rule will ruin a $3 we reported on before our first final rule capricious to exclude boa constrictors billion industry. took effect on March 23, 2012 (Final from the injurious listing simply Our Response: This comment was Economic Analysis 2012; the nine because of the reptile industry’s wildly based on the proposed rule, and nine species comprised 32 percent). exaggerated claims of economic species were included in the economic Therefore, only a small percentage of hardship. calculations. The commenters did not households would be expected to own Our Response: We are withdrawing explain how they arrived at the $3 any of the species in this rule or the our proposal to list the boa constrictor billion figure. While the Service is not January 23, 2012, final rule (77 FR for the reasons discussed above in the sure of the basis of this dollar amount, 3330). section Withdrawal of the Boa this figure was used by the United We agree that our rule will negatively Constrictor from Consideration as an States Association of Reptile Keepers in affect some aspects of the reptile Injurious Species. a report to the Office of Management industry, but we have no evidence to (71) Comment: As a matter of law and and Budget on March 1, 2010: ‘‘The suggest that the prohibition on policy, listing species that have long trade in high quality captive-bred importation and interstate been extant throughout the United reptiles is a $3 billion dollar [sic] annual transportation of four species of snakes States and subject to pet ownership and industry. The animals potentially will cause the ruin of a $3 billion interstate commerce for several decades, addressed by rule change make up industry or even to the extent of $1.6 as have the boa constrictor and approximately 1/3 of the total dollar billion. On the contrary, our final reticulated python, comes with a higher value trade annually.’’ Another economic analysis shows the estimated burden to show injury to the interests significant dollar figure was identified potential annual retail value losses the Lacey Act protects. in an article in ‘‘The Economist’’ associated with all four species we are Our Response: The Lacey Act does (February 11, 2010): ‘‘Revenue from the listing in this final rule is $1.9 to 4.1 not make a distinction that the Service sale of boas and pythons amounts to million (Final Economic Analysis 2015), has a higher burden to show injury for around $1.6 billion–1.8 billion each plus $3.7 to 7.6 million for the four species that have long been extant in the year.’’ species listed in 2012 (Final Economic United States and subject to pet We point out that the category of the Analysis 2012), and a total annual ownership. ‘‘sale of boas and pythons’’ did not decrease in economic output is $10.7 to (72) Comment: Listing of constrictor specify what species were included, but 21.8 million and $5.3 to 11.4 million for snakes also inhibits efforts to eradicate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

remnants of the species proposed for promulgating its rules, but must also (77) Comment: The Service does not listing as injurious from the Everglades comply with the various other Acts and possess the information needed to do a National Park and other locations in Executive Orders that govern Federal credible benefit-cost or regulatory south Florida where they have been agency rulemaking, including, but not flexibility analysis on rules regarding found. The Burmese python example limited to, Executive Orders 12866, constrictor snakes. shows that many of the most 12988, 12603, 13211, and 13132, and Our Response: The data needs for knowledgeable and effective the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small conducting a comprehensive analysis of herpetological experts will either limit Business Regulatory Enforcement any industry are very intense. or cease this activity if required to Fairness Act, and National Commenters agreed with our conclusion euthanize the captured snakes or Environmental Policy Act. We that there is very little reliable public forbidden from bringing the animals to completed the analysis and findings information available about the snake a more suitable location out of State. required under these statutes and industry, but we have utilized Our Response: The commenter did Executive Orders; please see the information that was available to us not provide documentation that this Required Determinations section of this through the end of the public comment situation has occurred for the Burmese rule. period for the proposed rule. Executive python. The Service has no reason to (75) Comment: The ‘‘Broken Screens’’ Order 12866 states that ‘‘Each agency believe that listing the reticulated report published by the Defenders of shall base its decisions on the best python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, Wildlife (2007) documented that, from reasonably obtainable scientific, green anaconda, and Beni anaconda will 2000 to 2004, at least 710 different fully- technical, economic, and other inhibit efforts to eradicate them, identified species of reptiles and at least information concerning the need for, especially because two of these species 47 additional reptile species without and consequences of, the intended are not yet found in the country and full species identification were regulation’’ (Section 1.b.7). The none is established in any State. imported into the United States. In sum, Regulatory Flexibility Act allows that (73) Comment: State-level laws and at least 757 reptile species were in trade the initial and final regulatory flexibility regulations calibrated to the perceived at the time of publication. Adding the analyses may contain ‘‘more general threat and State and Federal reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s descriptive statements if quantification partnerships in ‘‘early detection and anaconda, green anaconda, Beni is not practicable or reliable’’ (5 U.S.C. response’’ programs are more effective anaconda, and boa constrictor to the 607). We received information during means of addressing the issue. Federal four species that were listed as injurious the public comment period that we used regulations place a burden on State on January 23, 2012, represents a mere to prepare the final economic analysis. conservation resources and are 1.2 percent of the types of imported While we received other information, it unneeded and unnecessary in 47 States. reptiles. tended to be anecdotal, describing Our Response: The Service greatly Our Response: The comment impacts to a specific firm or individual, values early detection and rapid accurately reflects the Defenders’ which is insufficient to describe response programs, and the regulations ‘‘Broken Screens’’ data summary. The industry-wide impacts. However, we promulgated in this rule should not 1.2 percent derived from a comparison used some anecdotal information to place any burdens on them. The Service to the data apparently includes three better describe how some firms or recognizes that there may be certain species not yet in trade, so the six individuals will be impacted. The limited situations where State laws and species in trade from 2000 to 2004 Service believes the analysis is based on related control measures may be as or would represent less than 0.8 percent of the best reasonably obtainable more effective than listing under the the taxa of imported reptiles. information. Lacey Act. See our reasons for not (78) Comment: The Service ignored Economic Analysis listing the boa constrictor under the information submitted by industry Lacey Act in the section Withdrawal of (76) Comment: The rule will have a participants and trade associations in the Boa Constrictor from Consideration detrimental economic impact on response to its 2008 notice of inquiry. In as an Injurious Species. But, in the case breeders and hobbyists, food producers, addition, the Service misused the of the reticulated python, and caging and accessories producers. information it was provided by DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green Our Response: The Service recognizes respondents to the notice. anaconda, and Beni anaconda, the that the rule will curtail imports and Our Response: Industry responses to Service has concluded that listing is interstate trade in the two snake species the 2008 notice of inquiry (73 FR 5784; necessary to protect the interests of currently in trade in the United States January 31, 2008) were a primary source human beings, agriculture, wildlife, and (reticulated python and green of information for the economic wildlife resources from the purposeful anaconda); the listing of Beni and analysis. Trade association data were or accidental introduction and DeSchauensee’s anacondas should not the only source for most of the sales and subsequent establishment of these have any economic effect on U.S. trade. price information in the economic snakes into ecosystems of the United The supporting documentation analysis, and the associations are cited States. accompanying this rule—the final repeatedly in the report. The Service (74) Comment: Economic, cost-benefit Economic Analysis and the Final sought clarification of the data provided considerations cannot lawfully Regulatory Flexibility Analysis— by a trade association with a determine the Secretary’s decisions estimates the impacts on small representative of the association and the under the Lacey Act criteria in 18 U.S.C. businesses, as required by the Small consultant who prepared the 42(a). Business Regulatory Enforcement submission. The additional information Our Response: The Service does not Fairness Act (SBREFA), and the benefits obtained from the conversations was use cost-benefit considerations when and costs of the rule, as required by applied in the draft economic analysis. making listing decisions under the Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This Many industry participants provided Lacey Act. The Service applies the analysis uses a regional input–output anecdotal information about their standards and procedures under the model to determine the impacts on situations or made quantitative Lacey Act and the Administrative supporting industries, such as snake- assertions. While informative, we Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 500 et. seq) in related care and food suppliers. cannot extrapolate anecdotal data about

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12735

individuals or businesses to describe the premiums, and we used it in the revised result in little or no net change in industry as a whole. However, in the economic analysis. economic activity, consumer spending, final economic analysis, some anecdotal (82) Comment: The initial regulatory or employment. Any decline in information from the public comments flexibility analysis (IRFA) consumer spending and economic is used to better depict potential underestimates the economic impact on activity related to these five snakes impacts. small entities. would be offset by increased spending (79) Comment: The Service employs Our Response: We revised the IRFA to and economic activity in other sub- baseless assumptions to estimate the incorporate new information submitted sectors of the reptile trade and in other information it lacks. during the course of the public sectors of the economy, with little or no Our Response: Using informed comment periods. net change in overall economic activity assumptions for reasonable ranges to fill (83) Comment: The IRFA does not or employment. In addition, to the data gaps is a well-recognized economic discuss significant alternatives. extent that Lacey Act listing reduces the technique. By applying a range of prices Our Response: The subject of the likelihood of these species becoming and quantities, the economic analysis proposed rule was amending the established as invasive species, Federal, derives the approximate scale of retail regulations at 50 CFR 16.15 to add nine State, and local agencies will experience sales from the partial information species of constrictor snakes to the list reduced costs for habitat restoration and available. The analysis is transparent of injurious species under the Lacey invasive species control. The Blue Sky and the assumptions can be easily Act. Management of feral snake report also found that the Service’s replaced with more reliable information populations is a much broader topic that economic analysis did not assess the when it becomes available. Additional the Service is vigorously pursuing but extent to which reductions in information, such as interstate sales that is not within the purview of this employment in the snake trade (for from Florida, was received during the rulemaking. Therefore, the alternatives listed species) would be offset by gains second comment period. This considered in the environmental in other areas of the economy as information was used to revise the draft assessment are the only relevant consumers reallocate spending away economic analysis to more accurately choices. from listed species to unlisted species, depict the impact to industry. Industry (84) Comment: The draft economic to other reptile pets, or to other goods profiles were not submitted during analysis fails to quantify the benefits of and services. This may have created a public comment and are not publicly the proposed rule. mistaken impression that listing available. Therefore, some assumptions Our Response: The benefits of the rule constrictor snake species under the are still necessary in the economic include both avoided costs of Lacey Act would result in a net analysis. extirpating feral snake populations and reduction in consumer spending, (80) Comment: The economic analysis maintained ecological services from employment, and economic activity. ignores wholesalers, transporters, and areas that might have been harmed by Our Response: The Service agrees vendors of food and ancillary released snakes. Little information is with this comment. As we stated in our equipment. available about either of these sources 2012 final economic analysis, ‘‘Impacts Our Response: The economic analysis that would allow the quantification of also are dependent upon whether or not includes an input–output analysis that benefits. OMB Circular A–4, guidance consumers would substitute the takes into account all of the industries for implementing E.O. 12866, recognizes purchase of an animal that is not listed, that contribute to delivering the product that benefits are rarely fully quantified which would thereby reduce economic to the consumer. Wholesalers and and recommends a qualitative impacts described in this economic equipment used in the production of discussion of the sources of benefits. We analysis. There are no marketing data snakes for sale are included in the added this discussion to the final that estimate how consumer preference input–output analysis based on retail economic analysis (2012, 2015). may change due to the listing thus sales. Shipping cost information on (85) Comment: The draft economic changing the types of snakes that individual sales has been obtained since analysis lacks clarity in its exposition. businesses sell. This analysis does not we made the draft economic analysis Our Response: The Service sought account for this type of substitution available (March 12, 2010; 75 FR public comments on the draft economic effect.’’ In other words, we did not make 11808). This information was used to analysis made available with the assumptions for which we had no revise the economic analysis. proposed rule published in the Federal specific information, even though such (81) Comment: The Service also Register (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). substitutions would likely occur. This ignores pricing premiums for snakes, Per public comments received, the makes our estimate more of a worst-case particularly for color morphs, dwarfs, Service added additional clarification to scenario. etc. the final economic analysis (2015) for (87) Comment: An economic Our Response: The aggregate this final rule. Please refer to the full assessment of the reptile industry information available and provided by revised final economic analysis and commissioned by the U.S. Association the trade associations was insufficient to regulatory flexibility analysis, which are of Reptile Keepers (USARK) and segment the market for different classes available in the docket for this rule (at prepared by Georgetown Economic of snake for the draft economic analysis. http://www.regulations.gov under Services (GES), a subsidiary of USARK’s The knowledge that ‘‘pricing premiums Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015). lobbying firm, failed to take into reach up to 60 times the price of a (86) Comment: A recent economic account that a restriction on one ‘normal’ snake’’ (PIJAC, August 2, 2010, report conducted by a third-party particular consumer spending option FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015–4531.1, p. 4) economics firm, Blue Sky Consulting usually has an approximate zero net suggests that there are at least two Group, shows that the listing of the effect on employment or market segments for a species—one for reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s macroeconomic activity. Consumers ‘normal’ snakes and one for high-end anaconda, green anaconda, Beni will simply replace the product with collectible snakes. We received anaconda, and boa constrictor would another similar product. For example, in additional pricing information during not have a drastic effect on small 1975, the Food and Drug Administration the 2010 public comment periods that businesses that deal in the sale of (FDA) banned the sale or distribution of more accurately depicts pricing reptiles, concluding that listing would turtles with shells that measure less

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12736 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

than 4 inches in length in response to that may result from the implementation Everglades since the 1970s, Burmese findings that pet turtles were of the proposed rule, while completely pythons are still limited to that general responsible for a substantial number of ignoring the positive impacts the rule area. Salmonella infections nationwide. The would have in terms of benefits for Our Response: Of the four species we industry claimed economic risk in native wildlife, including endangered are listing in this rule, two are not yet response to the ban. However, the ban and threatened species, avoided control in trade, another is involved in trade in on small turtle sales resulted in an and eradication expenditures by minor amounts, and one is somewhat increase in the number of other reptiles, government agencies, and human safety. common in trade. Thus, their listing is such as iguanas, sold as pets. The trade (c) Uses an inappropriate discount rate intended to prevent their establishment will invariably shift to these other that by itself leads to a substantial (close in the wild through escapes or releases. species if the selling of the large snakes to 20 percent) overstating of the The Burmese python illustrates the need is curtailed. projected future costs of the rule. (d) to be proactive; although individual Our Response: Please see our Incorrectly applies the term ‘‘economic pythons had been regularly observed in response to Comment 86. losses’’ when referring to what in fact the Everglades region since the mid- (88) Comment: The Small Business are reductions in revenues for this small 1990s, it was not until 2006 that a Administration (SBA) suggested that, at segment of the reptile industry. reproducing population was a minimum, the Service publish a Our Response: In general, the Service documented to be present there. By that supplemental initial regulatory concurs with these statements; using the time, the population was well flexibility analysis that fully addresses OMB discount rate of 7 percent results established over a sizable area. the issues in the 2010 IRFA. in a 16 percent decrease in the 10-year (93) Comment: The Burmese python Our Response: The service believes aggregate cost compared with using a population in south Florida was that SBA’s concerns were adequately 3.25 discount rate with an assumption significantly reduced by the 2009–2010 addressed in the 2012 final regulatory of zero annual growth. winter cold weather. flexibility analysis (FRFA) on which the Our Response: This comment refers to 2015 FRFA is based, and that a Biological the previously listed Burmese python supplemental IRFA is not needed. (91) Comment: With the exception of (77 FR 3330; January 23, 2012). Many (89) Comment: According to the GES predation by a Python molurus Burmese pythons died during the record report, listing the 10 [sic] constrictor bivittatus on endangered Key Largo cold 2009–2010 winter, but many snakes on the injurious wildlife list woodrats (Neotoma floridana smalli), survived to reproduce and expand their would cost small businesses as much as there is no evidence of significant range in south Florida (see the Final $104 million in the first year and as adverse environmental, human health, Environmental Assessment 2015). much as $1.2 billion over 10 years. or economic impacts by these feral (94) Comment: There is no scientific Our Response: The GES report populations. information indicating that large body concluded that the economic costs to Our Response: Based upon what we size increases the likelihood that a the industry over the first 10 years of know of the diet of Burmese pythons (77 species will become invasive. In fact, lost revenues to be between $505 FR 3330; January 23, 2012) in their the opposite is likely the case since million and $1.2 billion. However, that native ranges and in Florida, and the large-bodied animals are more readily figure is based on a discount rate of 3.25 four large constrictor snakes that are the evident and thus more likely to be percent and an annual growth rate of 7 subjects of this rule (snakes that share removed from the environment before percent (Collis and Fenili 2011), the same traits), we find that federally they can establish a viable population. whereas the Office of Management and protected species, such as the Our Response: The list of traits shared Budget (Circular A–94, October 29, endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow by the giant constrictors includes many 1992) states that Federal agencies use a (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis), the of the traits that either increase the discount rate of 7 percent. Additionally, endangered Florida panther (Puma severity of their probable ecological it is not clear that an assumption of a (=Felis) concolor coryi), and the impacts or exacerbate the challenge of 7 percent annual growth rate over a endangered American crocodile controlling or eradicating them. The period of 10 years in the future is (Crocodylus acutus), are at risk of cryptic coloration of these snakes is a justified. Using a 7 percent discount rate predation by these constrictors if they common form of camouflage where the without the assumption of a 7 percent become feral. Reed and Rodda (2009) snakes are similar to their surroundings, annual growth rate (zero growth rate), list a total of 64 federally and State- making them very difficult to detect and the range would be $568 million to $779 listed endangered or threatened species be removed from the environment. million, which is within the GES at risk from giant constrictors in Florida Burmese pythons have established estimate of $372 million to $900.9 alone. As discussed earlier, additional viable populations partly because they million, using a discount rate of 3.25 Federal and State-listed species are at are hard to detect, have high percent and a zero annual growth rate. risk in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Texas, and reproductivity, and occupy a variety of (90) Comment: Referring to the GES other areas of the United States from the habitat types, and the four species listed report, an economist stated that the reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s in this final rule have the same traits. analysis has serious flaws because of anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni Thus, in comparison to potential these reasons: (a) Ignores likely anaconda. Please see our response to invaders lacking these traits, this group substitution effects on the part of both Comment 37 regarding the Burmese of snakes constitutes a particularly high the reptile industry and reptile owners, pythons linked to declines of up to 99 risk. A large body size would be a which leads to a likely large upward percent of populations of small- and disadvantage for an animal whose size bias in the resulting estimates of medium-sized mammals as prey in sets it off from its surrounding negative economic impacts from the Everglades National Park. environment, such as a bear, which proposed rule. (b) Focuses only on the (92) Comment: The majority of these stands 1–1.2 m (3–4 ft) above ground negative impacts on one small segment species have never been documented as level. However, even the largest pythons of the reptile industry (that is, breeders being introduced into new and anacondas extend only a foot above and importers of these nine large environments. Despite having been ground level, and are easily concealed constrictor snakes) and snake owners detected in the vicinity of the by ground vegetation or water. A large

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12737

body size would also be a disadvantage than implementing a long-term control Everglades region, found that 1 of 10 for predators that hunt actively on a program after the species is established. telemetered Burmese pythons survived regular basis, because they would stand Early detection of new infestations (10 percent) and 59 of 99 (60 percent) out more. Neither of these situations is requires vigilance and regular of nontelemetered pythons survived. true for the large constrictors, which are monitoring of the managed area and Subsequently there have been sightings primarily sit-and-wait predators and surrounding ecosystem. An EDRR and recent removals of Burmese which move along very low to the system will provide an important pythons and Northern African pythons ground. These attributes, combined with second line of defense against invasive in south Florida, including a mating the fact that these snakes have no animals that will work in concert with aggregation of Burmese pythons with similar ecological equivalents in the a first line of defense—that is, Federal one gravid female and four males (Snow United States with respect to size of regulations to prevent unwanted 2010). Therefore, despite the coldest prey items they can consume, make introductions by listing as injurious winter on record since at least the 1940s them a successful predator on naı¨ve wildlife. Prevention is why we are (NOAA 2010), south Florida still has wildlife that may otherwise not even listing the four large constrictor snakes reproducing populations of nonnative have native predators (such as Florida that are the subjects of this final rule, large constrictor snakes. While the panthers), thus increasing the likelihood which are either not yet found in the abundance of pythons clearly declined that they will successfully invade areas United States or not yet found to be during this record cold winter, the of the United States that have suitable reproducing in the United States. population has recovered rapidly in climate. In a study to determine why so (98) Comment: Two papers published south Florida, where the average female few invasive reptiles in Florida in the journal Biological Invasions, one reaches reproductive maturity within 3 succeeded as well as the Burmese by USDA wildlife researchers and years and can subsequently produce python, Reed et al. (2012) found that the another authored by scientists at several more than 30 (but up to 107) eggs per snake’s giant size was one of the highest research institutions including the clutch annually or biennially (Harvey et correlated factors. University of Florida, have concluded al. 2008). (95) Comment: Which of the nine that Burmese pythons cannot survive for Dorcas et al. (2011) published another species of constrictor snakes are any length of time outside south Florida study in Biological Invasions. They definitely reproducing in the wild in the unless they have the ability to find relocated 10 Burmese pythons from the United States? appropriate burrows or cavities to allow Everglades to an outdoor research Our Response: Of the four large hibernation for several months during constrictor snakes we are listing in this the winter. Given that this snake is setting in South Carolina. The following final rule, none is currently confirmed primarily a tropical and subtropical January, they all died. However, they breeding in the wild in the United species, it may not have evolved the had not had a chance to acclimate to a States. The purpose of this final rule is behavior or physiology to successfully milder winter before getting hit with to prevent these species from hibernate. Another paper (Jacobson et record cold. Dorcas et al. (2011) establishing populations in the wild. al. 2012) calls into question the concluded: ‘‘Some pythons in our study (96) Comment: Neither the State nor fundamental premise of the USGS were able to withstand long periods of the Federal Government has made climate work that pythons can migrate considerably colder weather than is substantial investments in strategic north out of south Florida and across typical for South Florida, suggesting programs for the eradication or control the southern third of the United States. that some snakes currently inhabiting of Burmese python on the lands they Although this study specifically Florida could survive typical winters in manage. In South Florida, the cost of addresses Burmese pythons, it has clear areas of the southeastern United States eradication of the Burmese python has implications for the reticulated python, more temperate than the region been relatively small. DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green currently inhabited by pythons. Our Response: [Refers to previously anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa Moreover, our results are specific to listed species; see 77 FR 3330, January constrictor. translocated pythons from southern 23, 2012] Our Response: This comment refers Florida. Burmese pythons originating (97) Comment: The most effective and specifically to a previously listed from more temperate localities within least costly methods would focus on species (see 77 FR 3330, January 23, their native range may be more tolerant preventing establishment of any 2012) but the relevant science also of cold temperatures and would potentially invasive species and would applies conceptually to the reticulated presumably be more likely to include early detection and rapid python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, successfully become established in response (EDRR). Eradication of green anaconda, and Beni anaconda, temperate areas of North America. The established populations is very rarely because they share with the Burmese susceptibility to cold we observed may effective and always costly. python such traits as how they regulate reflect a tropical origin of the Florida Our Response: We agree. We also their body temperature. pythons or acclimatization of snakes to agree that EDRR programs can be of The winter of January 2010 was one warm southern Florida winters early in benefit once prevention options have of the coldest on record in southern life.’’ If the snakes in any of the research been exhausted or proven to be Florida. Burmese pythons were studies had been provided such refugia ineffective. Sometimes considered the documented to tolerate these as gopher tortoise burrows, they may ‘‘second line of defense’’ after conditions. In the USDA study (Avery et have shown that they could survive prevention, EDRR is a critical al. 2010), two of nine (22 percent) of the even lower temperatures without component of any effective invasive Burmese pythons survived the cold hibernating. Given the climate species management program. When spell. This study was conducted in flexibility exhibited by the Burmese new invasive species infestations are Gainesville, Florida, 400 km (248.5 mi) python in its native range (as analyzed detected, a prompt and coordinated north of the known range where they are through USGS’ climate-matching containment and eradication response currently reproducing; this region of predictions in the United States), we can reduce environmental and Florida also experienced record cold would expect new generations within economic impacts. This action results in weather. The Mazzotti et al. (2010) the leading edge of the population’s lower cost and less resource damage study, which was conducted within the nonnative range to become increasingly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

adaptable and able to expand to colder information products and applies to all discussed above in the section climates. Likewise, we would also USGS scientific and technical Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from expect the reticulated python, information, whether it is published by Consideration as an Injurious Species, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green the USGS or an outside entity. we are withdrawing our proposal to list anaconda, and Beni anaconda to have (100) Comment: For the 2012 final the boa constrictor as an injurious the same climate flexibility, and new rule, the Service neglected relevant reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). generations along the leading edge may information and scientific reports (102) Comment: NPS’s review of become increasingly adaptable and able brought to its attention during the biological studies shows that: (a) The to expand to colder climates. comment period or published shortly probability of detection of Burmese A subsequent paper (Jacobson et al. thereafter. The Service also neglected pythons in the environment is 2012) concluded that it would be information in reports contrary to extremely low because they are highly unlikely that Burmese pythons will be conclusions they drew. Some studies cryptic in a variety of native and able to expand to or colonize more were selectively quoted, giving nonnative habitats. The reticulated temperate areas of Florida and adjoining misleading impressions about their python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, States due to their lack of behavioral findings. These legal errors cannot be green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa and physiological traits to seek refuge repeated as the Service makes a constrictor are also highly cryptic and from cold temperatures. However, there determination regarding reticulated thus difficult to detect. Similar to the is nothing in the paper that undermines python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, Burmese python, they would likely be the original approaches or conclusions green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa present, breeding, and causing impacts of Rodda et al. (2009). Many factors, constrictor. to the environment long before an including temperature, may limit the Our Response: For the final rule invasion is fully recognized. By the time distribution of pythons in the United published on January 23, 2012 (77 FR there is sufficient evidence gathered to States, but Jacobson et al. (2012) give no 3330), the Service reviewed all determine that an invasion has insight to what those limitations might documents that were provided to us occurred, a population will likely have be. Based on the rationale described in prior to the final determinations being expanded beyond the stage of the paper, most of the continental made. We used information that we eradication or containment. (b) Peer- United States is unsuitable even for found to be relevant, including citing review science confirms the serious native snakes, and that is not the case. papers that we found not defensible, for (99) Comment: The ‘‘Reed and Rodda which we explained why (see Need for environmental impact of Burmese Report’’ was only subject to an internal the Final Rule above). For this final rule, pythons on wildlife in the Everglades. review process. Any policy changes or we reopened the comment period on the The green anaconda is the largest and legislation that will have an effect on proposed rule for an additional 30 days heaviest of the constrictor snakes and the freedoms of American citizens (see 79 FR 35719, June 24, 2014), and has a prey base that includes aquatic should be based on sound scientific we considered all relevant information, species in larger proportion than the evidence as well as the merit of a true including information that we had Burmese python. The boa constrictor is scientific peer review process. received after the decisions for the first the most arboreal of the constrictor Our Response: Dr. Susan Haseltine, four species of constrictor snakes had species addressed in this rulemaking Associate Director for Biology, USGS, been made, along with other available process and is known to take birds from responded on January 23, 2010, to a information concerning the reticulated all forest strata in addition to preying on press release issued by a reptile-trade python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, mammals. The reticulated python is organization and an accompanying green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa noted as a good swimmer, is tolerant of letter by a group of veterinarians and constrictor. salt water, and is likely able to colonize other scientists regarding the USGS peer (101) Comment: The National Park coastal islands from mainland shores. review process. She said, ‘‘The USGS Service (NPS) described where boa Such traits suggest potential to cause as provides unbiased, objective scientific constrictors, reticulated pythons, and much or greater damage to wildlife than information upon which other entities two of the anacondas have been the Burmese python has, particularly may base judgments. To ensure captured outside of captivity in Florida when cumulative impacts are objectivity, independent scientific and other States. NPS also comments considered. (c) Because an invasion of review is required of every USGS that the potential range for the boa cryptic constrictor snakes, such as the publication. Standards require a constrictor includes NPS units such as reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s minimum of two reviews, and adequacy Cumberland Island and Gulf Coast anaconda, green anaconda, Beni of the author’s responses to reviews is national seashores, Cape Canaveral, anaconda, and boa constrictor, can only assessed by both research managers and Virgin Islands National Park, and other be determined after a large number are independent scientists within the sites in Puerto Rico, the Florida Keys, present in the environment, control and USGS. USGS went well beyond the and elsewhere. The reticulated python management after they become requirements by soliciting reviews from has been found on the loose in Florida, established in the wild is costly and 20 reviewers (18 of them external to the California, Colorado, Hawaii, and both time and labor intensive. Further, USGS). Reviewers comprised a large Massachusetts. The potential range for eradication may never be possible. portion of the global expertise on both the three the anacondas includes Current control and management tools the biology of giant constrictor snakes Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin for the Burmese python are extremely and the management of invasive Islands. limited in their success, in spite of snakes.’’ Our Response: We considered the nearly 10 years of research and The USGS follows mandatory information submitted by NPS and have management efforts. If we use the fundamental science practices for peer incorporated that information into our several decades of information on the review, which can be read at the analysis where appropriate. In this rule, effort to contain brown tree snakes in following Internet site: http:// we are adding reticulated python, Guam as a guide, efforts to develop www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502- DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green landscape-scale control tools for 3.html. This policy establishes the anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list constrictor snakes in south Florida is requirements for peer review of USGS of injurious wildlife. For reasons likely to require tens of millions of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12739

dollars and several decades. The most second statement, we believe that many as an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; effective and affordable means of large constrictors will attain much larger March 12, 2010), thus decreasing the control for invasions by large constrictor sizes than feral cats and that they will, effects on the pet industry. species is prevention from introduction, therefore, consume each more than the (107) Comment: Because the addition whether accidental or intentional. (d) 5 kilograms per year that the commenter of any species to the lists of injurious Trade and transportation have been estimates in his public comment. If species under the Lacey Act results in cited as the ultimate drivers of invasive these prey items are declining species, the nationwide ban of that species, a species introductions, including those the snake predation will pose a risk to nationwide impact study should be on NPS lands. Personal ownership via natural populations of vertebrates. performed. the pet trade is the principal pathway by Finally, scientific and biomedical Our Response: The commenter did which large constrictor species have researchers will still be able to obtain not explain what type of nationwide been introduced into the environment permits for importation and interstate impact study should be performed. We in south Florida. Efforts in education transportation. did, in fact, develop two nationwide and outreach are extensive but are not (104) Comment: The subspecies Boa impact studies, an economic analysis able to prevent all intentional or constrictor imperator is indigenous to and an environmental assessment, drafts accidental releases of captive snakes the Sonoran Desert of northern Mexico of which we posted on http:// into the wild. For the six large but has never naturally expanded its www.regulations.gov on March 12, 2010, constrictor species that have been found range to include the United States. with the proposed rule, and final outside of captivity in Florida, personal Our Response: For reasons discussed versions of which are also available at ownership in the pet trade was above in the section Withdrawal of the http://www.regulations.gov under demonstrated as the principal pathway Boa Constrictor from Consideration as Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015 that has resulted in their presence in the an Injurious Species, we are for the species listed in 2012 and the environment. (e) New information on withdrawing our proposal to list the boa species we are listing in this final rule. Burmese pythons has documented constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR We used the best available information, unprovoked attacks by wild pythons on 11808; March 12, 2010). and we believe these impact studies are humans in Everglades National Park. (105) Comment: In 2013, the Florida sufficient. We also believe we made a Attacks by reticulated pythons on Fish and Wildlife Conservation good-faith effort to locate information humans in their native range are Commission launched ‘‘The Python (see also response to Comment 57). documented and include multiple Challenge,’’ a legal hunt designed to (108) Comment: We request an fatalities. NPS is concerned about highlight the problem of these invasive extension of the comment period for the impacts to human health and safety as predators. This hunt attracted roughly proposed rule to provide our members well as impacts to native wildlife and 1,600 hunters, yet only 68 snakes were much needed time to provide habitats on NPS lands. captured. comments, data, and analysis that will Our Response: The Service concurs Our Response: [Refers to a previously be instrumental to the Service’s final with these comments. In this rule, we listed species; 77 FR 3330, January 23, decision. are adding the reticulated python, 2012.] This hunt was organized to Our Response: We received requests DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green heighten public awareness of the for an extension of the public comment anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list invasive species problem. The hunt period for up to 90 days. We granted of injurious wildlife. For reasons confirmed how difficult it is even for two additional 30-day comment periods discussed above in the section dedicated hunters to locate the cryptic to the original 60 days, for a total of 120 Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from animals. The reticulated python, days for the proposed rule’s comment Consideration as an Injurious Species, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green period. We believe that amount of time we are withdrawing our proposal to list anaconda, and Beni anaconda are just as was sufficient, even for a complex rule, the boa constrictor as an injurious cryptically colored and just as difficult considering we were seeking similar reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). to locate in the field. information to that for the 2008 notice (103) Comment: An authority on the of inquiry (73 FR 5784; January 31, physiology and biology of pythons and Other 2008). boas makes these two conclusions: (a) (106) Comment: The Service has not (109) Comment: One commenter These snakes are unable to expand their thoroughly considered the full referred to a memo written in 2007 by populations beyond southern Florida implications of the rule regarding effects a former Service Assistant Director and and will undoubtedly experience on the pet industry. Chief of Law Enforcement. The periodic population die-offs resulting Our Response: We understand that comment quoted the memo, ‘‘The from episodes of freezing temperatures. the implications of this rule are injurious species provisions of the (b) It is doubtful that these species complex. We have endeavored to Lacey Act were clearly not designed to present a risk to natural populations of consider all aspects of listing the deal with a species that is already a vertebrates because the amount of food reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s significant part of the pet trade in the that they eat is trivial compared to the anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni United States’’ and ‘‘It could, however, yearly intake of a similar size carnivore anaconda as injurious, including make a felon out of a reptile enthusiast (such as feral cats). (c) Finally, these alternatives, using the best available in Wisconsin who sells one python to snakes are valuable for scientific and information. Please see Alternatives to an individual in Minnesota.’’ The biomedical research. Listing, below, for an explanation of the commenter stated that the Service has Our Response: We believe the species alternatives that we considered. We not made a case for the rule. can potentially spread, but we will have also made every effort to consider Our Response: The memo that the likely not know for certain until it is too all of the indirect and cumulative commenter referred to was an late to act. Some individual snakes may effects. For reasons discussed above in information memorandum to the die from cold weather, but some the section Withdrawal of the Boa Service’s Director regarding the petition Burmese pythons, which are closely Constrictor from Consideration as an to list the Burmese python from the related, have already survived record Injurious Species, we are withdrawing South Florida Water Management cold temperatures in Florida. For the our proposal to list the boa constrictor District in 2006. The memo described

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12740 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

various options that the Service and situations are more representative of endangered species and the others could consider. The statements worst-case scenarios. A variety of other environment as pure species ancestors. quoted by the commenter are verbatim. laws are often violated when people Many closely related constrictor species However, at the time the memo was engage in illegal wildlife trafficking, are known to hybridize, and it is likely written, the USGS risk assessment (Reed some of which are Federal felonies. that many of the invasive constrictors and Rodda 2009) had not yet been However, a stand-alone violation of the noted in the proposed rule have this completed. No decision had been made interstate transport or import same ability. Some hybrid combinations by the Service at the time of the memo. prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. 42 is a may result in sterile offspring, however, The Service’s memo acknowledges, ‘‘We misdemeanor, not a felony. Please also some do remain fertile. Furthermore, expect to have the risk assessment—an see our response to Comment 30 for an each individual snake still has the essential first step in any evaluation for explanation of the misdemeanor and capability of causing extensive damage injurious designation—completed in felony violations. within its lifetime.’’ approximately one year.’’ That was, • Do not list the species Boa Alternatives to Listing however, an underestimation of the time constrictor. it would take to prepare such a thorough (110) Comment: This is a summary of Our Response: For reasons discussed document and have it extensively peer- the alternatives suggested through the above in the section Withdrawal of the reviewed. Once that risk assessment was public comment process. Where noted, Boa Constrictor from Consideration as completed, it became clear that all nine they are explained further in the text of an Injurious Species, we are species included in our March 12, 2010, the preamble above. withdrawing our proposal to list the boa proposed rule (75 FR 11808) should be (a) List some or all of the nine species, constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR evaluated by the Service for possible but: • 11808; March 12, 2010). listing as injurious. Exempt color and pattern genetic • List regionally only where there is The memo’s statement, ‘‘The injurious mutations of these snakes from the a climate match. species provisions of the Lacey Act were listing as albinos, leucistics, etc. Our Response: Creating this type of clearly not designed to deal with a Our Response: The commenter geographical restriction or exemption species that is already a significant part explains that albinos and leucistic (or both) under the Lacey Act would of the pet trade in the United States’’ is (having reduced pigmentation) snakes make enforcement of the regulations by true in that the pet trade was not have a far lesser chance of survival in the Federal Government, in cooperation established to the degree it is today any wild environment. Not listing these with the affected States, virtually when the Lacey Act was passed by color and pattern mutations would have impossible. Furthermore, the authority Congress in 1900. That does not, a smaller financial impact on the to list regionally is unclear and however, mean that the injurious industry and no financial impact on the untested. species provisions cannot be an government. The commenter may be • Allow for the interstate travel for effective tool in invasive species correct that such color variations may captive-bred animals. management. The reason that we are have a lesser chance of survival in the Our Response: Please see our listing the reticulated python, wild. However, the survival differential response to Comment 66. DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green is unknown, so we have assumed that • Remove the status of the Port of anaconda, and Beni anaconda as all color variations still pose a Miami as an agricultural port and a port injurious is that the listings may prevent substantial risk to the welfare of wildlife of entry. Move the port of entry north, their establishment in vulnerable parts or wildlife resources of the United maybe to one of the New England ports of the country. In addition, two of the States. Furthermore, if snakes escape to where the weather will eradicate species are not currently part of the the wild, their offspring may not have anything that would be lost or illegally constrictor pet trade, and the reticulated the same obvious color pattern and may released. python and green anaconda comprise perpetuate normally patterned Our Response: This alternative is less than 1 percent each of total populations given gene dominance, beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In constrictor snake imports (for the genera expression, mutation, and natural addition, it is highly impractical. While Python, Boa, and Eunectes) for 2008 to selection. Miami is the port with the most imports 2010. Therefore, taking the proactive • Exempt hybrids. of the reticulated python, green step to list them as injurious species Our Response: We realize that hybrids anaconda, and boa constrictor (94.2 now will reduce the likelihood that often are worth significantly more percent from 2011 to 2013; Final their numbers will increase in the money than the parent species Economic Analysis 2015), two other United States and pose a risk to native separately. Allowing hybrids would warm-weather southern ports (Los wildlife in the future. The Service has preserve more of the income of some Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth) also determined, however, that the boa breeders. However, we have determined received imports of thousands of the constrictor should not be listed as an that hybrids are at least the same risk as species identified in the March 12, injurious species under the Lacey Act the parent species are to the welfare of 2010, proposed rule. These three ports for the reasons explained in the section wildlife or wildlife resources of the account for 99 percent of all imports of Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from United States. The Wildlife Society the reticulated python, green anaconda, Consideration as an Injurious Species, commented, ‘‘Hybrids between two and boa constrictor. including, in part, that the species is invasive species are also invasive • The Service should consider paying widely held in captivity in the United themselves and must be listed as restitution to or compensating these States in high numbers, often as pets. injurious along with the exotic parental people for their losses, by buying the As for the comment from the memo, species. Hybrids maintain many of the animals and the businesses that will no ‘‘It could, however, make a felon out of characteristics of the parent species; this longer exist, suddenly made worthless, a reptile enthusiast in Wisconsin who means that hybrids will retain an ability at fair market value, and then debating sells one python to an individual in to reach the large sizes and continue the the question on how to dispose of those Minnesota,’’ that statement was also voracious dietary habits of the parental animals. quoted correctly and is correct under species, and they will cause as much Our Response: This rule does not certain situations. However, those damage to native threatened and affect people’s ability to own, possess,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12741

or transport snakes within States, if Our Response: Industry and State Comment 97), which is the intent of this allowed by State law. In addition, partnerships are very important to the rule. neither the Service nor the Department Service and Department of the Interior • Guidelines should be developed to of the Interior has programs or in our efforts to manage invasive help States evaluate and manage the authorities to compensate people for species. As examples, the Department particular invasion risks in their region, losses that may be related to this signed a memorandum of understanding including improved data collection and injurious wildlife listing. The Service with PIJAC in 2009, to create public record-keeping, containment facility can work with the affected States and awareness—through such public standards, and legitimate methods for industry, and offer technical assistance campaigns as HabitattitudeTM—about unwanted pet disposition. to provide environmentally risk-free the threat of invasive species and to Our Response: We are unclear if this approaches to disposing of constrictor promote responsible pet ownership recommendation is directed toward the snakes that businesses or pet owners no practices to prevent the accidental or Service. We suggest that it is more longer want to keep. Please also see our intentional release of invasive species appropriate for AFWA to address this response to Comment 13 where we by pet owners. The Service also partners recommendation. provide options for people to dispose of with States to develop a national aquatic Required Determinations snakes responsibly. invasive species program, and we (b) Do not list any of the species. support many State management actions Regulatory Planning and Review Instead: through cost-share grants for The Office of Management and Budget • Let the States regulate their own implementation of State Aquatic (OMB) has determined that this rule is captive wildlife, such as following Nuisance Species Management Plans. significant under Executive Order (E.O.) FWC’s comprehensive approach in These partnerships with industry and 12866. OMB bases its determination Florida. States are essential aspects of managing upon the following four criteria: Our Response: Please see our the invasive species problem facing the (1) Whether the rule will have an response to Comment 19. nation and have been found to be annual effect of $100 million or more on • Allow the industry to self-regulate particularly important in developing the the economy or adversely affect an and educate with the Internet, etc.; most effective means for controlling the economic sector, productivity, jobs, the United States Association of Reptile further establishment, spread, and environment, or other units of the Keepers best management practices; damage from boa constrictors, as government. State and local risk assessment industry explained in the section Withdrawal of (2) Whether the rule will create best management practices (BMPs) as the Boa Constrictor from Consideration inconsistencies with other Federal suggested by Dr. Frank Mazzotti; and as an Injurious Species. Also important, agencies’ actions. HabitattitudeTM. however, is the Federal Government’s (3) Whether the rule will materially Our Response: We fully support all of authority to regulate importation and affect entitlements, grants, user fees, these suggestions and look forward to interstate transport of species found to loan programs, or the rights and working with all entities that endorse be injurious wildlife under 18 U.S.C. 42 obligations of their recipients. them. However, they are voluntary when appropriate. This authority is one (4) Whether the rule raises novel legal actions, with no guarantee that important aspect of an overall national or policy issues. organizations or their members will strategy to reduce the risks from Executive Order 12866 Regulatory cooperate. Of note is that these introduction and spread of harmful Planning and Review (U.S. Office of opportunities have been available for nonnative species. Management and Budget 1993) and a many years, but, for example, USARK (d) AZA offered an alternative to subsequent document, Economic has not published large constrictor adopting the proposal by supporting a Analysis of Federal Regulations under snake best management practices to coordinated regional response to Executive Order 12866 (U.S. Office of protect the environment (such as asking Florida’s pythons, and invasive species Management and Budget 1996), identify the public not to release nonnative in general, through a multipronged guidelines or ‘‘best practices’’ for the species into the wild) on their Web site approach: economic analysis of Federal as of this date. We believe that both • A national educational program regulations. With respect to the voluntary and regulatory actions are should be developed to bring the risks regulation under consideration, an necessary to safeguard our ecosystems of invasive species to a broad audience analysis that comports with the Circular with more assurance. and emphasize responsible pet A–4 would include a full description • Issue permits and registrations, ownership and gardening practices. and estimation of the economic benefits require microchipping, apply severe Our Response: The Service is working and costs associated with fines and criminal charges, etc., for the with stakeholders on HabitattitudeTM implementation of the regulation. These miskeeping or release of these animals and Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! National benefits and costs would be measured in any State. campaigns. The Service also worked on by the net change in consumer and Our Response: These alternatives do the development of ANSTF’s Water producer surplus due to the regulation. have potential for preventing accidental Gardening Guidelines, which became Both producer and consumer surplus and intentional escapes. However, the available to the public in 2014. reflect opportunity cost as they measure Service does not have the authority to • Increased support and coordination what people would be willing to forgo issue permits for pets or for any use of is needed for State and local early (pay) in order to obtain a particular good injurious species other than for medical, detection, rapid response, and or service. ‘‘Producers’ surplus is the zoological, educational, or scientific eradication efforts, including organized difference between the amount a purposes. volunteer invasive species corps to help producer is paid for a unit of good and (c) PIJAC offered to discuss options protect local ecosystems. the minimum amount the producer with the Service in detail including Our Response: The most effective and would accept to supply that unit. developing a comprehensive, State-led least costly methods should focus on Consumers’ surplus is the difference prevention and early detection and preventing establishment of potentially between what a consumer pays for a rapid response program. invasive species (see our response to unit of a good and the maximum

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

amount the consumer would be willing populations is reduced by implementing Businesses or individuals importing to pay for that unit (U.S. Office of this rule. In this case, consumer surplus or transporting listed species across Management and Budget 1996, section would increase compared to no State lines could face penalties for C–1).’’ injurious listing. If comprehensive Lacey Act violations. The penalty for a Large constrictor snakes are information were available on these Lacey Act violation is not more than 6 commonly kept as pets in U.S. different types of producer and months in prison and not more than a households, displayed by zoological consumer surpluses, a comparison of $5,000 fine for an individual, and not institutions, used for science and benefits and costs would be relatively more than a $10,000 fine for an research, and used as educational tools. straightforward. However, information organization. Because none of the four species we are is not currently available on these Under this final rule, the probability listing in this rule is native to the values, so a quantitative comparison of of the four species of large constrictor United States, the species are obtained benefits and costs is not possible. snakes establishing populations within by importing or breeding in captivity. The data currently available are the United States should decrease We provided a draft economic analysis limited to the number of constrictor compared to the ‘‘no action’’ alternative. to the public at the time the March 12, snake imports each year, the estimated The change in probability is unknown. 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11808) was number of constrictor snakes bred in the Alternatives Considered published (on http:// United States, and a range of retail The draft economic analysis (2010) www.regulations.gov at Docket No. prices for each constrictor snake considered two other alternatives, in FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015) and offered species. Using data for the three genera addition to listing all (Alternative 2) or two public comment periods totaling 90 Python, Boa, and Eunectes, we provide none (Alternative 1) of the nine species days. Using the comments we received the value of the reticulated python, under consideration. Alternative 3 on the draft economic analysis and new DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green would list the seven species known to information we acquired, we revised the anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa be in trade in the United States (that is, economic analysis and provided the constrictor sold as a rough final version on http:// all but the Beni and DeSchauensee’s approximation for the social cost of this anacondas). Alternative 4 would list the www.regulations.gov at Docket No. final rulemaking and alternatives FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015 for the four five species judged to have a high considered. We provide qualitative ‘‘overall risk potential’’ in the USGS species we listed as injurious in 2012 discussion on the potential benefits of (see 77 FR 3330, January 23, 2012). We evaluation (Reed and Rodda 2009), this rulemaking. In addition, we used an while excluding the four species judged opened another 30-day public comment input–output model in an attempt to period on June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35719) to have a medium overall risk potential estimate the secondary or multiplier (that is, the two nontraded species, plus on the five remaining species in the effects of this rulemaking—job impacts, proposed rule, for a total of 120 public the green anaconda and reticulated job income impacts, and tax revenue comment days. We prepared another python). impacts (discussed below). economic analysis for the four species For the final economic analysis for that are the subjects of this final rule With this rule, the importation and this final rule (2015), our alternatives (reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s interstate transport of four species of changed because we had already listed anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni large constrictor snakes (reticulated four species as injurious (see 77 FR anaconda) using the same protocols as python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 3330, January 23, 2012). Therefore, in 2012. We provide a summary here of green anaconda, and Beni anaconda) Alternative 2A would list the five the part of the final economic analysis will be prohibited, except as specifically species remaining from the proposed (2015) relevant to those four species. permitted. The annual retail value rule (reticulated python, In the context of the regulation under losses as a result of this rule are DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green consideration, the economic effects to estimated to range from $1.9 million to anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa three groups would be addressed: (1) $4.1 million (Final Economic Analysis constrictor); Alternative 2B would list Producers; (2) consumers; and (3) 2015). the four species we are listing in this society. With the prohibition of imports The broad indicator of the economic final rule (reticulated python, and interstate transport, producers, impacts of the alternatives, economic DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green breeders, and suppliers would be output or aggregate sales, includes three anaconda, and Beni anaconda); affected in several ways. Depending on types of effects: Direct, indirect, and Alternative 3 would list the three the characteristics of a given business induced. The direct effects are the species that are currently in trade (such as what portion of their sales changes in annual retail value due to the (reticulated python, green anaconda, depends on out-of-State sales or implementation of a given alternative. and boa constrictor); and Alternative 4 imports), sales revenue would be ‘‘Indirect effects result from changes in would list only the boa constrictor, reduced or eliminated, thus decreasing sales for suppliers to the directly which is the only species of the five total producer surplus compared to the affected businesses (including trade and remaining ones that Reed and Rodda situation without the regulation. services at the retail, wholesale and (2009) determined to have a high risk Consumers (pet owners or potential pet producer levels). Induced effects are potential (all nine species, however, are owners) would be affected by having a associated with further shifts in injurious). more limited choice of constrictor spending on food, clothing, shelter and Compared to the alternative of listing snakes or, in cases where species were other consumer goods and services, as a all five species (2A), Alternative 2B not available within their State, no consequence of the change in workers would have less effect on current sales choice at all if out-of-State sales are and payroll of directly and indirectly revenues or indirect economic impacts prohibited. Consequently, total affected businesses’’ (Weisbrod and from the loss of such revenues, because consumer surplus would decrease Weisbrod 1997). The indirect and there are currently no sales revenues compared to no injurious listing. Certain induced effects represent any multiplier from two of these species and the rule segments of society may value knowing effects due to the loss of revenue. These does not include the boa constrictor, the that the risk to natural areas and other cost estimates include the various one remaining species with the highest potential impacts from constrictor snake potential scenarios we considered. overall risk potential (Reed and Rodda

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12743

2009). Only the reticulated python is the enforcement officials to distinguish if prohibited, except as specifically subject of noticeable trade, and that is mislabeled as DeSchauensee’s authorized. Impacts to entities breeding less than 4 percent of imported anacondas and green anacondas would or selling these snakes domestically will constrictor snakes of the genera Python, be difficult for enforcement officials to depend on the amount of interstate sales Boa, and Eunectes (Final Economic distinguish if mislabeled as Beni within the constrictor snake market. Analysis 2015). Alternative 2A would anacondas, and the fact that the Impacts also are dependent upon have the same economic impacts as opportunity to act preventively before whether or not consumers substitute the Alternative 3, because the two species most of these species became purchase of an animal that is not listed, that are not in Alternative 3 are not in established would be lost under this which would thereby reduce economic trade. alternative all argued in favor of impacts. Alternative 3 would, however, allow Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 3. For businesses importing any of the consumers to substitute the two species four large constrictor snakes we are not in trade (in addition to the many Regulatory Flexibility Act listing in this final rule, the maximum other substitute species already Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act impact of this rulemaking will result in available) for the purchase of the (as amended by the Small Business 20 to 28 small businesses (39 percent) prohibited species, thus reducing Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act having a reduction in their retail sales economic impacts to the degree that [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), of 1 percent. there would be substitute purchases of whenever a Federal agency is required In addition to companies that import these two species. However, the to publish a notice of rulemaking for snakes, entities that breed and sell large possibility of substitute purchases is any proposed or final rule, it must constrictor snakes will also be impacted. itself a potential problem in that the two prepare and make available for public These entities include distributors, currently nontraded species are so comment a regulatory flexibility retailers, breeders and hobbyists, and similar in appearance to the green and analysis that describes the effect of the exhibitors and trade shows. We do not yellow anacondas that it would be rule on small entities (that is, small know the total number of businesses, difficult for enforcement officials to businesses, small organizations, and large or small, that sell or breed the two distinguish green or yellow anacondas small government jurisdictions). species we are listing in this rule that that were mislabeled as Beni or However, no regulatory flexibility are currently in trade domestically. DeSchauensee’s anacondas. In addition, analysis is required if the head of an However, we know approximately the acting to prevent the importation of agency certifies that the rule would not number of businesses that sell or breed these two species before trade in them have a significant economic impact on large constrictor snake species of the emerges means that environmental a substantial number of small entities. genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes and injury from them can be prevented, Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis that, overall, the reticulated python, which is far more effective than waiting to be required, impacts must exceed a DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green until after injury has already occurred to threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa act to limit it. threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of constrictor represent 39 percent of all Alternative 4 (listing only the one small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). U.S.-bred large constrictor snake sales of species determined to have a high SBREFA amended the Regulatory those three genera. Because we do not ‘‘overall risk potential’’ in Reed and Flexibility Act to require Federal know exactly how many businesses sell Rodda (2009)) would limit the rule to agencies to provide a statement of the those five species, we extrapolated the the species with the greatest potential factual basis for certifying that a rule percentage of sales to determine the for environmental injury. Of the four would not have a significant economic number of affected businesses. Thus, we species that would not be listed under impact on a substantial number of small assume that 8 percent of businesses sell this alternative, two anacondas are not entities. A final regulatory flexibility or breed the reticulated python and currently in trade in the United States, analysis was prepared for the four green anaconda (the two snake species and one (the green anaconda) is in very species listed in 2012 (see 77 FR 3330, in U.S. trade in this final rule) and that limited trade (less than half a percent of January 23, 2012) and another was approximately 60 to 85 percent of these imported constrictor snakes of the prepared for the four species in this entities would qualify as small genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes). The final rule in 2015, which we briefly businesses. Therefore, approximately economic impact of the one-species summarize below. See ADDRESSES or 490 to 1,281 small businesses will be alternative (Alternative 4) would be http://www.regulations.gov under affected. Impacts to this group of slightly less than the five-species Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015 businesses as a whole could represent alternative (Alternative 2A) and the for the complete documents. an 8 percent reduction in retail value. three-species alternative (Alternative 3) This rule lists four constrictor snake In addition to snake sales, ancillary because the boa is the primary species species (reticulated python, and support services comprise part of in trade of the five species, but greater DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green the snake industry. Four major than the four-species alternative, which anaconda, and Beni anaconda) as categories include: (1) Food suppliers does not include the boa (Alternative injurious species under the Lacey Act. (such as for frozen or live rats and 2B). Entities impacted by the listing include: mice), (2) equipment suppliers (such as The relative level of risk associated (1) Companies importing live snakes, for cages, containers, lights, and other with each species is determined by the gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids; (2) nonfood items), (3) veterinary care and criteria specified in the section Lacey companies (breeders and wholesalers) other health-related items, and (4) Act Evaluation Criteria. Even in the case with interstate sales of live snakes, shipping companies. The decrease in of those species with medium risk, the gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids; (3) constrictor-snake-industry economic particular areas where the climate entities selling reptile-related products output and related employment from match occurs are notable for the number and services (pet stores, veterinarians, baseline conditions is $5.3 to 11.4 of endangered species found there (such and shipping companies); and (4) million for the reticulated python and as Hawaii, southern Florida, and Puerto research organizations, zoos, and green anaconda. This estimate includes Rico). That fact, the potential that educational operations. Importation of impacts to the support service yellow anacondas would be difficult for the four constrictor snakes will be businesses. The number of businesses

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 12744 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

that provide these services to the large Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 Civil Justice Reform constrictor snake market is unreported. U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) In accordance with Executive Order Thus, we do not know the impact to This final rule will not impose an 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has these types of individual businesses. determined that the rule does not Under the final rule, the interstate unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector unduly burden the judicial system and transport of the reticulated python and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) green anaconda (the two constrictor of more than $100 million per year. This final rule will not have a significant or and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. The snakes currently in U.S. trade in this rule has been reviewed to eliminate unique effect on State, local, or tribal final rule) will be discontinued, except drafting errors and ambiguity, was governments or the private sector. A as specifically permitted. Thus, any written to minimize litigation, provides statement containing the information revenue that would be potentially a clear legal standard for affected required by the Unfunded Mandates earned from this portion of the business conduct rather than a general standard, Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not will be eliminated. The amount of sales and promotes simplification and burden impacted is completely dependent on required. reduction. the percentage of interstate transport. Takings That is, the impact depends on where Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 businesses are located and where their In accordance with E.O. 12630 This rule does not contain any new customers are located. (Government Actions and Interference collections of information that require This final rule may have a significant with Constitutionally Protected Private approval by OMB under the Paperwork economic effect on a small number of Property Rights), the rule does not have Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 small entities as defined under the significant takings implications. A et seq.). This rule will not impose new Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 takings implication assessment is not recordkeeping or reporting requirements et seq.). required. This rule will not impose on State or local governments, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement significant requirements or limitations individuals, businesses, or Fairness Act on private property use. Any person organizations. OMB has approved the who possesses one or more snakes of the information collection requirements This rule is not a major rule under 5 four species we are listing in this rule associated with the required permits U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business can continue to possess, sell, or and assigned OMB Control No. 1018– Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. transport them within their State 0093, which expires May 31, 2017. An This rule: boundaries. agency may not conduct or sponsor and a. Will not have an annual effect on a person is not required to respond to the economy of $100 million or more. Federalism a collection of information unless it According to the final economic displays a currently valid OMB control In accordance with E.O. 13132 analysis (USFWS 2015), the annual number. retail value losses for the four (Federalism), this rule does not have constrictor snake species we are listing federalism implications. This rule will National Environmental Policy Act in this final rule are estimated to range not have substantial direct effects on We have reviewed this rule in from $1.9 million to $4.1 million. In States, on the relationship between the accordance with the criteria of the addition, businesses would also face the Federal Government and the States, or National Environmental Policy Act risk of fines if caught importing or on the distribution of power and (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), transporting these constrictor snakes, responsibilities among the various Department of the Interior NEPA gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids across levels of government. The rule does not regulations (43 CFR part 46), and the State lines. The penalty for a Lacey Act have substantial direct effects on States Departmental Manual in 516 DM 8. This violation under the injurious wildlife because it: (1) Imposes no affirmative action is being taken to protect the provisions is not more than 6 months in obligations on any State, (2) preempts natural resources of the United States. A prison and not more than a $5,000 fine no State law, (3) does not limit the final environmental assessment and a for an individual and not more than a policymaking discretion of the States, finding of no significant impact (FONSI) $10,000 fine for an organization. (4) requires no State to expend any have been prepared and are available for b. Will not cause a major increase in funds, and (5) imposes no compliance review by written request (see costs or prices for consumers; costs on any State. Executive Order ADDRESSES) or at http:// individual industries; Federal, State, or 13132 requires Federal agencies to www.regulations.gov under Docket No. local government agencies; or proceed cautiously when there are FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015. The final geographic regions. Businesses breeding ‘‘uncertainties regarding the environmental assessment was based on or selling the listed snakes will be able constitutional or statutory authority of the proposed listing of the reticulated to substitute other species and maintain the national government,’’ but there are python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, business by seeking unusual no such uncertainties here. The green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa morphologic forms in other snakes. statutory authority of the U.S. Fish and constrictor as injurious and was revised Some businesses, however, may close. Wildlife Service to designate injurious based on comments from peer reviewers We do not have data for the potential species pursuant to the Lacey Act is and the public. By adding reticulated substitutions, and, therefore, we do not clear. The Executive Order also python and DeSchauensee’s, green, and know the number of businesses that encourages early consultation with State Beni anacondas to the list of injurious may close. and local officials, which the Service wildlife, we intend to prevent their new c. Will not have significant adverse has done. Therefore, in accordance with introduction, further introduction, and effects on competition, employment, Executive Order 13132, we determine establishment into natural areas of the investment, productivity, innovation, or that this rule does not have federalism United States to protect native wildlife the ability of United States-based implications or preempt State law, and species, the survival and welfare of enterprises to compete with foreign- therefore a federalism summary impact wildlife and wildlife resources, and the based enterprises. statement is not required. health and welfare of human beings. If

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12745

we did not list these constrictor snakes to make information available to tribes. chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal as injurious, the species are more likely We have evaluated potential effects on Regulations, as follows: to expand in captivity in States where federally recognized Indian tribes and they are not already found in the wild; have determined that there are no PART 16—[AMENDED] this would increase the risk of their potential effects. This rule involves the ■ escape or intentional release and importation and interstate movement of 1. The authority citation for part 16 subsequent establishment in new areas, three live anaconda species and one live continues to read as follows: which would likely negatively affect python species, gametes, viable eggs, or Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42. native fish and wildlife, and humans. hybrids that are not native to the United ■ 2. Amend § 16.15 by revising Releases of the four constrictor snakes States. We are unaware of trade in these paragraph (a) to read as follows: into natural areas of the United States species by tribes. are likely to occur, and the species are § 16.15 Importation of live reptiles or their likely to become established in Effects on Energy eggs. additional U.S. natural areas such as On May 18, 2001, the President issued (a) The importation, transportation, or national wildlife refuges and parks, Executive Order 13211 on regulations acquisition of any live specimen, negatively affecting native fish and that significantly affect energy supply, gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of the wildlife populations and ecosystem distribution, and use. Executive Order species listed in this paragraph is form, function, and structure. For 13211 requires agencies to prepare prohibited except as provided under the reasons discussed above in the section Statements of Energy Effects when terms and conditions set forth at § 16.22: Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from undertaking certain actions. This rule is (1) Boiga irregularis (brown tree Consideration as an Injurious Species, not expected to affect energy supplies, snake). we are withdrawing our proposal to list distribution, and use. Therefore, this (2) Python molurus (including P. the boa constrictor as an injurious action is a not a significant energy molurus molurus (Indian python) and P. reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). action, and no Statement of Energy molurus bivittatus (Burmese python)). Government-to-Government Effects is required. (3) Python reticulatus, Broghammerus Relationship With Tribes References Cited reticulatus, or Malayopython reticulatus (reticulated python). In accordance with the President’s A complete list of all references used (4) Python sebae (Northern African memorandum of April 29, 1994, in this rulemaking is available on the python or African rock python). Government-to-Government Relations Internet at http://www.regulations.gov with Native American Tribal under Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008– (5) Python natalensis (Southern Governments and the Department of the 0015. African python or African rock python). Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we (6) Eunectes notaeus (yellow readily acknowledge our responsibility Authors anaconda). to communicate meaningfully with The primary authors of this rule are (7) Eunectes deschauenseei recognized Federal tribes on a the staff members of the South Florida (DeSchauensee’s anaconda). government-to-government basis. In Ecological Services Office (see (8) Eunectes murinus (green accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 ADDRESSES). anaconda). of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal (9) Eunectes beniensis (Beni List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16 Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust anaconda). Responsibilities, and the Endangered Fish, Imports, Reporting and * * * * * Species Act), we readily acknowledge recordkeeping requirements, our responsibilities to work directly Transportation, Wildlife. Dated: February 25, 2015. with tribes in developing programs for Michael J. Bean, healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Regulation Promulgation Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish tribal lands are not subject to the same For the reasons discussed in the and Wildlife and Parks. controls as Federal public lands, to preamble, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife [FR Doc. 2015–05125 Filed 3–6–15; 4:15 pm] remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Service amends part 16, subchapter B of BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:14 Mar 09, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10MRR2.SGM 10MRR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2