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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 16 

RIN 1018–AV68 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015; 

FXFR13360900000–145–FF09F14000] 

Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing 

Three Anaconda Species and One 

Python Species as Injurious Reptiles 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service or we) is amending its 

regulations under the Lacey Act to add 

reticulated python (Python reticulatus), 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda (Eunectes 

deschauenseei), green anaconda 

(Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda 

(Eunectes beniensis) to the list of 

injurious wildlife. By this action, the 

importation into the United States and 

interstate transportation between States, 

the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any 

territory or possession of the United 

States of any live animal, gamete, viable 

egg, or hybrid of these four constrictor 

snakes is prohibited, except by permit 

for zoological, educational, medical, or 

scientific purposes (in accordance with 

permit conditions) or by Federal 

agencies without a permit solely for 

their own use. The best available 

information indicates that this action is 

necessary to protect the interests of 

human beings, agriculture, wildlife, and 

wildlife resources from the purposeful 

or accidental introduction and 

subsequent establishment of these large 

nonnative constrictor snake populations 

into ecosystems of the United States. We 

are also withdrawing our proposal to 

add the boa constrictor (Boa constrictor) 

to the list of injurious wildlife. 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 9, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule and the 

associated final economic analysis, 

regulatory flexibility analysis, and 

environmental assessment are available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015. Comments 

and materials received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in 

preparing this final rule, are available 

on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015; they are also 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the South Florida Ecological 

Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, 

FL 32960–3559; telephone 772–562– 

3909 ext. 256; facsimile 772–562–4288. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

Progulske, Everglades Program 

Supervisor, South Florida Ecological 

Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, 

FL 32960–3559; telephone 772–469– 

4299. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) is amending its regulations 

under the Lacey Act to add the 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda to the list of injurious 

wildlife. The purpose of listing the 

reticulated python and the three 

anacondas as injurious wildlife is to 

prevent the accidental or intentional 

introduction and subsequent 

establishment of populations of these 

snakes in the wild in the United States. 

Under the Lacey Act (Act) (18 U.S.C. 

42, as amended), the Secretary of the 

Interior is authorized to list by 

regulation those wild mammals, wild 

birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, 

amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring 

or eggs of any of the foregoing that are 

injurious to human beings, to the 

interests of agriculture, horticulture, or 

forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife 

resources of the United States. We have 

determined that these four species of 

large constrictor snakes are injurious. 

This determination was based on an 

extensive risk and biological assessment 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; 

Reed and Rodda 2009) and on the 

criteria for injuriousness by the Service. 

USGS determined that these four 

species have a risk of invasiveness, and 

the Service found that the four species 

are injurious. 

On March 12, 2010, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(75 FR 11808) to list Python molurus 

(which includes Burmese and Indian 

pythons), reticulated python (Python 

reticulatus), Northern African python 

(Python sebae), Southern African 

python (Python natalensis), boa 

constrictor (Boa constrictor), yellow 

anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda (Eunectes 

deschauenseei), green anaconda 

(Eunectes murinus), and Beni anaconda 

(Eunectes beniensis) as injurious 

wildlife under the Lacey Act. 

On January 23, 2012, we published a 

final rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 

3330) to list Burmese (and Indian) 

pythons, Northern African pythons, 

Southern African pythons, and yellow 

anacondas as injurious wildlife under 

the Lacey Act. The remaining five 

species (reticulated python, boa 

constrictor, green anaconda, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda) were not listed at that time 

and remained under consideration for 

listing. With this final rule, we are 

listing four of those species (reticulated 

python, green anaconda, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda) as injurious wildlife under 

the Lacey Act. We are, however, 

withdrawing our proposal to list the boa 

constrictor (Boa constrictor) as 

injurious; we are no longer considering 

adding that species to the list of 

injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. 

Our rationale for this action is provided 

under Withdrawal of the Boa 

Constrictor from Consideration as an 

Injurious Species in this rule. 

By listing the four species, the 

importation into the United States and 

transportation between States, the 

District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any 

territory or possession of the United 

States of any live animal, gamete, viable 

egg, or hybrid is prohibited, except by 

permit for zoological, education, 

medical, or scientific purposes (in 

accordance with permit conditions) or 

by Federal agencies without a permit 

solely for their own use. 

The final economic analysis (2015) 

and environmental assessment (2015) 

considers four alternatives for the 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, Beni 

anaconda, and boa constrictor: 

Alternative 1 is no action; Alternative 

2A would list all five species; 

Alternative 2B would list four species 

(not including the boa constrictor); 

Alternative 3 would list the three 

species known to be in trade in the 

United States (boa constrictor, green 

anaconda, and reticulated python); and 

Alternative 4 would list the boa 

constrictor—the only one of the five 

species with a high organism risk 

potential (Reed and Rodda 2009). We 

selected Alternative 2B. 

Table ES–1 (from the 2015 final 

economic analysis) compares the 

economic output to the constrictor 

snake industry for listing under the 

alternatives. The costs for not listing are 

difficult to quantify, but include the 

expenditures associated with State and 

Federal activities that address 

constrictor snake impacts, amounting to 

at least $6 million from 2005 to 2014. 

Other costs for not listing include risk 

of harm (from predation, competition, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12703 

pathogens) to native species, including 

endangered and threatened species, and 

the potential for reduced tourism from 

decreased wildlife viewing 

opportunities. 

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 

On June 23, 2006, the Service 

received a petition from the South 

Florida Water Management District 

(District) requesting that Burmese 

pythons be considered for inclusion in 

the injurious wildlife regulations under 

the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, as 

amended; the Act). The District was 

concerned about the number of Burmese 

pythons (Python molurus bivittatus) 

found in Florida, particularly in 

Everglades National Park and on the 

District’s widespread property in South 

Florida. 

The Service published a notice of 

inquiry in the Federal Register (73 FR 

5784; January 31, 2008) soliciting 

available biological, economic, and 

other information and data on the 

Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera for 

possible addition to the list of injurious 

wildlife under the Act and provided a 

90-day public comment period. The 

Service received 1,528 comments during 

the public comment period that closed 

April 30, 2008. We reviewed all 

comments received for substantive 

issues and information regarding the 

injurious nature of species in the 

Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera. Of 

the 1,528 comments, 115 provided 

economic, ecological, and other data 

responsive to the 10 specific questions 

in the notice of inquiry. Most 

individuals submitting comments 

responded to the notice of inquiry as 

though it was a proposed rule to list 

constrictor snakes in the Python, Boa, 

and Eunectes genera as injurious under 

the Act. As a result, most comments 

expressed either opposition or support 

for listing the large constrictor snakes 

species and did not provide substantive 

information. We considered all of the 

information provided, focusing 

primarily on the 115 applicable 

comments in the preparation of the draft 

environmental assessment, draft 

economic analysis, and the proposed 

rule. 

On March 12, 2010, we published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(75 FR 11808) to list Burmese and 

Indian pythons, reticulated python, 

Northern African python, Southern 

African python, boa constrictor, yellow 

anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, and Beni anaconda as 

injurious wildlife under the Act. The 

proposed rule established a 60-day 

comment period ending on May 11, 

2010, and announced the availability of 

the draft economic analysis and the 

draft environmental assessment of the 

proposed rule. At the request of the 

public, we reopened the comment 

period for an additional 30 days ending 

on August 2, 2010 (75 FR 38069; July 1, 

2010). 

On January 23, 2012, we published a 

final rule in the Federal Register (77 FR 

3330) to list Burmese and Indian 

pythons, Northern African python, 

Southern African python, and yellow 

anaconda as injurious wildlife under the 

Act. The remaining five species 

(reticulated python, boa constrictor, 

green anaconda, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda) were not 

listed at the time and remained under 

consideration for listing. With this final 

rule, we are listing four of those species 

(reticulated python, green anaconda, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda). We are also withdrawing our 

proposal to list the boa constrictor as 

injurious; we are no longer considering 

adding that species to the list of 

injurious wildlife under the Act. Our 

rationale for this action is provided 

under Withdrawal of the Boa 

Constrictor from Consideration as an 

Injurious Species in this rule. 

On June 24, 2014, we reopened the 

comment period on the 2010 proposed 

rule for an additional 30 days (79 FR 

35719). This comment period was 

restricted to the five remaining 

proposed species: The reticulated 

python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor. 

For the injurious wildlife evaluation 

in this final rule, in addition to 

information used for the proposed rule, 

we considered: (1) Comments from the 

three public comment periods for the 

proposed rule, (2) comments from five 

peer reviewers, and (3) new information 

acquired by the Service by the end of 

the public comment periods (July 24, 

2014). From this information, we 

determined that four more (hereafter, 

also may be collectively referred to as 

‘‘the second four’’) of the nine proposed 

species warrant listing as injurious at 

this time, bringing the total number of 

species of large constrictor snakes listed 

as injurious to eight with this final rule. 

We present a summary of the peer 

review comments and the public 

comments following the Lacey Act 

Evaluation Criteria section for the 

second four of the nine proposed 

species. The explanations in the 

sections on biology and evaluation of 

the second four species will make many 

of the answers to the comments selfevident. 

A major source of biological, 

management, and invasion risk 

information that we used for the 

proposed rule and this final rule was 

derived from the USGS’s ‘‘Giant 

Constrictors: Biological and 

Management Profiles and an 

Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine 

Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, 

and the Boa Constrictor’’ (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘Reed and Rodda 2009).’’ 

This document was prepared at the 

request of the Service and the National 

Park Service; a link to the report can be 

found at the following Internet sites: 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015 

and http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/

Publications/pub_

abstract.asp?PubID=22691. 

The Service is completing actions on 

the proposed rule with publication of 

this final rule for the second four 

species (reticulated python and 

DeSchauensee’s, green, and Beni 

anacondas). The proposal for one 

additional species (boa constrictor) is 

being withdrawn; we are no longer 

considering it for listing under the Act. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

12704 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Background 

Purpose of Listing as Injurious 

The purpose of listing the reticulated 

python and the three anacondas as 

injurious wildlife is to prevent the 

accidental or intentional introduction 

and subsequent establishment of 

populations of these snakes in the wild 

in the United States. 

Why the Species Were Selected for 

Consideration as Injurious Species 

The Service has had the authority to 

list species as injurious under the Act 

since the 1940s. However, we have been 

criticized for not listing species before 

they became a problem (Fowler et al. 

2007). The Burmese python is one 

example of a species that may not have 

become so invasive in Florida if it had 

been listed before it had become 

established. Two of the largest snakes in 

the world (with maximum lengths 

exceeding 7 meters (m) (23 feet (ft)) are 

the reticulated python and green 

anaconda, and both are present in U.S. 

trade. The reticulated python and the 

green anaconda have been found in the 

wild in south Florida. With this final 

rule, we are attempting to prevent any 

further introduction and subsequent 

establishment of the reticulated python 

and green anaconda into vulnerable 

areas of the United States. 

Furthermore, we have the authority 

under the Act to list certain species as 

injurious even if they are not currently 

in trade or known to exist in the United 

States. Thus, we can be proactive and 

not wait until a species is already 

established. As noted in the National 

Invasive Species Management Plan 

(National Invasive Species Council 

2008), ‘‘prevention is the first line of 

defense’’ and ‘‘can be the most costeffective approach because once a 

species becomes widespread, 

controlling it may require significant 

and sustained expenditures.’’ This is 

why we are listing two species 

(DeSchauensee’s and Beni anacondas) 

that are not yet found in the United 

States but that have the requisite 

injurious traits. 

None of these four species is native to 

the United States. The Service is 

striving to prevent the introduction and 

establishment of all four species into 

new areas of the United States, due to 

concerns about the injurious effects of 

all four species, consistent with 18 

U.S.C. 42. 

All four species were evaluated and 

found to be injurious because: There is 

a suitable climate match in parts of the 

United States to support them; they are 

likely to escape captivity; they are likely 

to prey on and compete with native 

species (including endangered and 

threatened species); preventing, 

eradicating, or reducing large 

populations would be difficult; and 

other factors that are explained in the 

sections Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Reticulated Python 

and for the other three species. 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor 

From Consideration as an Injurious 

Species 

Under 18 U.S.C. 42(a), the Secretary 

of the Interior ‘‘may prescribe by 

regulation’’ species to be injurious and 

thus has discretion on whether to list 

species as injurious. The proposed rule 

published on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 

11808), determined that the boa 

constrictor possesses the traits of 

injuriousness and no substantive 

information to the contrary has been 

provided in the public or peer review 

comments or otherwise obtained by the 

Service. Nonetheless, concurrent with 

this final rule, we are withdrawing the 

proposal to list the boa constrictor as an 

injurious species and hereby remove the 

species from further consideration. If we 

decide in the future to consider the boa 

constrictor for listing as injurious, we 

will prepare a new proposed rule for 

notice and comment in the Federal 

Register. 

The Service recognizes the harm that 

the establishment of boa constrictors 

could pose to wildlife and wildlife 

resources. We also recognize that, 

because our regulatory authority is 

limited to prohibiting importation and 

interstate transport, we must rely on the 

States, Territories, and other 

governmental entities in the United 

States, including local jurisdictions 

(hereafter collectively referred to as the 

States) to regulate possession, release to 

the wild, sale, intrastate transport, and 

other activities that may need to be 

regulated to effectively manage the risk 

of a species introduction and spread for 

species that have already been imported 

into and are present in the United 

States. 

The regulatory prohibitions of the 

Lacey Act (limited to importation and 

interstate transport) are less effective 

when a species is widely held in 

captivity in the United States in high 

numbers (both the number of animals 

and number of people owning the 

animals) and when significant domestic 

breeding of such animals is occurring 

and would likely continue for intrastate 

trade or export purposes. Domestic 

breeding, whether for intrastate trade or 

export, of widely-owned species 

increases the probability of escape, 

survival, and establishment of the listed 

species in the United States. Under 

these unique circumstances, the benefit 

of an injurious wildlife listing is likely 

to be limited without concurrent State 

regulatory action, particularly in areas 

of the country where the risk of 

establishment is the highest. 

Thus, for the boa constrictor, we 

considered whether listing the species 

under the Lacey Act would be the most 

effective means of preventing the 

establishment and spread of populations 

in the wild. For this decision, the 

Service assessed information available 

on the number of boa constrictors 

already imported into the United States, 

the number of boa constrictors held in 

captivity in the United States, the 

variety of individuals and entities that 

own boa constrictors and their use of 

the species, how broadly in geographic 

terms the species is located in captivity 

within the United States, the amount of 

domestic breeding (for export, intrastate 

trade, and other purposes), the risk of 

escape and establishment of the species, 

if and where individual snakes have 

been recorded or populations have 

become established in the wild in the 

United States, and actions States have 

taken or could take to effectively 

manage the risk of snake introduction 

and establishment. 

The number of boa constrictors that 

have been imported and that are 

currently held in captivity is a 

significantly larger portion of the 

current trade than for any of the other 

eight constrictor species that were 

proposed for listing. In fact, these 

numbers are likely higher for the boa 

constrictor than for all of the eight other 

species combined. Of the nine species 

that were included in the proposed rule, 

the boa constrictor represented 61.7 

percent of the imports and domestically 

bred snakes from 2008 to 2010, whereas 

the next highest species was the 

Burmese python at 24.5 percent (Final 

Economic Analysis 2012). Of the five 

species not yet listed, the boa 

constrictor represents 79.2 percent of 

the imports and domestically bred 

snakes from 2011 to 2013, whereas the 

next highest species is the reticulated 

python at 18.9 percent. Large zoos and 

small roadside zoos across the country 

maintain boas for educational displays 

and live animal programs. Boa 

constrictors are sold in many pet stores, 

including large national chains, and are 

owned as pets by children and adults in 

all States that allow possession. Boas 

can grow to 13 feet in length and live 

for at least 20 years. The likelihood of 

pet boas being released or escaping is 

high, because boa constrictors are adept 

at escaping enclosures and they often 

outgrow their owner’s ability or outlive 

their owner’s interest to care for them. 

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 

loose in at least 46 States (HSUS 2014) 

and are known to be or assumed to be 

pets that escaped or were released. Boas 

are already well established in Florida 

and Puerto Rico. Therefore, the boa 

constrictor fits the circumstances where 

regulatory provisions of the Lacey Act 

are likely to be less effective. 

Thus, of the nine large constrictor 

snakes evaluated by the Service, risk 

management measures by States are 

particularly needed for the boa 

constrictor, especially where the risk of 

establishment is high. Risk management 

measures include State regulations and 

other restrictions on activities with the 

species, as well as measures to detect 

and attempt to control any snakes that 

are found in the wild. For example, the 

State of Hawaii does not allow the 

importation or possession of any snakes, 

and most of the U.S. Territories have 

some restrictions on the importation of 

snakes. In comparison, the State of 

Florida has not listed the boa constrictor 

as a conditional reptile or placed other 

restrictions on this species. According 

to the State of Florida’s regulations 

(FWC 2015), ‘‘[c]onditional nonnative 

species are considered to be dangerous 

to the ecology and/or the health and 

welfare of the people of Florida. These 

species are not allowed to be personally 

possessed, although exceptions are 

made by permit * * *.’’ Without any 

restrictions on possession, intrastate 

sale, or intrastate domestic production, 

the benefit of a Federal injurious 

wildlife listing for the boa constrictor is 

substantially less than for a species, 

such as the Burmese python, that is also 

held broadly in private ownership but is 

currently regulated through Florida’s 

Conditional Reptile regulations. The 

lack of restrictions for boa constrictors 

in States such as Florida that are at great 

risk perpetuates an unregulated 

pathway for escape and possible 

establishment, and severely reduces the 

effectiveness of a Federal regulatory 

approach. 

In 2010 (75 FR 11808, March 12, 

2010; and 75 FR 38069, July 1, 2010) 

and again in 2014 (79 FR 35719; June 

24, 2014), the Service sought and 

considered public comments submitted 

on the proposed rule to list the boa 

constrictor along with other species of 

large constrictor snakes. The Service 

received more than 85,000 public 

comments. Among the substantive 

comments we received were comments 

from the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) in 2010. 

Although AFWA did not submit 

additional comments in 2014, the 

Service has received no information 

indicating that AFWA has changed its 

position from that expressed in its 2010 

comment letter. 

AFWA represents North America’s 

State, territorial, and provincial fish and 

wildlife agencies. In their comment 

letter, AFWA stated that they had 

solicited comments from their network 

of State nongame biologists and 

herpetologists, as well as members of 

their Amphibian and Reptile 

Subcommittee and Invasive Species 

Committee. AFWA stated its position 

that the Service should not finalize the 

rule for any of the large constrictor 

snakes. Specifically, AFWA stated, 

among other things, that a national rule 

may not be warranted; that it is the 

States’ responsibility to manage species 

that occur within their borders, 

including minimizing impacts to native 

species; that States have the right to 

enact and enforce laws and regulations 

that are more stringent than Federal 

laws and regulations, as they see fit; that 

Federal regulations that create undue 

burdens on State fish and wildlife 

agencies should be avoided; and that 

listing the constrictor snakes as 

injurious might not achieve the desired 

result due to unintended consequences, 

such as people releasing the constrictors 

into the wild. As an alternative, AFWA 

promoted State action, such as Florida’s 

‘‘Reptiles of Concern’’ regulations, that, 

in partnership with stakeholders, 

AFWA believes would both discourage 

non-serious snake owners from 

purchasing new reptile pets as well as 

better regulate the industry. AFWA 

stated that Florida’s regulations could 

serve as a model for development of 

industry-wide standards or enforceable 

best practices. 

The Service recognizes that the States 

can enact their own, more stringent laws 

and that a Lacey Act listing does not 

preclude this, although States may have 

less ability to regulate importation into 

their States. However, AFWA’s position 

is that it represents the collective 

interests of the States on this issue; that 

the Service could allow the States to 

take action, including regulatory action; 

that the Federal government could 

instead focus on financial support for 

risk analysis combined with early 

detection and rapid response programs; 

and that these actions could be more 

effective at preventing the establishment 

of constrictor snakes than Federal 

listing. Given the unique circumstances 

of the boa constrictor, we believe that, 

particularly for States where the risk of 

establishment is high, State action for 

the boa constrictor that effectively 

reduces the risk of escape and 

establishment, such as regulating 

possession, sale, intrastate transport, or 

breeding, could provide sufficient and 

even stronger protection than Federal 

listing as injurious under the Lacey Act. 

State laws that prohibit importation 

prevent the further spread of boa 

constrictors into States where they do 

not currently occur and reduce the 

chances of establishment by limiting 

additional importations in States where 

they do already occur. Laws such as 

Florida’s regulations applicable to 

Conditional Reptiles (such as for 

Burmese pythons) restrict personal 

possession, while Hawaii prohibits both 

possession and importation. The Service 

agrees, as AFWA suggests, that State 

regulations, such as Florida’s (for 

Burmese pythons) or Hawaii’s, could 

serve as models for State laws, industrywide standards, or enforceable best 

practices. 

The Pet Industry Joint Advisory 

Council (PIJAC) also submitted 

comments on the proposed rule in both 

2010 and 2014, although its 2014 

comments were not related to the issues 

discussed here. PIJAC states that its 

mission is to promote responsible pet 

ownership and animal welfare, foster 

environmental stewardship, and ensure 

the availability of pets. PIJAC, through 

their comments, encouraged the Service 

to explore other alternatives to the 

proposed listing of the large 

constrictors. PIJAC stated that, in 

communications with the Department of 

the Interior, the Small Business 

Administration, and State agencies, they 

believe that opportunities exist for the 

Federal Government to work with the 

States and the industry to develop an 

alternative approach to large constrictor 

management and that they are prepared 

to work on this process. The Service has 

worked with PIJAC on several national 

campaigns to promote responsible 

ownership of nondomesticated animals 

and thus knows that such campaigns 

can be effective in promoting 

responsible use of wildlife that could be 

harmful if they escaped or are released 

to the wild. 

For all of the reasons explained above, 

the Service has decided to withdraw its 

March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11808), proposal 

to list the boa constrictor in favor of a 

novel and experimental approach. The 

boa constrictor has already been 

imported in large numbers into the 

United States and is owned by 

hobbyists, commercial breeders, and pet 

owners in large numbers throughout the 

United States, except where prohibited 

by State law. AFWA, representing the 

State fish and wildlife agencies, has 

asserted that instead of listing the 

constrictor snakes as injurious, the 

Service could allow States to use their 

regulatory and management authorities 

to regulate activities with these species. 

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 

and wildlife agencies and 

communicator of this position, 

presumably AFWA is prepared to work 

with its member States to do so. For the 

boa constrictor, a species that has 

already been imported into the United 

States in large numbers and is widely 

held in large numbers by a broad variety 

of owners for purposes that include 

breeding and sale, strong State laws are 

indeed more likely to be effective at 

preventing the escape or release and 

establishment of the species in the wild, 

given that prohibitions under the Lacey 

Act are limited to importation and 

interstate transport. This is especially 

true when combined with efforts by 

industry groups such as PIJAC, which 

has committed to work with the Service 

and the States on programs that would 

promote responsible holding and use of 

boa constrictors. 

This action gives additional States, 

such as Florida, the opportunity to 

demonstrate the efficacy of coordinated, 

State-based measures to address the 

invasive nature of boa constrictors, 

including promulgating their own laws 

regarding the species. We are also 

providing the pet trade industry with 

the opportunity to act voluntarily 

within its own industry and in 

cooperation with the States, the Service, 

and others to address prevention and 

containment of the boa constrictor as an 

alternative to Federal Lacey Act 

restrictions. PIJAC and other industry 

groups can work with boa constrictor 

owners to develop practices to prevent 

escape or release into the environment 

and options for finding homes for 

unwanted animals as an alternative to 

release to the wild. 

The Service recognizes that this is an 

untested approach and will monitor 

whether States and industry groups put 

in place effective measures to prevent 

the escape or release and establishment 

of boa constrictors. If States and 

industry groups in regions where the 

risk of boa constrictor survival and 

establishment in the wild is high fail to 

take appropriate actions, or if these 

State and industry-based measures 

prove ineffective, we may again evaluate 

whether listing the boa constrictor as 

injurious under the Act is appropriate. 

Need for the Final Rule 

Under the Lacey Act, the Secretary of 

the Interior is authorized to prescribe by 

regulation those wild mammals, wild 

birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, 

amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring 

or eggs of any of the foregoing that are 

injurious to human beings, to the 

interests of agriculture, horticulture, or 

forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife 

resources of the United States. We have 

determined that the reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda are 

injurious and should be listed under the 

Lacey Act. 

Reticulated pythons have been found 

in the wild in Florida and Puerto Rico, 

as well as several other States. Several 

green anacondas have also been found 

in the wild in Florida. These species fit 

the circumstances where regulatory 

provisions of the Lacey Act are likely to 

be effective. The threat posed by the 

reticulated python and the three 

anacondas will be explained in detail 

below under Factors that Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Reticulated Python 

and each of the other species. 

The USGS risk assessment used a 

method called ‘‘climate matching’’ to 

estimate those areas of the United States 

exhibiting climates similar to those 

experienced by the species in their 

respective native ranges (Reed and 

Rodda 2009). Considerable uncertainties 

exist about the native range limits of 

many of the giant constrictors, and a 

myriad of factors other than climate can 

influence whether a species could 

establish a population in a particular 

location. Nonetheless, this method 

represents the most accurate means to 

predict and anticipate where a 

nonnative species may be able to 

survive and establish populations 

within the United States (Bomford et al. 

2009). The authors used the same 

method to match the climate for all nine 

species in the proposed rule, because 

the method is not species-specific and 

can be used equally as well for pythons, 

boas, and anacondas. 

Some interested parties, including 

other scientists such as Pyron et al. 

(2008), criticized Reed and Rodda’s 

(2009) climate-matching method. In 

response, the authors published a 

clarification of how they used the model 

(Rodda et al. 2011). This paper more 

clearly explained Reed and Rodda’s 

(2009) method and compared that 

method to Pyron et al.’s (2008) method 

for analyzing potential invasiveness for 

the Burmese python. We mention a few 

of Rodda et al.’s (2011) findings here: 

• Pyron et al. (2008) incorrectly 

rejected many sites that are suitable for 

Burmese python invasion because their 

use of an excessive number of 

parameters actually ended up acting as 

filters. Using too many filters means that 

too many sites that are truly at risk of 

python establishment get filtered out. 

• Additionally, the authors 

eliminated four data points of blood 

pythons (Python brongersmai) that 

Pyron et al. (2008) used erroneously. 

This significantly changed the area that 

Burmese pythons could invade, even 

using the MaxEnt computer program as 

Pyron et al. (2008) used it. 

• Information theory suggests 10 

parameters as the appropriate number to 

use in a study like this; the Pyron et al. 

(2008) model, however, used 60. With 

this number, the parameters essentially 

become constraints, skewing the 

accuracy of the data to the point that the 

resulting model is not scientifically 

sound. 

• The newer USGS paper highlights 

the statistical dangers inherent in 

indiscriminately searching for 

correlations among a large number of 

possible parameters. 

• Factors other than climate may 

limit a species’ native distribution, 

including the existence of predators, 

diseases, and other local factors (such as 

major terrain barriers), which may not 

be present when a species is released in 

a new country. Therefore, the areas at 

risk of invasion often span a climate 

range greater than that extracted 

mechanically from the native range 

boundaries, as was done by Pyron et al. 

(2008). 

Rodda et al. (2011) does not change 

the previous USGS risk assessment, or 

the Service’s interpretation of the USGS 

risk assessment, that Burmese pythons 

could find suitable climatic conditions 

in roughly a third of the United States. 

The paper also confirms that the climate 

matches for the four species in this final 

rule would not change from those 

described in the March 12, 2010 (75 FR 

11808), proposed rule. 

While we acknowledge that 

uncertainty exists, these tools also serve 

as a useful predictor to identify 

vulnerable ecosystems at risk from 

injurious wildlife prior to the species 

actually becoming established (Lodge et 

al. 2006). Based on climate alone, many 

species of large constrictors are likely to 

be limited to the warmest areas of the 

United States, including parts of 

Florida, extreme south Texas, Hawaii, 

and insular territories. For a few 

species, larger areas of the southern 

United States appear to have suitable 

climatic conditions according to Reed 

and Rodda’s (2009) climate-matching 

method. 

The record cold temperatures in south 

Florida during January of 2010 

produced the coldest 12-day period 

since at least 1940, according to the 

National Weather Service in Miami 

(NOAA 2010). A record low was set for 

12 consecutive days with the 

temperature at or below 45 °F 

(Fahrenheit; 7.2 °C (Celsius)) in West 

Palm Beach and Naples. Other 

minimum temperatures for that period 

were broken in Moorehaven, tied in Fort 

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 

since 1940. Despite the record cold, we 

know that many pythons survived in 

Florida. For example, nearly 150 

Burmese pythons were removed 

(captured or found dead) from the 

population in Everglades National Park 

and vicinity in 2011; more than 250 

were removed in 2012, and more than 

200 were removed in 2013 (NPS 2014). 

The largest Burmese python found in 

the wild in Florida was found in 

Everglades National Park in March 2012 

(Krysko et al. 2012). Large constrictors 

of several species continue to be present 

and to breed in south Florida. If 

thermoregulatory behavior or tolerance 

to cold is genetically based, we would 

expect large constrictor snake 

populations to persist, rebound, and 

possibly increase their genetic fitness 

and temperature tolerance as a result of 

natural selection pressures resulting 

from cold weather conditions such as 

those that occurred in south Florida in 

January 2010 (Dorcas et al. 2011). 

Two studies by scientists from several 

research institutions, including the 

University of Florida, studied the effects 

of the 2010 winter cold weather on 

Burmese pythons. These studies are 

relevant to the four species in this final 

rule because, like the Burmese python, 

the four species are poikilothermic 

(body temperature varies with 

surrounding temperature, also known as 

cold-blooded). Snakes typically 

maintain their body temperatures 

within thermal tolerance limits 

(ectothermy) through their behaviors 

(thermoregulation; Dorcas et al. 2011), 

such as sunning in open areas in cool 

weather or seeking naturally insulated 

burrows in cold weather. 

Thus, the reptiles seek locations (even 

small refugia) that can help them 

maintain a comfortable body 

temperature. In Mazzotti et al. (2010), 

the authors noted that all populations of 

large-bodied pythons and boa 

constrictors inhabiting areas with cool 

winters, including northern populations 

of Burmese pythons in their native 

range, appeared to rely on use of refugia 

(safe locations) to escape winter 

temperatures. Pythons and anacondas 

can seek such refugia as underground 

burrows, deep water in canals, or 

similar microhabitats to escape the cold 

temperatures. Those snakes that 

survived in Florida were apparently 

able to maintain body temperatures 

using microhabitat features of the 

landscape (Mazzotti et al. 2010). 

Dorcas et al. (2011) reported on the 

cold tolerance of adult Burmese pythons 

taken directly from the Everglades and 

placed in outdoor enclosures in South 

Carolina just prior to an unseasonably 

cold winter. Without time to suitably 

acclimate to a significantly colder 

climate, all of the snakes in this study 

died. The artificial refugia may not have 

been suitable compared to natural 

refugia (such as gopher tortoise 

burrows), which were not available in 

the study. Use of adults, as well as use 

of individuals that did not come from 

the colder parts of their native range, 

may have caused the snakes to not be 

adaptable to colder temperatures. 

Dorcas et al. (2012) state that their 

results suggest that Burmese pythons 

from the population currently 

established in Florida are capable of 

withstanding conditions substantially 

cooler that those typically experienced 

in southern Florida, but may not be able 

to survive severe winters in regions as 

temperate as central South Carolina. 

They noted that some snakes currently 

inhabiting Florida could survive typical 

winters in areas of the southeastern 

United States more temperate than the 

region currently inhabited by pythons. 

The authors also noted that, if 

thermoregulatory behavior is heritable, 

selection for appropriate 

thermoregulatory behavior will be 

strong as pythons expand their range 

northward through the Florida 

peninsula. Consequently, future 

generations of pythons and anacondas 

may be better equipped to invade 

temperate regions than those currently 

inhabiting southern Florida, particularly 

given the climate flexibility exhibited by 

the Burmese python in its native range 

(as analyzed through USGS’ climatematching predictions in the United 

States). 

A study that used air temperatures to 

predict that Burmese pythons would not 

likely expand to or colonize more 

temperate areas of Florida and adjoining 

States (Jacobson et al. 2012) did not 

offer any new data, other than 

summaries of ambient air temperature 

in Florida and South Carolina. Using the 

rationale in the study, based on air 

temperature, we could conclude that 

even native snakes could not survive in 

most of the United States, which is not 

the case. Snakes in the wild use a 

variety of physiological and behavioral 

mechanisms, not available to them in 

the captive studies, to regulate their 

body temperatures or escape excessive 

air temperatures. 

Another paper that reviewed the 

effects of cold weather on Burmese 

pythons does not appear to introduce 

any new data that can be used to answer 

questions of temperature tolerances 

(Engeman et al. 2014). Several 

conclusions drawn are seemingly based 

on untested hypotheses: (1) Measures of 

minimum temperature are superior to 

measures of mean temperature; (2) 

Indian and Burmese pythons are 

physiologically and behaviorally 

different in relation to thermal 

tolerance; and (3) the incorrect 

assumption of thermal critical minima 

structure of the range limits of the 

snakes that can behaviorally 

thermoregulate. 

The only comparably large native 

reptile in the southeastern United 

States, the American alligator (Alligator 

mississippiensis), has been known to 

survive freezing air temperatures. A 

study at the Savannah River Ecology 

Laboratory in South Carolina found that 

adult alligators could survive freezing 

temperatures by adjusting their 

behavior. Adults could break the ice and 

breathe above the ice, whereas the 

juveniles could not break the ice and 

apparently drowned (Brandt and 

Mazzotti 1990). 

The alligator study shows that even 

individual reptiles of the same species 

(juveniles compared to adults) may have 

different abilities to survive. Such 

reasoning could be applied to large 

constrictors. In Dorcas et al. (2011), 10 

wild-captured male Burmese pythons 

from 2 to 3.5 m (6.5 to 11.5 ft) total 

length were released into outdoor 

enclosures in South Carolina. All 

eventually died ostensibly of cold stress, 

we surmise that perhaps individuals 

either larger or smaller could have 

survived. 

Scientists continue to learn more 

about the adaptability of constrictor 

snakes. Whereas salinity had been 

suggested to be a limiting factor in the 

distribution of reptiles in coastal 

habitats, such as the Florida Keys 

(Dunson and Mazzotti 1989), a later 

study disproved that. Hart et al. (2012) 

found that hatchling Burmese pythons 

survived in a laboratory setting at full 

saltwater conditions for at least a 

month. This further supports our listing 

of the Burmese python and may be 

applicable to the species in this final 

rule because they are closely related. 

Another study sought to explain why 

Burmese pythons became such 

successful invaders in Florida (Reed et 

al. 2012). With all of the nonnative 

reptiles that have been introduced into 

the State, the Burmese python is the 

only exotic snake (other than the wormsized Brahminy blindsnake 

(Ramphotyphlops braminus)) to have 

successfully colonized a large area 

(greater than 1,000 square kilometers 

(km2) (386 square miles (mi2))) of the 

United States. Reed et al. (2012) 

concluded that attributes related to body 

size and generalism (such as general 

habitat use and general prey) appeared 

to be particularly applicable to the 

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 

impact ecosystems in Florida. The 

attributes with the greatest scores were 

high reproductive potential, low 

vulnerability to predation, large adult 

body size, large offspring size, and high 

dietary breadth. All of these attributes 

are shared with the reticulated python 

and three anaconda species in this final 

rule, and all of these attributes 

contribute to the species’ ability to 

become invasive. 

The Service and Everglades National 

Park asked USGS to assess the risk of 

invasion of nine species of snakes to 

assist in the Service’s determination of 

injuriousness. Of the nine large 

constrictor snakes assessed by Reed and 

Rodda (2009) (Burmese python (which 

Reed and Rodda refer to as Indian 

python), reticulated python, Northern 

African python, Southern African 

python, boa constrictor, yellow 

anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, and Beni anaconda), 

five were shown to pose a high risk to 

the health of the ecosystem, including 

the Burmese python, Northern African 

python, Southern African python, 

yellow anaconda, and boa constrictor. 

The remaining four large constrictors— 

the reticulated python, green anaconda, 

Beni anaconda, and DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda—were shown to pose a 

medium risk. None of the large 

constrictors that the USGS assessed was 

classified as low overall risk. A rating of 

low overall risk is considered as 

acceptable risk and the organism(s) of 

little concern (ANSTF 1996). See Lacey 

Act Evaluation Criteria, below, for an 

explanation of how USGS assessed risk. 

There is a medium risk that the four 

large constrictors evaluated in this final 

rule, if they escape or are released into 

the wild, will establish populations 

within their respective thermal and 

precipitation limits due to common lifehistory traits that make them successful 

invaders. These traits include being 

habitat generalists (able to utilize a wide 

variety of habitats) that are tolerant of 

urbanization and capacity to hunt and 

eat a wide range of size-appropriate 

vertebrates (reptiles, mammals, birds, 

amphibians, and fish; Reed and Rodda 

2009). These large constrictors are 

highly adaptable to new environments 

and opportunistic in expanding their 

geographic range. Furthermore, since 

they are a novel (new to the system) 

predator at the top of the food chain, 

they can threaten the stability of native 

ecosystems by altering the ecosystem’s 

form, function, and structure. 

These four species are cryptically 

marked and often dwell in trees or 

submerged in water with only their 

heads protruding, which makes them 

difficult to detect in the field, 

complicating efforts to identify the 

range of populations or deplete 

populations through visual searching 

and removal of individuals. No 

currently available tools appear 

adequate for eradication of an 

established population of giant snakes 

once they have spread over a large area. 

Therefore, preventing the introduction 

into the United States and dispersal to 

new areas of these invasive species is of 

critical importance to the health and 

welfare of native wildlife. 

For the purposes of this rule, a hybrid 

is any progeny from any cross involving 

parents of one or more species from the 

four constrictor snakes evaluated in this 

rule. Such progeny are likely to possess 

the same biological characteristics of the 

parent species that, through our 

analysis, leads us to find that they are 

injurious to humans and to wildlife and 

wildlife resources of the United States. 

Anderson and Stebbins (1954) stated 

that hybrids may have caused the rapid 

evolution of plants and animals under 

domestication, and that, in the presence 

of new or greatly disturbed habitats, 

some hybrid derivates would have been 

at a selective advantage. Facon et al. 

(2005) stated that invasions may bring 

into contact related taxa that have been 

isolated for a long time. Facon et al. 

(2005) also stated that hybridization 

between two invasive taxa has been 

documented, and that in all these cases, 

hybrids outcompeted their parental 

taxa. Ellstrand and Schierenbeck (2000) 

concluded that dispersal of organisms 

and habitat disturbance by humans both 

act to accelerate the process of 

hybridization and increase the 

opportunities for hybrid lineages to take 

hold. 

Furthermore, snakes in general have 

been found to harbor ticks (such as the 

nonnative African tortoise tick) that 

cause heartwater disease (from the 

bacterium Cowdria ruminantium). 

Heartwater disease, although harmless 

to its reptilian hosts, can be fatal to 

livestock and related wild hoofed 

mammals, such as white-tailed deer. 

According to the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) (March 2000), 

‘‘Heartwater disease is an acute, 

infectious disease of ruminants, 

including cattle, sheep, goats, whitetailed deer, and antelope. This disease 

has a 60 percent or greater mortality rate 

in livestock and a 90 percent or greater 

mortality rate in white-tailed deer.’’ The 

ticks have been found in Florida. 

Agricultural agencies are trying to stop 

the spread of the ticks as a way of 

stopping the deadly disease. This rule 

will help to stop the spread into and 

around the United States of the ticks 

and other disease vectors that may be 

carried by these four species of 

nonnative constrictor snakes. 

Listing Process 

The regulations contained in 50 CFR 

part 16 implement the Act. Under the 

terms of the Act, the Secretary of the 

Interior is authorized to prescribe by 

regulation those wild mammals, wild 

birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, 

amphibians, reptiles, and the offspring 

or eggs of any of the foregoing that are 

injurious to human beings, to the 

interests of agriculture, horticulture, or 

forestry, or to the wildlife or wildlife 

resources of the United States. The lists 

of injurious wildlife species are found at 

50 CFR 16.11–16.15. 

In this final rule, we evaluated each 

of the four constrictor snake species 

individually and determined each to be 

injurious and appropriate for listing. 

Therefore, as of the effective date of the 

listing (see DATES, above), their 

importation into, or transportation 

between, the States, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, or any territory or possession of 

the United States by any means 

whatsoever is prohibited, except by 

permit for zoological, educational, 

medical, or scientific purposes (in 

accordance with permit regulations at 

50 CFR 16.22), or by Federal agencies 

without a permit solely for their own 

use, upon filing a written declaration 

with the District Director of Customs 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Inspector at the port of entry. This rule 

does not prohibit intrastate (within State 

boundaries) transport of the listed 

constrictor snake species. Any 

regulations pertaining to the transport or 

use of these species within a particular 

State will continue to be the 

responsibility of that State. 

We used the Lacey Act Evaluation 

Criteria as a guide to evaluate whether 

a species does or does not qualify as 

injurious under the Act. The analysis 

developed using the criteria serves as a 

basis for the Service’s regulatory 

decision regarding injurious wildlife 

species listings. A species does not have 

to be established, currently imported, or 

present in the wild in the United States 

for the Service to list it as injurious. The 

objective of such a listing is to prevent 

that species’ importation and likely 

establishment in the wild, thereby 

preventing injurious effects consistent 

with 18 U.S.C. 42. 

Introduction Pathways for Large 

Constrictor Snakes 

For the four constrictor snakes 

analyzed in this final rule, the primary 

pathway for the entry into the United 

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 

commercial pet trade. In the last few 

decades, most introductions of large 

constrictor snakes have been associated 

with the international trade in reptiles 

as pets. This trade includes wild-caught 

snakes, captive-bred, or captive-hatched 

juveniles from areas within their native 

countries. In their native ranges, a 

species may be captured in the wild and 

directly exported to the United States or 

other destination country, or wildcaught snakes may be kept in the 

country of origin to breed for export of 

subsequent generations. The main ports 

of entry for constrictor snakes are 

Miami, Los Angeles, Dallas-Ft. Worth, 

Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, San 

Francisco, and Houston. From there, 

many of the live snakes are transported 

to animal dealers, who then transport 

the snakes to pet retailers. Large 

constrictor snakes are also bred in the 

United States and sold within the 

country. 

A typical pathway of a large 

constrictor snake includes a pet store. 

Often, a person will purchase a 

hatchling snake (0.55 m (22 inches (in)) 

at a pet store or reptile show for as little 

as $25. The hatchling grows rapidly, 

even when fed conservatively, so a 

strong escape-proof enclosure is 

necessary. All snakes are adept at 

escaping, and constrictors are especially 

powerful when it comes to breaking out 

of cages. In captivity, they are most 

frequently fed pre-killed mice, rats, 

rabbits, and chickens. A tub of fresh 

water is needed for the snake to drink 

from and soak in. As it outgrows its tub, 

the snake will need to soak in 

increasingly larger containers, such as a 

bathtub. Under captive conditions, 

pythons and anacondas will grow very 

fast. After 1 year, a python may be 2 m 

(7 ft) and after 5 years it could be 7.6 

m (25 ft), depending on how often it is 

fed and other aspects of husbandry. A 

female reticulated python, for example, 

can grow to more than 8.7 m (28.5 ft) 

long, weigh 140 kilograms (kg) (308 

pounds (1bs)) or more, live more than 

25 years, and must be fed larger prey, 

such as rabbits. Although the reticulated 

python is longer, the anaconda is the 

heaviest snake, with a 4-m (13-ft) green 

anaconda having bulk comparable to a 

7-m (23-ft) reticulated python. 

Owning a giant snake is a difficult, 

long-term, and somewhat expensive 

responsibility. This is one reason that 

some snakes are released by their 

owners into the wild when they can no 

longer care for them. Other snakes may 

escape from inadequate enclosures, 

which is a common pathway for large 

constrictor snakes to enter the 

ecosystem (Fujisaki et al. 2009). The 

trade in constrictor snakes is 

international as well as domestic. From 

2004 to 2013, more than 1.2 million live 

constrictor snakes of 13 species (Python 

spp., Eunectes spp., and Boa spp.) were 

imported into the United States (Final 

Economic Analysis 2015). Besides the 

species proposed for listing, these 

included ball python (Python regius), a 

blood python (P. curtus), another blood 

python (P. brongersmai), Borneo python 

(P. breitensteini), Timor python (P. 

timoriensis), and Angolan python (P. 

anchietae), none of which has been 

proposed for listing as injurious. From 

2004 to 2013, approximately 26,591 

large constrictor snakes of two species 

listed by this rule were imported into 

the United States (Final Economic 

Analysis 2015; two species in this rule 

were not imported). 

Of all the constrictor snake species 

imported into the United States, the 

selection of nine constrictor snakes for 

evaluation as injurious wildlife in the 

March 12, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 

11808) was based on concern over the 

giant size of these particular snakes 

combined with their quantity in 

international trade or their potential for 

trade. The world’s four largest species of 

snakes (Burmese python, Northern 

African python, reticulated python, and 

green anaconda) were selected, as well 

as similar and closely related species 

and the boa constrictor. These large 

constrictor snakes constitute an elevated 

risk of injuriousness in relation to those 

taxa with lower trade volumes; are 

massive, with maximum lengths 

exceeding 6 m (20 ft; except for boas up 

to 4 m (13 ft)); and have a high 

likelihood of establishment in various 

habitats of the United States. The 

DeSchauensee’s and Beni anacondas 

exhibit many of the same biological 

characteristics associated with a risk of 

establishment and negative effects in the 

United States. 

The strongest factor influencing the 

chances of these large constrictors 

establishing in the wild are the number 

of release events and the numbers of 

individuals released (Bomford et al. 

2009; 2005). A release event occurs 

when one or more individuals of a 

nonnative species is either intentionally 

or unintentionally let loose in the wild. 

With a sufficient number of either 

intentional or unintentional release 

events, these species will likely become 

established in ecosystems with suitable 

conditions for survival and 

reproduction. In most cases, for 

nonnative species to cause economic or 

ecological harm, they must first be 

transported out of their native range and 

released within a novel locality, 

establish a self-sustaining population in 

this new location, and expand their 

geographical range beyond the point of 

initial establishment. Releases of large 

numbers of individuals often enable the 

incipient (newly forming), nonnative 

population to withstand the inevitable 

decreases in survival or reproduction 

caused by the environment or 

demographic accidents. 

The release of many individuals into 

one location essentially functions as a 

source pool of immigrants, thus 

sustaining an incipient population even 

if the initial release was of insufficient 

size (or badly timed) to facilitate longterm establishment. Natural disasters, 

such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992, may 

have provided a mechanism for the 

accidental release of snakes, especially 

in light of large numbers of juvenile 

pythons frequently held by breeders and 

importers prior to sale and distribution 

(Willson et al. 2010). 

Large or consistent releases of 

individuals into one location may 

enable the incipient population to 

overcome behavioral limitations or 

other problems associated with small 

population sizes. This is likely the case 

at Everglades National Park, where the 

core nonnative Burmese python 

population in Florida is now located. 

Because all four snakes in this final 

rule share traits that foster intentional or 

unintentional release events, allowing 

unregulated importation and interstate 

transport of these nonnative snakes will 

increase the risk of these species 

becoming established through increased 

opportunities for release. The release of 

large constrictor snakes at different 

times and locations improves, in turn, 

the chance of their successful 

establishment. 

As a first step in understanding the 

ecology of these snakes and their 

potential impact on the Everglades 

ecosystem, the National Park Service 

began tracking Burmese pythons using 

radio-telemetry in the fall of 2005. The 

radio-tagged pythons have since 

demonstrated that female pythons make 

few long-distance movements 

throughout the year, while males roam 

widely in search of females during the 

breeding season (December–April). 

These results indicate an ability to move 

long distances in search of prey and 

mates. Pythons also have a ‘‘homing’’ 

ability. After being released far from 

where they were captured, they 

returned long distances (up to 78 

kilometers (km); 48 miles (mi)) in only 

a few months. These findings suggest 

that pythons searching for a suitable 

home range have the potential to 

colonize areas far from where they were 

released (Snow 2008; Harvey et al. 

2008). A related study further supported 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

12710 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

that Burmese pythons released in 

Everglades National Park have 

navigational senses, which may 

contribute to the invasion dynamics of 

Burmese pythons and similar species 

(Pittman et al. 2014). These 

characteristics of Burmese pythons are 

likely shared by reticulated pythons and 

may also be shared by the anaconda 

species analyzed in this rule. 

A second factor that is strongly and 

consistently associated with a species 

becoming invasive is a history of the 

species successfully establishing 

elsewhere outside its native range. We 

have no documentation of reticulated 

pythons or the three anacondas being 

invasive elsewhere in the world. 

However, this lack of data could be the 

result of the lack or low volume of these 

species being imported into other 

countries that have similar climatic 

conditions as the species’ native range. 

A third factor strongly associated with 

establishment success is having a good 

climate or habitat match between where 

the species naturally occurs and where 

it is introduced. Exotic (nonnative) 

reptiles and amphibians have a greater 

chance of establishing if they are 

introduced to an area with a climate that 

closely matches that of their original 

range. Species that have a large range 

over several climatic zones are 

predicted to be strong future invaders. 

The suitability of a country’s climate for 

the establishment of a species can be 

quantified on a broad scale by 

measuring the climate match between 

that country and the geographic range of 

a species. Climate matching sets the 

broad parameters for determining if an 

area is suitable for a nonnative large 

constrictor snake to establish. 

These three factors have all been 

consistently demonstrated to increase 

the chances of establishment by all 

invasive vertebrate taxa, including the 

four large constrictor snakes in this final 

rule (Bomford 2008, 2009). However, as 

stated above, a species does not have to 

be established, currently imported, or 

present in the wild in the United States 

for the Service to determine that it is 

injurious. The objective of such a listing 

is to prevent that species’ importation, 

release into the wild, survival, and 

likely establishment in the wild, thereby 

preventing injurious effects consistent 

with 18 U.S.C. 42. 

Species Information 

Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus) 

Native Range 

Although native range boundaries are 

disputed, reticulated pythons 

conservatively range across much of 

Southeast Asia (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

They are found from sea level up to 

more than 1,300 m (4,265 ft) and inhabit 

lowland primary and secondary tropical 

wet forests, tropical open dry forests, 

tropical wet montane forests, rocky 

scrublands, swamps, marshes, 

plantations and cultivated areas, and 

suburban and urban areas. Reticulated 

pythons occur primarily in areas with a 

wet tropical climate. Although they also 

occur in areas that are seasonally dry, 

reticulated pythons do not occur in 

areas that are continuously dry or very 

cold at any time (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Biology 

Three scientific names are mainly 

associated with the reticulated python: 

Python reticulatus, Broghammerus 

reticulatus, and Malayopython 

reticulatus. Please see Reed and Rodda 

(2009) for a discussion of the taxonomy 

and nomenclature of the latter two 

names. Reynolds et al. (2014) considers 

the genus as Malayopython, which may 

have merit. Therefore, we are including 

this as another synonym, so that if the 

genus does change, it is clear to which 

species we are referring. 

The reticulated python is most likely 

the world’s longest snake. Adults can 

grow to a length of more than 8.7 m 

(28.5 ft) (Reed and Rodda 2009), with a 

report of one in the Philippines at 10 m 

(32.8 ft) (Headland and Greene 2011). 

The maximum reported weight is 150 kg 

(330 lb) (Reed and Rodda 2009). As with 

all snakes, pythons can grow throughout 

their lives (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Like all pythons, the reticulated 

python is oviparous (lays eggs). The 

clutch sizes range from 8 to 124, with 

typical clutches of 20 to 40 eggs. 

Recently, this species was documented 

to reproduce by parthenogenesis (egg 

develops without fertilization by a male) 

when an 11-year-old female laid a 

clutch of 61 eggs without a male present 

for more than 2 years (Booth et al. 2014). 

The reticulated python’s life history is 

fairly representative of large constrictors 

because juveniles are relatively small 

when they hatch, but nevertheless are 

independent from birth, grow rapidly, 

and mature in a few years. Hatchlings 

are at least 61 cm (2 ft) in total length 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). We have no 

data on life expectancy in the wild, but 

several captive specimens have lived for 

nearly 30 years (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Reticulated pythons are extremely 

capable predators. Like all of the large 

constrictors, they are cryptically 

colored. In general, constrictor snakes 

have especially strong musculature, 

which enables them to hold onto 

struggling live prey almost as large as 

themselves. The giant size of reticulated 

pythons makes them especially strong, 

and, combined with their streamlined 

shape, makes them remarkably adept at 

climbing, passing through dense brush, 

and even swimming. 

Reticulated pythons are primarily 

silent hunters that lie in wait along 

pathways used by their prey and then 

ambush them; the pythons kill by 

wrapping their muscular bodies around 

their victims, squeezing tighter as the 

prey exhales until the victims suffocate. 

The methods of predation used by the 

reticulated python (whether sit-and-wait 

or actively hunting, or whether diurnal 

or nocturnal), as well as the other three 

species of large constrictor snakes in 

this final rule, work as well in their 

native ranges as in the United States. 

The reticulated python is an 

opportunistic predator capable of 

preying on a wide range of species, 

including chickens, rats, monitor 

lizards, civet cats, bats, an immature 

cow, various primates, deer, wild boars, 

goats, cats, dogs, ducks, rabbits, tree 

shrews, porcupines, frogs, fish, and 

many species of wild birds (Reed and 

Rodda 2009). Prey size is roughly 

correlated with the python’s body size, 

with young or small pythons eating 

small prey and larger pythons eating 

larger prey. 

Reticulated pythons frequently swim 

in waterways, where they hunt for 

aquatic prey. Waterways also facilitate 

the pythons’ dispersal to new areas. 

Smaller pythons can also climb trees to 

prey on arboreal animals, avoid 

predators, and thermoregulate. 

A host of internal and external 

parasites plague wild reticulated 

pythons (Auliya 2006). The pythons in 

general are hosts to various protozoans, 

nematodes, ticks, and lung arthropods 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). Captive 

reticulated pythons can carry ticks of 

agricultural significance (potential 

threat to domestic livestock) (Burridge 

et al. 2000, 2006; Clark and Doten 1995). 

Several studies (Burridge et al. 2000, 

Kenny et al. 2004, Reeves et al. 2006) 

have shown disease agents in the ticks 

that travel internationally on reptiles, 

which may serve in the introduction of 

disease agents that could impact the 

health of local wildlife, domestic 

animals, and humans (Corn et al. 2011). 

The reticulated python can be an 

aggressive and dangerous species. Reed 

and Rodda (2009) cite numerous sources 

of people being bitten, attacked, and 

even killed by reticulated pythons in 

their native range. However, the only 

occurrences of human fatalities in the 

United States from reticulated pythons 

were caused by captive specimens. 

Outside of the United States, such as in 

the Philippines, reticulated pythons 

have been reported to kill and even 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12711 

consume humans in remote huntergatherer cultures (Headland and Greene 

2011). In that study, 11 of 19 Filipinos 

died from attacks by reticulated 

pythons; no attacks were by captive 

snakes. Of reticulated pythons that 

attacked people in the Philippines, the 

longest was 10 m (32.8 ft) (Headland 

and Greene 2011). 

DeSchauensee’s Anaconda (Eunectes 

deschauenseei) 

Native Range 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda is known 

from a small number of specimens and 

has a limited range in northeast South 

America. As currently understood, the 

‘‘yellow anacondas’’ comprise two 

species with entirely disjunct 

distributions (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

The northern form, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei), is 

known from a small number of 

specimens and has a limited range in 

northeast South America. The southern 

form, the yellow anaconda (Eunectes 

notaeus) has a larger distribution in 

subtropical and temperate areas of 

South America, and has received more 

scientific attention. We published a 

final rule to list the yellow anaconda as 

injurious on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 

3330). 

The DeSchauensee’s anaconda is 

largely confined to the Brazilian island 

of Marajo ́, nearby areas around the 

mouth of the Amazon River, and several 

drainages in French Guiana. Although 

not well studied, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda apparently prefers swampy 

habitats that may be seasonally flooded. 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda is known 

from only a few localities in northeast 

South America, and its known climate 

range is accordingly very small. While 

the occupied range exhibits moderate 

variation in precipitation across the 

year, annual temperatures tend to range 

between 25 °C (77 °F) and 30 °C (86 °F). 

We do not know whether the species 

could tolerate greater climatic variation. 

Biology 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda appears to 

be the smallest of the anacondas, 

although the small number of available 

specimens does not allow unequivocal 

determination of maximal body sizes. 

Dirksen and Henderson (2002) record a 

maximum total length of available 

specimens as 1.92 m (6.3 (ft)) in males 

and 3.0 m (9.8 (ft)) in females. 

In captivity, a DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda was reported to live for 17 

years, 11 months (Snider and Bowler 

1992). The DeSchauensee’s anaconda is 

live-bearing. Clutch sizes of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas ranged from 

3 to 27 (mean 10.6 ± 9.6) in a sample 

of five museum specimens (Pizzatto and 

Marques 2007), a range far greater than 

reported in some general works (for 

example, three to seven offspring; Walls 

1998). 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda is reported 

to consume mammals, fish, and birds, 

and its overall diet is assumed to be 

similar to that of the yellow anaconda 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas frequently swim in 

waterways, where they hunt for aquatic 

prey. Anacondas appear to use rivers to 

disperse (McCartney-Melstad 2012). 

Smaller anacondas can also climb trees 

to prey on arboreal animals, avoid 

predators, and thermoregulate. 

Green Anaconda (Eunectes murinus) 

Native Range 

The native range of green anaconda 

includes aquatic habitats in much of 

South America below 850 m (2,789 ft) 

elevation plus the insular population on 

Trinidad, encompassing the Amazon 

and Orinoco Basins; major Guianan 

rivers; the San Francisco, Parana, and 

Paraguay Rivers in Brazil; and extending 

south as far as the Tropic of Capricorn 

in northeast Paraguay. The range of 

green anaconda is largely defined by 

availability of aquatic habitats. 

Depending on location within the wide 

distribution of the species, these appear 

to include deep, shallow, turbid, and 

clear waters, and both lacustrine and 

riverine habitats (Reed and Rodda 

2009). 

Biology 

Reed and Rodda (2009) describe the 

green anaconda as truly a giant snake, 

having a very stout body and fairly 

reliable records of lengths over 7 m (23 

ft). The females typically outweigh the 

males. Very large anacondas are almost 

certainly the heaviest snakes in the 

world, ranging up to 200 kg (441 lb) 

(Bisplinghof and Bellosa 2007), even 

though reticulated pythons, for 

example, may attain greater lengths 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). 

The green anaconda bears live young. 

The maximum recorded litter size is 82, 

removed from a Brazilian specimen, but 

the typical range is 28 to 42 young. 

Neonates (newly born young) are 

around 70 to 80 centimeters (cm) (27.5 

to 31.5 inches (in)) long and receive no 

parental care. As with all the large 

constrictor snakes, hatchlings can fall 

prey to other animals. If they survive, 

they grow rapidly until they reach 

sexual maturity in their first few years 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). While 

reproduction is typically sexual, Reed 

and Rodda (2009) report that a female 

green anaconda that was kept in 

captivity for 26 years with no access to 

males gave birth to 23 females. This 

raises the possibility that green 

anacondas are facultatively 

parthenogenetic, and that, theoretically, 

a single female green anaconda could 

establish a population. 

The green anaconda is considered a 

top predator in South American 

ecosystems. Small anacondas appear to 

primarily consume birds, and as they 

grow larger, they shift to eating larger 

mammals and reptiles. The regular 

inclusion of fish in the diet of all 

anacondas increases their dietary niche 

breadth in relation to the other large 

constrictors, which rarely consume fish. 

Green anacondas consume a wide 

variety of endotherms (so-called warmblooded animals) and ectotherms from 

higher taxa, including such large prey as 

deer and crocodilians (alligators are a 

type of crocodilian). The regular 

inclusion of fish, turtles, and other 

aquatic organisms in their diet increases 

their range of prey even beyond that of 

reticulated or Burmese pythons. 

Vertebrate animals that regularly inhabit 

aquatic habitats are likely to be most 

commonly consumed by green 

anacondas (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Green anacondas would have a ready 

food supply anywhere that the climate 

and habitat matched their native range. 

Since green anacondas are known to 

prey upon crocodilians, they could 

potentially prey on alligators, which are 

common in the southeastern United 

States. 

Green anacondas frequently swim in 

waterways, where they hunt for aquatic 

prey. Anacondas appear to use rivers to 

disperse (McCartney-Melstad 2012). 

Smaller anacondas can also climb trees 

to prey on arboreal animals, avoid 

predators, and thermoregulate. 

Beni Anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) 

Native Range 

The Beni anaconda is a recently 

described and poorly known anaconda 

closely related to the green anaconda 

(Reed and Rodda 2009). The native 

range of the Beni anaconda is the 

Itenez–Guapore River in Bolivia along 

the border with Brazil, as well as the 

Baures River drainage in Bolivia. The 

green and Beni anacondas are similar in 

size, and the range of the Beni anaconda 

is within the range of the green 

anaconda (Bolivia). 

Biology 

Eunectes beniensis is a recently 

described species from northern Bolivia, 

previously considered to be contained 

within E. murinus. Eunectes beniensis 

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 

Bolivia—thus the common name of Beni 

anaconda and another alias of Bolivian 

anaconda. To an experienced 

herpetologist, E. beniensis is easily 

recognizable by its brown to olivebrownish ground color in combination 

with five head stripes and fewer than 

100 large, dark, solid dorsal blotches 

that always lack lighter centers. To a 

novice, E. beniensis and E. murinus are 

similar in appearance. E. beniensis is 

primarily aquatic and eats a wide 

variety of prey, including fish, birds, 

mammals, and other reptiles. 

Beni anacondas frequently swim in 

waterways, where they hunt for aquatic 

prey. Anacondas appear to use rivers to 

disperse (McCartney-Melstad 2012). 

Smaller anacondas can also climb trees 

to prey on arboreal animals, avoid 

predators, and thermoregulate. 

Presence of the Four Constrictor Snakes 

in the United States 

Of the four constrictor snake species 

that we are listing as injurious in this 

final rule, two have been reported in the 

wild in the United States, but none have 

been confirmed as reproducing in the 

wild in the United States (see Current 

Nonnative Occurrences, below); two of 

the four have been imported 

commercially into the United States 

during the period 2004 to 2013 (Final 

Economic Analysis 2015). Species 

‘‘reported in the wild’’ are ones that 

have been found in the wild but without 

proof to date that they have reproduced 

in the wild. The greatest opportunity for 

preventing a species from becoming 

injurious is to stop a species from 

entering the wild; the second greatest 

opportunity is before a species becomes 

established in the wild (reported but not 

reproducing); and the smallest 

opportunity is when a species has 

become established (reproducing in the 

wild). 

TABLE 1—FOUR SPECIES OF LARGE

CONSTRICTOR SNAKES AND WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN

THE WILD IN THE UNITED STATES, 

ARE KNOWN TO BE REPRODUCING

IN THE WILD IN THE UNITED STATES, 

OR HAVE BEEN IMPORTED FOR

TRADE (2004 TO 2013) 

Species 

Reported 

in the 

wild in 

U.S.? 

Reproducing 

in the 

wild in 

U.S.? 

Imported 

into U.S. 

for 

trade? * 

Reticulated 

python.

Yes ... No ..... Yes. 

TABLE 1—FOUR SPECIES OF LARGE

CONSTRICTOR SNAKES AND WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN

THE WILD IN THE UNITED STATES, 

ARE KNOWN TO BE REPRODUCING

IN THE WILD IN THE UNITED STATES, 

OR HAVE BEEN IMPORTED FOR

TRADE (2004 TO 2013)—Continued 

Species 

Reported 

in the 

wild in 

U.S.? 

Reproducing 

in the 

wild in 

U.S.? 

Imported 

into U.S. 

for 

trade? * 

DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda.

No ..... No ..... No.** 

Green anaconda Yes ... No ..... Yes. 

Beni anaconda ... No ..... No ..... No.** 

* Data from Law Enforcement Management 

Information System (LEMIS; USFWS 2014) 

** It is possible that this species has been 

imported into the United States incorrectly 

identified as one of the other species listed by 

this rule or the January 23, 2012, final rule (77 

FR 3330); however, none has been reported. 

Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria 

We use the criteria below to evaluate 

whether a species does or does not 

qualify as injurious under the Lacey 

Act, 18 U.S.C. 42. The analysis that is 

developed using these criteria serves as 

a general basis for the Service’s decision 

regarding injuriousness (not just for the 

four snake species we are listing in this 

final rule). Biologists within the Service 

who are knowledgeable about a species 

being evaluated assess both the factors 

that contribute to and the factors that 

reduce the likelihood of injuriousness. 

(1) Factors that contribute to being 

considered injurious: 

• The likelihood of release or escape; 

• Potential to survive, become 

established, and spread; 

• Impacts on wildlife resources or 

ecosystems through hybridization and 

competition for food and habitats, 

habitat degradation and destruction, 

predation, and pathogen transfer; 

• Impact to endangered and 

threatened species and their habitats; 

• Impacts to human beings, forestry, 

horticulture, and agriculture; and 

• Wildlife or habitat damages that 

may occur from control measures. 

(2) Factors that reduce the likelihood 

of the species being considered as 

injurious: 

• Ability to prevent escape and 

establishment; 

• Potential to eradicate or manage 

established populations (for example, 

making organisms sterile); 

• Ability to rehabilitate disturbed 

ecosystems; 

• Ability to prevent or control the 

spread of pathogens or parasites; and 

• Any potential ecological benefits to 

introduction. 

To obtain some of the information for 

the above criteria, we referred to Reed 

and Rodda (2009). Reed and Rodda 

(2009) developed the Organism Risk 

Potential scores for each species using a 

widely utilized risk assessment 

procedure that was published by the 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

(ANSTF), called ‘‘Generic 

nonindigenous aquatic organisms risk 

analysis review process (for estimating 

risk associated with the introduction of 

nonindigenous aquatic organisms and 

how to manage that risk)’’ (ANSTF 

1996). The ANSTF was created under 

the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 

U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) to provide a way for 

government agencies to develop a 

national program to reduce the risk of 

unintentional introductions, ensure 

prompt detection and response, and 

control established species. 

The ANSTF (1996) procedure 

incorporates four factors associated with 

probability of establishment and three 

factors associated with consequences of 

establishment, with the combination of 

these factors resulting in an overall 

Organism Risk Potential (ORP) for each 

species. For the four constrictor snakes 

in this final rule, the overall potential 

risk of establishment was medium. 

Certainties were highly variable 

within each of the seven elements or 

factors of the risk assessment mentioned 

above, varying from very uncertain to 

very certain. In general, the highest 

certainties are associated with species 

unequivocally established in new ranges 

because of enhanced ecological 

information on these species from 

studies in both their native range and in 

Florida. The way in which these 

subscores are obtained and combined is 

set forth in an algorithm created by the 

ANSTF (Table 2). 

TABLE 2—THE ALGORITHM THAT THE

ANSTF (1996) DEFINED FOR COMBINING THE TWO PRIMARY SUBSCORES (REED AND RODDA 2009) 

Probability of 

establishment 

Consequences 

of establishment 

Organism 

Risk Potential (ORP) 

High ............. High ............... High. 

Medium ....... High ............... High. 

Low .............. High ............... Medium. 

High ............. Medium .......... High. 

Medium ....... Medium .......... Medium. 

Low .............. Medium .......... Medium. 

High ............. Low ................ Medium. 

Medium ....... Low ................ Medium. 

Low .............. Low ................ Low. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12713 

Similar algorithms are used for 

deriving the primary subscores from the 

secondary subscores. However, the 

scores are fundamentally qualitative, in 

the sense that there is no unequivocal 

threshold that is given in advance to 

determine when a given risk passes 

from being low to medium, and so forth. 

Therefore, we viewed the process as one 

of providing relative ranks for each 

species. Thus, a high ORP score 

indicates that such a species would 

likely entail greater consequences or 

greater probability of establishment than 

would a species whose ORP was 

medium or low (that is, high > medium 

> low). Medium-risk species include the 

four species being designated as 

injurious by this rulemaking: 

Reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda. Medium-risk species, if 

established in this country, would put 

portions of the U.S. mainland, Hawaii, 

and insular territories at risk and 

constitute a great potential ecological 

threat. As stated above, we use this 

information in our evaluation to 

determine if a species meets the criteria 

of being injurious, but it is not the only 

information we use. The following 

sections on ‘‘Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness * * *’’ and ‘‘Factors That 

Reduce or Remove Injuriousness * * *’’ 

explain how we arrived at our 

determinations of injuriousness for each 

species. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Reticulated Python 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

In Florida, reticulated pythons have 

been observed or removed from 

Bradenton, Clearwater, Miami, 

Sebastian, and Vero Beach. For 

example, a 5.5-m (18-ft) reticulated 

python was struck by a person mowing 

grass along a canal in Vero Beach in 

2007, and a reticulated python was 

removed along Roseland Road in 

Sebastian (B. Dangerfield, pers. comm. 

2010). In the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, reticulated pythons have been 

collected in the western region of the 

island (Aguadilla and Mayaguez), and 

the southern region of the island 

(Guayama), including a 5.5-m (18-ft) 

long specimen (J. Saliva, pers. comm. 

2009). 

Media accounts from 1980 to 2014 

report that reticulated pythons have 

escaped captivity or were spotted in the 

wild in the following States: California, 

Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, New 

Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, 

and West Virginia (HSUS 2014). This 

illustrates that the potential for release 

or escape is not confined to Florida and 

Puerto Rico but could occur in many 

States. The States listed were merely the 

ones for which we have reports. Other 

occurrences may not have been reported 

or the species not identified. See 

Introduction Pathways for Large 

Constrictor Snakes, above, for the 

explanation of how release events are 

relevant to the potential establishment 

of reticulated pythons. 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

The likelihood that a reticulated 

python will be released or will escape 

from captivity is high as evidenced by 

a number of reports as discussed above 

in Current Nonnative Occurrences and 

because they possess the physical traits 

that contribute to release or enable 

escape. Relatively few private pet 

owners can maintain such a large 

species properly throughout its lifetime, 

leading to intentional release or escape. 

Once out of captivity, reticulated 

pythons are highly likely to survive in 

natural ecosystems (primarily extreme 

southern habitats) of the United States. 

Reticulated pythons have a somewhat 

tropical native distribution, so the area 

of the mainland United States showing 

a climate match is exclusively 

subtropical, and limited to southern 

Florida and extreme southern Texas. 

Low- and mid-elevation sites in the 

United States’ tropical territories (Guam, 

Northern Mariana Islands, American 

Samoa, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico) and 

Hawaii also appear to be climatematched to the requirements of 

reticulated pythons. If they escape or are 

intentionally released, they are likely to 

survive and become established within 

their respective thermal and 

precipitation limits. Reticulated pythons 

were recently documented to be able to 

reproduce parthenogenetically, meaning 

that females do not need males to lay 

viable eggs (Booth et al. 2014). Thus, 

even just one female python could 

potentially create a population. 

Reticulated pythons are highly likely to 

spread and become established in the 

wild due to common traits shared by all 

the large constrictors we are listing as 

injurious in this rule, including: Rapid 

growth to a large size with production 

of many offspring; ability to survive 

under a range of habitat types and 

conditions (habitat generalist); ability to 

adapt to live in urban and suburban 

areas; ability to disperse long distances; 

and ability to conceal themselves and 

ambush a wide variety of prey. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(Including Endangered and Threatened 

Species) 

Reticulated pythons are highly likely 

to prey on U.S. native species, including 

endangered and threatened species 

where present. Their natural diet 

includes mammals, birds, reptiles, and 

fish. An adverse effect of reticulated 

python on endangered and threatened 

species is likely to be moderate to high. 

Native fauna have no experience 

defending against such a novel, giant 

predator as the reticulated python. As 

discussed above under Biology, the 

reticulated python can grow to a length 

greater than 8.7 m (28.5 ft) and the 

maximum reported weight is 150 kg 

(330 lb). This is longer than any native 

terrestrial predator (including bears) in 

the United States and its territories, and 

heavier than most native predators 

(including black bears and many 

alligators). In comparison with the 

reticulated python, the longest snake 

native to the United States is much 

smaller. The longest native snake is the 

indigo snake (Drymarchon corais), 

attaining a maximum length of about 2.5 

m (8 ft) (Monroe and Monroe 1968). A 

subspecies of the indigo snake is the 

eastern indigo snake (D. corais couperi), 

which grows to the same length as D. 

corais. The eastern indigo snake 

inhabits Georgia and Florida, and is 

listed as federally threatened by the 

Service. The native, endangered Puerto 

Rican boa’s (Epicrates inornatus) 

maximum size is approximately 2 m 

(6.5 ft) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1986). 

Unlike prey species in the reticulated 

python’s native range, none of our 

native species has evolved defenses to 

avoid predation by such a large snake. 

Thus, native wildlife in the United 

States where reticulated pythons exist 

would be very likely to fall prey to the 

pythons (or any of the other three 

constrictor snakes we are listing in this 

rule). At all life stages, reticulated 

pythons can and will compete for food 

with native species; in other words, 

baby pythons will eat small prey, and 

the size of their prey will increase as the 

pythons grow. Once reticulated pythons 

are introduced and established, they 

may outcompete native predators (such 

as the federally protected Florida 

panther, eastern indigo snake, native 

boas, and hawks), feeding on the same 

prey and thereby reducing the supply of 

prey for the native predators. 

Reticulated pythons are generalist 

predators that consume a wide variety 

of mammal and bird species, as well as 

reptiles, amphibians, and occasionally 

fish. This constrictor can easily adapt to 

prey on novel wildlife (species that they 

are not familiar with), and they need no 

special adaptations to hunt, capture, 

and consume them. 

The United States, particularly the 

Southeast, has a diverse faunal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

12714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

community that is potentially 

vulnerable to predation by the 

reticulated python. Juveniles of these 

large constrictors will climb trees and 

rocks to remove prey from bird nests 

and capture perching or sleeping birds. 

The southernmost part of the United 

States has suitable climate and habitat 

for reticulated pythons. The greatest 

biological impact of an introduced 

predator, such as the reticulated python, 

is the additional stress placed on 

imperiled native species, which may 

preclude their recovery. Based on the 

food habits and habitat preferences of 

the reticulated python in its native 

range, the species is likely to invade the 

habitat, prey on, and further threaten 

many of the federally endangered or 

threatened fauna in climate-suitable 

areas of the United States (Reed and 

Rodda 2009). 

Reticulated pythons are also likely to 

decrease the populations of numerous 

potential candidate animals for Federal 

protection by hunting and eating them. 

Candidate species are plants and 

animals for which the Service has 

sufficient information on their 

biological status and threats to propose 

them as endangered or threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), but 

for which development of a proposed 

listing regulation is precluded by other 

higher priority listing activities. 

The final environmental assessment 

for the four species in this final rule 

(Final Environmental Assessment 2015) 

includes lists of species that are 

federally or State endangered or 

threatened in some climate-suitable 

States and territories: Florida, Hawaii, 

Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands. Other States have federally or 

State endangered or threatened species 

that would be suitable prey for large, 

nonnative constrictor snakes, including 

the reticulated python. These lists 

include only the species of the sizes and 

types that would be expected to be 

directly affected by predation by 

reticulated pythons and the other large, 

nonnative constrictors. For example, 

plants and marine species are excluded. 

In Florida, 13 bird species, 15 mammals, 

and 2 reptiles that are federally 

endangered or threatened could be 

preyed upon by reticulated pythons or 

be outcompeted by them for prey. 

Hawaii has 34 bird species and 1 

mammal that are federally endangered 

or threatened that would be at risk of 

predation. Puerto Rico has 9 bird 

species and 10 reptile species that are 

federally endangered or threatened that 

would be at risk of predation or 

competition for prey. The Virgin Islands 

has one bird species and three reptiles 

that are federally endangered or 

threatened that would be at risk of 

predation or competition for prey. Guam 

has seven bird species and two 

mammals that are federally endangered 

or threatened that would be at risk of 

predation. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

endangered and threatened species from 

parts of Florida, southern Texas, 

Hawaii, and Puerto Rico would be at 

risk from the establishment of 

reticulated pythons. In addition, Guam, 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, and other 

territories would have suitable habitat 

and climate to support reticulated 

pythons, and these also have federally 

endangered and threatened species that 

would be at risk if reticulated pythons 

became established. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

Like all pythons, reticulated pythons 

are nonvenomous. The reticulated 

python can be an aggressive and 

dangerous species of giant constrictor to 

humans. Reed and Rodda (2009) cite 

numerous sources of people being 

bitten, attacked, and killed by 

reticulated pythons in their native 

range. Headland and Greene (2011) 

determined that 26 percent of a segment 

of hunter-gatherer Filipinos had been 

attacked by reticulated pythons, some 

fatally. The only human deaths in the 

United States from reticulated pythons 

that we are aware of were from captive 

snakes (in Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Nevada, Texas, and Virginia; 

HSUS 2014). An established population 

of reticulated pythons would be 

expected to create the greatest public 

safety risk of all large constrictor snakes 

evaluated. 

Captive reticulated pythons can carry 

ticks of agricultural significance 

(potential threat to domestic livestock) 

in Florida (Burridge et al. 2000, 2006; 

Clark and Doten 1995), and likely to 

livestock outside of Florida. African tick 

species that use pythons as hosts may be 

vectors of heartwater, and these ticks 

have been observed to transfer to other 

hosts, including other giant constrictors, 

other reptiles, and dogs. Because 

multiple python species are typically 

held captive in close proximately to 

each other in the commercial trade, 

such proximity provides tick transfer 

opportunities to occur prior to retail 

sales (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

The introduction or establishment of 

reticulated pythons would likely have 

negative impacts on humans primarily 

from the loss of native wildlife 

biodiversity and as carriers of livestock 

diseases, as discussed above. These 

losses would affect the aesthetic, 

recreational, and economic values 

currently provided by native wildlife 

and healthy ecosystems. Educational 

values would also be diminished 

through the loss of biodiversity and 

ecosystem health. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Reticulated Python 

Control 

Eradication, management, or control 

of the spread of reticulated python will 

be highly unlikely once the species is 

established. No effective tools are 

currently available to detect and remove 

large, nonnative constrictor populations. 

Traps with drift fences or barriers are 

the best option, but their use on a large 

scale is prohibitively expensive. 

Additionally, some areas cannot be 

effectively trapped due to the expanse of 

the area and type of terrain, the 

distribution of the target species, and 

the effects on any nontarget species (that 

is, trapping native wildlife). While the 

Department of the Interior, USDA 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), and State of Florida 

entities have conducted some research 

on control tools, no currently available 

tools are adequate for eradication of an 

established population of large, 

nonnative constrictor snakes, such as 

the reticulated python, once they have 

spread over a large area. 

Efforts to eradicate large, nonnative 

constrictor snakes in Florida have 

intensified to keep the expansion to a 

minimum as species are reported in new 

locations across the State. Natural 

resource management agencies are 

expending scarce resources to devise 

methods to capture or otherwise control 

any large, nonnative constrictor snake 

species. These agencies recognize that 

control of large constrictor snakes (as 

major predators) on lands that they 

manage is necessary to prevent the 

likely adverse impacts to the ecosystems 

occupied by the invasive snakes. 

The final economic analysis was 

prepared for the four constrictor snakes 

that are the subjects of this final rule 

(USFWS 2015) and provides the 

following information about the 

expenditures for research and 

eradication in Florida, primarily for 

Burmese pythons, which provides some 

indication of the efforts to date. Control 

methods used for Burmese pythons may 

also be applied to other large constrictor 

snakes. The Service spent more than 

$600,000 over a 3-year period (2007– 

2009) on python trap design, 

deployment, and education in the 

Florida Keys to prevent the potential 

extinction of the endangered Key Largo 

woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli) at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12715 

Crocodile Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge. More recently, the Service and 

USGS have spent up to $20,000 over the 

2012–2013 period on planning efforts to 

address constrictor snake infestations 

and expect to spend between $25,000 

and $50,000 from 2014 to 2018 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Rebekah 

Gibble, personal communication 2014). 

The South Florida Water Management 

District spent $334,000 between 2005 

and 2009, and anticipates spending an 

additional $156,600 on research, 

salaries, and vehicles in the next several 

years. An additional $300,000 will go 

for the assistance of USDA Wildlife 

Services (part of USDA Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service). The 

USDA Wildlife Research Center 

(Gainesville (FL) Field Station) spent 

$15,800 in 2008–2009 on salaries, 

travel, and supplies. The USGS, in 

conjunction with the University of 

Florida, has spent over $1.5 million on 

research, radio telemetry, and the 

development, testing, and 

implementation of constrictor snake 

traps. Miami-Dade County Parks and 

Recreation Department, Natural Areas 

Management and Department of 

Environmental Resources Management 

have spent $60,875 annually on 

constrictor snake issues. The National 

Park Service has spent an average of 

$380,000 annually from 2004 to 2014, 

on various programs related to 

constrictor snake issues in the 

Everglades National Park (National Park 

Service, Carol Mitchell, personal 

communication 2014). All these 

expenditures total $6.5 million from 

2004 to 2014 (estimated for 2014), or 

roughly an average of $586,000 per year. 

Despite this investment, all of these 

efforts have failed to provide a method 

for eradicating large, nonnative 

constrictor snakes in Florida. 

Kraus (2009) exhaustively reviewed 

the literature on invasive herpetofauna. 

While he found a few examples of local 

populations of amphibians that had 

been successfully eradicated, he found 

no such examples for reptiles. He also 

states that, ‘‘Should an invasive 

[nonnative] species be allowed to spread 

widely, it is usually impossible—or at 

best very expensive—to eradicate it.’’ 

The reticulated python is unlikely to be 

one of those species that could be 

eradicated. Witmer and Fuller (2011) 

also found no reports of eradications of 

introduced reptiles in the United States. 

Eradication will almost certainly be 

unachievable for a species that is hard 

to detect and remove at low densities, 

which is the case with all of the four 

large constrictor snakes that are the 

subjects of this final rule. They are wellcamouflaged and stealthy, and, 

therefore, nearly impossible to see in the 

wild. Most of the protective measures 

available to prevent the escape of 

reticulated pythons are currently (and 

expected to remain) cost-prohibitive and 

labor-intensive. Even with protective 

measures in place, the risks of 

accidental escape are not likely to be 

eliminated. Since effective measures to 

prevent the establishment or eradicate, 

manage, or control the spread of 

established populations of the 

reticulated python are not currently 

available, the ability to rehabilitate or 

recover ecosystems disturbed by the 

species is low. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of reticulated 

pythons could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to reticulated 

pythons as a food source. However, 

juvenile snakes could fall prey to native 

wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, 

coyotes, and birds of prey. In addition, 

a large constrictor snake could prey on 

other nonnative species such as green 

iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

these unlikely benefits. There are no 

other potential ecological benefits from 

the introduction into the United States 

or establishment in the United States of 

reticulated pythons. 

Conclusion 

The reticulated python can grow to a 

length of more than 8.7 m (28.5 ft); this 

is longer than any native, terrestrial 

animal in the United States and at least 

as long as any snake species in the 

world. Native fauna have no experience 

defending against this type of novel, 

giant predator. Several captive 

reticulated pythons have lived for 

nearly 30 years. The reticulated python 

can be an aggressive and dangerous 

species to humans. An established 

population of reticulated pythons would 

be expected to create the greatest public 

safety risk from all large constrictor 

snakes evaluated. Reticulated pythons 

can carry ticks of agricultural 

significance (potential threat to 

domestic livestock). 

Because reticulated pythons are likely 

to escape from captivity or be released 

into the wild if imported; are likely to 

survive, become established, and spread 

if they escape captivity or are released 

into areas of the United States that have 

suitable climate and habitat; are likely 

to prey on and compete with native 

species for food and habitat (including 

endangered and threatened species); are 

likely to be disease vectors for livestock 

or native wildlife; cannot be easily 

eradicated, prevented from establishing, 

or reduced from large populations or 

new locations; and are likely to disturb 

ecosystems beyond the point of 

recoverability, the Service finds the 

reticulated python to be injurious to 

humans, agricultural interests, and 

wildlife and wildlife resources of the 

United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for DeSchauensee’s 

Anaconda 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

We do not know of any occurrences 

of the DeSchauensee’s anaconda in the 

United States. 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas share 

similar traits with the other three 

species of constrictor snakes, although 

they are smaller. A smaller-sized 

constrictor may be more desirable to 

some potential pet owners who want a 

constrictor snake but do not want to 

handle the larger species, and thus 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas may 

eventually be imported into the United 

States as an alternative species. Because 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas possess the 

same traits as other large constrictor 

snakes, such as powerful musculature, 

streamlined body, and fast growth rate, 

this species is likely to escape or be 

released into the wild if imported into 

the United States. DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas are highly likely to spread 

and become established in the wild due 

to common traits shared by many large 

constrictors, including: Rapid growth to 

a large size with production of many 

offspring; ability to survive under a 

range of habitat types and conditions 

(habitat generalist); ability to disperse 

long distances; and ability to conceal 

themselves and ambush prey. 

Reed and Rodda’s (2009) map 

identified no areas of the continental 

United States or Hawaii that appear to 

have precipitation and temperature 

profiles similar to those observed in the 

species’ native range, although the 

southern margin of Puerto Rico and its 

out-islands (for example, Vieques and 

Culebra) appear suitable. However, we 

do not know whether the species’ native 

distribution is limited by factors other 

than climate. Reed and Rodda (2009) 

extended the climate match globally, 

meaning they used the climate data 

from the native range and found that 

they matched other parts of the Amazon 

Basin and tropical areas of the world. 

This leads to the conclusion that climate 

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 

could be biogeography, competition, or 

other factors. If the small, native range 

is attributable to ecological (for 

example, competition with green 

anacondas), or anthropogenic (for 

example, habitat loss) factors, then Reed 

and Rodda’s (2009) qualitative estimate 

of the climatically suitable areas of the 

United States would represent an 

underprediction. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(Including Endangered and Threatened 

Species) 

The DeSchauensee’s anaconda would 

likely have a similar impact as the 

yellow anaconda, which we listed as 

injurious in 2012. DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas eat mammals, fish, and birds 

in their native range and will prey on 

native species, including select 

endangered and threatened species if 

they become established in the United 

States. Anacondas employ both 

‘‘ambush predation’’ and ‘‘wideforaging’’ strategies (Reed and Rodda 

2009). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife occupying the DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda’s preferred habitats would be 

at risk. 

The DeSchauensee’s anaconda is 

larger (reported to 3 m (9.8 ft)) than the 

largest snake native to the continental 

United States. See Potential Impacts to 

Native Species (Including Endangered 

and Threatened Species) for the 

reticulated python for comparison to 

native predators. 

Please also see Potential Impacts to 

Native Species (Including Endangered 

and Threatened Species) under Factors 

that Contribute to Injuriousness for 

Reticulated Python for a description of 

the impacts that DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas would have on native 

species. These impacts are applicable to 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas by 

comparing their prey type with the 

suitable climate areas and the listed 

species found in those areas. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009; Final 

Environmental Assessment 2015), 

endangered and threatened species from 

part of Puerto Rico would be at risk 

from the establishment of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas. In addition, 

the global climate match produced by 

Reed and Rodda (2009) showed a 

broader tropical range than that of the 

native range, and that other tropical 

areas of the world appear to be 

climatically similar. Because Guam, the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, and other U.S. 

territories are tropical, the climate may 

be suitable. Puerto Rico has 9 bird 

species and 10 reptile species that are 

federally endangered or threatened 

species that would be at risk if 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas became 

established. Guam has seven bird 

species and two mammal species that 

are endangered or threatened that could 

be at risk of predation. The Virgin 

Islands has one bird species and three 

reptile species that are endangered or 

threatened that could be at risk of 

predation. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas would likely 

have negative impacts on humans 

primarily from the loss of native 

wildlife biodiversity, as discussed above 

in the discussion for the reticulated 

python. These losses would affect the 

aesthetic, recreational, and economic 

values currently provided by native 

wildlife and healthy ecosystems. 

Educational values would also be 

diminished through the loss of 

biodiversity and ecosystem health. 

Agricultural interests may be negatively 

affected by imported anacondas carrying 

ticks that transfer harmful pathogens to 

livestock. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for DeSchauensee’s 

Anaconda 

Control 

Prevention, eradication, management, 

or control of the spread of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas will be 

highly unlikely. Please see the 

‘‘Control’’ section for the reticulated 

python for reasons why DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas would be difficult to control, 

all of which apply to this large 

constrictor. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas could 

potentially provide a food source for 

some native carnivores, species native 

to the United States are unlikely to 

possess the hunting ability for such 

large, camouflaged snakes and would 

not likely turn to DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas as a food source. However, 

juvenile snakes could fall prey to native 

wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, 

coyotes, and birds of prey. In addition, 

a large constrictor snake could prey on 

other nonnative species such as green 

iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

this unlikely benefit. There are no other 

potential ecological benefits from the 

introduction into the United States or 

establishment in the United States of 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas. 

Conclusion 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas are likely 

to establish and spread to suitable 

permanent surface-water areas because 

of their large size, high reproductive 

potential, early maturation, rapid 

growth, longevity, and generalist 

surprise-attack predation. 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas are highly 

likely to survive in natural ecosystems 

of a small but vulnerable region of the 

United States, including the southern 

margin of Puerto Rico and its outislands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and 

other U.S. islands. 

Because DeSchauensee’s anacondas 

are likely to escape captivity or be 

released into the wild if imported into 

the United States; are likely to survive, 

become established, and spread if they 

escape captivity or are released; are 

likely to prey on and compete with 

native species for food and habitat 

(including endangered and threatened 

species); cannot be easily eradicated, 

prevented from establishing, or reduced 

from large populations or new locations; 

and are likely to disturb ecosystems 

beyond the point of recoverability, the 

Service finds the DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda to be injurious to humans and 

to the wildlife and wildlife resources of 

the United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Green Anaconda 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

An individual green anaconda 

(approximately 2.5 m (8.2 ft) total 

length) was found dead on U.S. 41 in 

the vicinity of Fakahatchee Strand 

Preserve State Park in Florida in 

December 2004 (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Two medium-sized adults and a 

juvenile green anaconda were observed 

but not collected in this general area. A 

3.65-m (12-ft) green anaconda was 

removed from East Lake Fish Camp in 

northern Osceola County, Florida, on 

January 13, 2010. This was the first live 

green anaconda to be caught in the wild 

in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 2010). 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

Green anacondas have escaped 

captivity or been released into the wild 

in Florida. They are likely to escape or 

be released because they can grow in 

captivity to enormous sizes (which 

makes them exceedingly powerful) and 

they must be fed a diet that could be 

prohibitively expensive. Green 

anacondas are likely to survive in the 

appropriate natural ecosystems of the 

United States. Much of peninsular 

Florida (roughly south of Gainesville) 

and extreme south Texas exhibit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12717 

climatic conditions similar to those 

experienced by green anacondas in their 

large South American native range, but 

the rest of the continent appears to be 

too cool or arid. Lower elevations in 

Hawaii and all of Puerto Rico have 

apparently suitable climates. Within the 

climate-matched area, anacondas are 

likely to establish in sites containing 

surface water. The primarily nocturnal 

anaconda species tends to spend most of 

its life in or around water. Green 

anacondas are highly likely to spread 

and become established in the wild due 

to their propensity for rapid growth to 

a large size and high reproductive rate; 

are capable of surviving under a range 

of habitat types and conditions (habitat 

generalist); have behaviors that allow 

them to escape freezing temperatures; 

can live in urban and suburban areas; 

can disperse long distances; and are 

well-concealed ambush predators. There 

is evidence that green anacondas are 

facultatively parthenogenetic and could 

therefore reproduce even if a single 

female is released or escapes. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(Including Endangered and Threatened 

Species) 

Green anacondas will prey on native 

species, including endangered and 

threatened species, if they become 

established in the United States. They 

are primarily aquatic and eat a wide 

variety of prey, including fish, birds, 

mammals, and other reptiles. The size of 

the prey also varies, depending on the 

age of the snake, with baby anacondas 

able to eat small prey, and large 

anacondas able to eat larger prey, such 

as tapirs, peccaries, deer, sheep, and 

caimans (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

The green anaconda is generally 

considered the heaviest snake in the 

world (reported to 200 kg (441 lb)), with 

lengths over 7 m (23 ft) (Reed and 

Rodda 2009), much larger than the 

largest snake native to the continental 

United States. See Potential Impacts to 

Native Species (Including Endangered 

and Threatened Species) for the 

reticulated python for comparison to 

native predators and anticipated effects 

on native wildlife from green 

anacondas. Moreover, the green 

anaconda is a novel predator against 

which native species would not have 

evolved defenses. 

According to the climate suitability 

maps (Reed and Rodda 2009; Final 

Environmental Assessment 2015), 

endangered and threatened species from 

parts of Florida, Hawaii, and most of 

Puerto Rico would be at risk from the 

establishment of green anacondas. 

Florida has 13 bird species, 15 

mammals, and 2 reptiles that are 

federally endangered or threatened that 

could be preyed upon by green 

anacondas or be outcompeted by them 

for prey. Hawaii has 34 bird species and 

1 mammal that are endangered or 

threatened that would be at risk of 

predation. Puerto Rico has 9 bird 

species and 10 reptiles that are federally 

endangered or threatened that would be 

at risk if green anacondas became 

established. Because Guam, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories 

are tropical, the climate there also may 

be suitable. Guam has seven bird 

species and two mammal species that 

are endangered or threatened that would 

be at risk of predation. The Virgin 

Islands has one bird species and three 

reptile species that are endangered or 

threatened that would be at risk of 

predation. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

green anacondas would likely have 

negative impacts on humans primarily 

from the loss of native wildlife 

biodiversity, as discussed above in the 

discussion for the reticulated python. 

These losses would affect the aesthetic, 

recreational, and economic values 

currently provided by native wildlife 

and healthy ecosystems. Educational 

values would also be diminished 

through the loss of biodiversity and 

ecosystem health. Agricultural interests 

may be negatively affected by imported 

anacondas carrying ticks that transfer 

harmful pathogens to livestock. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Green Anaconda 

Control 

Prevention, eradication, management, 

or control of the spread of green 

anacondas once established in the 

United States will be highly unlikely. 

Please see the ‘‘Control’’ section for the 

reticulated python for reasons why 

green anacondas will be difficult to 

control, all of which apply to this large 

constrictor. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of green 

anacondas could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to green 

anacondas as a food source. However, 

juvenile snakes could fall prey to native 

wildlife such as alligators, raccoons, 

coyotes, and birds of prey. In addition, 

a large green anaconda could prey on 

other nonnative species, such as green 

iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

these unlikely benefits. There are no 

other potential ecological benefits from 

the introduction into the United States 

or establishment in the United States of 

green anacondas. 

Conclusion 

The green anaconda is the world’s 

heaviest snake. Large adults are heavier 

than almost all native, terrestrial 

predators in the United States, even 

many bears, and longer than all native 

wildlife. Native fauna have no 

experience defending themselves 

against this type of novel, giant 

predator. The range of the green 

anaconda is largely defined by the 

availability of aquatic habitats. These 

include deep and shallow, turbid and 

clear, and lacustrine and riverine 

systems. Most of these habitats are 

found in Florida, including the 

Everglades, which is suitable climate for 

the species, as well at Texas, Hawaii, 

and Puerto Rico. Green anacondas are 

top predators in South America, 

consuming birds, mammals, fish, and 

reptiles; prey size includes deer and 

crocodilians. This diet is even broader 

than the diet of Burmese and reticulated 

pythons. Evidence exists that female 

green anacondas may be facultatively 

parthenogenetic and could therefore 

reproduce even if a single female is 

released or escapes into the wild. 

Because green anacondas are likely to 

escape or be released into the wild if 

imported into the United States (note 

that the green anaconda has already 

been found in the wild in Florida); are 

likely to survive, become established, 

and spread if they escape captivity or 

are released; are likely to prey on and 

compete with native species for food 

and habitat (including endangered and 

threatened species); cannot be easily 

eradicated, prevented from establishing, 

or reduced from large populations or 

new locations; and are likely to disturb 

ecosystems beyond the point of 

recoverability, the Service finds the 

green anaconda to be injurious to 

humans and to wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. 

Factors That Contribute to 

Injuriousness for Beni Anaconda 

Current Nonnative Occurrences 

We do not know of any occurrences 

of the Beni anaconda in the United 

States. 

Potential Introduction and Spread 

Beni anacondas are closely related to 

green anacondas. Because Beni 

anacondas share similar traits with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

12718 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

other constrictor snakes, individuals are 

likely to escape because of their large 

size, powerful musculature, and 

streamlined shape. Pet anacondas are 

also likely to be released into the wild, 

in part because of their growth to a large 

size (which pet owners may not able to 

deal with) and because of the difficulty 

in finding suitable food. Because Beni 

anacondas are difficult for a novice to 

distinguish from green anacondas, Beni 

anacondas may appear in the pet trade 

in place of green anacondas. Beni 

anacondas are highly likely to survive in 

the appropriate natural ecosystems of 

the United States. 

The Beni anaconda is known from 

few specimens in a small part of Bolivia, 

and Reed and Rodda (2009) judged the 

number of available localities to be 

insufficient for an attempt to delineate 

its climate space or extrapolate this 

space to the United States. Beni 

anacondas are known from sites with 

low seasonality (mean monthly 

temperatures in a narrow range of 

approximately 22.5 to 27.5 °C (72 to 77 

°F), and mean monthly precipitation 

about 5 to 30 cm (2 to 12 in). Whether 

the species’ native distribution is 

limited by factors other than climate is 

unknown as well as whether the small 

native range is attributable to ecological 

(for example, competition with green 

anacondas), or anthropogenic (for 

example, habitat loss) factors. If the 

native distribution is not limited by 

climate, then Reed and Rodda’s (2009) 

qualitative estimate of the climatically 

suitable areas of the United States 

would represent an underprediction. As 

a component of the risk assessment, the 

Beni anaconda’s colonization potential 

is described by Reed and Rodda (2009) 

as capable of survival in small portions 

of the mainland or on the United States’ 

tropical islands (Hawaii, Puerto Rico, 

American Samoa, Guam, Northern 

Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands). 

The Beni anaconda is highly likely to 

spread and become established in the 

wild due to its rapid growth to a large 

size, early maturation and high 

reproductive potential, a sit-and-wait 

style of predation, ability to survive 

under a range of habitat types and 

conditions (habitat generalist), behavior 

that allows it to escape freezing 

temperatures, adaptability to living in 

urban and suburban areas, ability to 

disperse long distances, and cryptic 

concealment. 

Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(Including Endangered and Threatened 

Species) 

Beni anacondas will prey on native 

species, including endangered and 

threatened species if they become 

established in the United States. They 

are primarily aquatic and eat a wide 

variety of prey, including fish, birds, 

mammals, and other reptiles. The size of 

the prey also varies, depending on the 

age of the snake, with baby anacondas 

able to eat small prey, and large 

anacondas able to eat very large prey. 

Anacondas employ both ‘‘ambush 

predation’’ and ‘‘wide-foraging’’ 

strategies (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

Endangered and threatened wildlife 

occupying the Beni anaconda’s 

preferred habitats would be at risk. 

The Beni anaconda is similar in size 

to the green anaconda, which is 

generally considered the heaviest snake 

in the world (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

much larger than the largest snake 

native to the continental United States. 

See Potential Impacts to Native Species 

(Including Endangered and Threatened 

Species) for the reticulated python for 

comparison to native predators and 

anticipated effects on native wildlife 

from Beni anacondas. Moreover, the 

Beni anaconda is a novel predator 

against which native species would not 

have evolved defenses. 

Florida has 13 bird species, 15 

mammals, and 2 reptiles that are 

federally endangered or threatened that 

could be preyed upon by Beni 

anacondas or be outcompeted by them 

for prey; many of those protected 

species live in the warmest part of the 

State. Hawaii has 34 bird species, and 

1 mammal that are endangered or 

threatened that would be at risk of 

predation. Puerto Rico has 9 bird 

species and 10 reptile species that are 

federally endangered or threatened 

species that would be at risk if Beni 

anacondas became established. Guam 

has seven bird species and two mammal 

species that are endangered or 

threatened that would be at risk of 

predation. The Virgin Islands has one 

bird species and three reptile species 

that are endangered or threatened that 

would be at risk of predation. 

Potential Impacts to Humans 

The introduction or establishment of 

Beni anacondas would likely have 

negative impacts on humans primarily 

from the loss of native wildlife 

biodiversity, as discussed above in the 

discussion for the reticulated python. 

These losses would affect the aesthetic, 

recreational, and economic values 

currently provided by native wildlife 

and healthy ecosystems. Educational 

values would also be diminished 

through the loss of biodiversity and 

ecosystem health. Agricultural interests 

may be negatively affected by imported 

anacondas carrying ticks that transfer 

harmful pathogens to livestock. 

Factors That Reduce or Remove 

Injuriousness for Beni Anaconda 

Control 

Prevention, eradication, management, 

or control of the spread of Beni 

anacondas once established in the 

United States will be highly unlikely. 

Please see the ‘‘Control’’ section for the 

reticulated python for reasons why Beni 

anacondas would be difficult to control, 

all of which apply to this large 

constrictor. 

Potential Ecological Benefits for 

Introduction 

While the introduction of Beni 

anacondas could potentially provide a 

food source for some native carnivores, 

species native to the United States are 

unlikely to possess the hunting ability 

for such large, camouflaged snakes and 

would not likely turn to Beni anacondas 

as a food source. However, juvenile 

snakes could fall prey to native wildlife 

such as alligators, raccoons, coyotes, 

and birds of prey. In addition, Beni 

anacondas could prey on other 

nonnative species such as green 

iguanas, feral hogs, and black rats. The 

risks to native wildlife greatly outweigh 

these unlikely benefits. There are no 

other potential ecological benefits from 

the introduction into the United States 

or establishment in the United States of 

Beni anacondas. 

Conclusion 

Large Beni anaconda adults are 

heavier than almost all native, terrestrial 

predators in the United States, even 

many bears. Native fauna have no 

experience defending themselves 

against this type of novel, giant 

predator. The range of the Beni 

anaconda is largely defined by the 

availability of aquatic habitats. Beni 

anacondas are top predators in South 

America, consuming birds, mammals, 

fish, and reptiles; prey size includes 

deer and crocodilians. This diet is even 

broader than the diet of Burmese and 

reticulated pythons. 

Because Beni anaconda specimens are 

likely to escape captivity or be released 

into the wild if the species is imported 

into the United States; are likely to 

survive, become established, and spread 

if they escape captivity or are released; 

are likely to prey on and compete with 

native species for food and habitat 

(including endangered and threatened 

species); cannot be easily eradicated, 

prevented from establishing, or reduced 

from large populations or new locations; 

and are likely to disturb ecosystems 

beyond the point of recoverability, the 

Service finds the Beni anaconda to be 

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 

wildlife resources of the United States. 

Summary of Injurious Evaluations 

Based on the Service’s evaluation of 

the criteria for injuriousness, 

substantive information we received 

during the public comment periods and 

from the peer reviewers, along with 

other information regarding the large 

constrictor snakes (in Florida, Puerto 

Rico, and elsewhere), the Service 

concludes that the four constrictor 

species should be added to the list of 

injurious reptiles under the Lacey Act. 

Comments Received on the Proposed 

Rule 

During the two public comment 

periods for the proposed rule for the 

nine species (75 FR 11808, March 12, 

2010; and 75 FR 38069, July 1, 2010) 

and one comment period for the five 

species (79 FR 35719, June 24, 2014), we 

received more than 85,000 comments, 

including form letters, petitions, and 

postcards. We received comments from 

Federal agencies, State agencies, local 

governments, commercial and trade 

organizations, conservation 

organizations, nongovernmental 

organizations, and private citizens; all 

were in English with the exception of a 

few in Dutch, French, German, and 

Italian. The comments provided a range 

of views on the proposed listings as 

follows: (1) Unequivocal support for the 

listings with no additional information 

included; (2) unequivocal support for 

the listings with additional information 

provided; (3) equivocal support for the 

listings with or without additional 

information included; (4) unequivocal 

opposition to the listings with no 

additional information included; and (5) 

unequivocal opposition to the listings 

with additional information included. 

To accurately review and incorporate 

the publicly provided comments in our 

final determination, we worked with 

researchers in the Qualitative Data 

Analysis Program at the University of 

Massachusetts Amherst and the 

University of Pittsburgh—developers of 

the Public Comment Analysis Toolkit 

(PCAT) and the successor DiscoverText 

analytical platform. The PCAT and 

DiscoverText enhanced our ability to 

review large numbers of comments, 

including large numbers of similar 

comments on our proposed listings, 

allowing us to identify similar 

comments as well as individual ideas, 

data, recommendations, or suggestions 

on the proposed listings. We are also 

responding to some comments that are 

out of the purview of this rule in a 

concerted effort to explain our rationale 

to the public. 

Peer Review of the Proposed Rule 

In accordance with peer review 

guidance of the Office of Management 

and Budget ‘‘Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ released 

December 16, 2004, and Service 

guidance, we solicited expert opinion 

on information contained in the March 

12, 2010, proposed rule (for nine 

species) from five knowledgeable 

individuals selected from specialists in 

the relevant taxonomic group and 

ecologists with scientific expertise that 

includes familiarity with alien 

herpetological introductions and 

invasions, predictive tools for risk 

assessment, and invasion biology. In 

2010, we posted our peer review plan 

on the Service’s Region 4 Web site 

(http://www.fws.gov/southeast/

informationquality), explaining the peer 

review process and providing the public 

with an opportunity to comment on the 

peer review plan. No comments were 

received regarding the peer review plan. 

The Service solicited independent 

scientific reviewers who submitted 

individual comments in written form. 

We avoided using individuals who had 

already expressed strong support for or 

opposition to the petition and 

individuals who were likely to 

experience personal gain or loss 

(financial, prestige, etc.) as a result of 

the Service’s decision. Department of 

the Interior employees were not used as 

peer reviewers. 

We received responses from five peer 

reviewers. Two peer reviewers found 

that, in general, the proposed rule 

represented a comprehensive and up-todate compilation of the best scientific 

information known about the nine 

constrictor snake species and that 

conclusions drawn from both published 

and unpublished sources were 

scientifically robust, and justified the 

proposed rule. Two peer reviewers 

expressed concern with the climatematching methods and assumptions. 

In addition, all peer reviewers stated 

that the background material on the 

biology, invasive potential, and 

potential tools for control of each snake 

species represented a solid compilation 

of available information. They further 

stated that the information as presented 

justified the conclusion that the snake 

species should be listed as injurious. All 

five peer reviewers concluded that the 

data and analyses we used in the 

proposed rule were appropriate and the 

conclusions we drew were logical and 

reasonable. Several peer reviewers 

provided additional insights to clarify 

points in the proposed rule, or 

references to recently published studies 

that update material in the rule. 

Peer Review Comments 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the proposed rule. We 

consolidate the comments and 

responses into key issues in this section. 

We refer to them as PR (Peer Reviewer) 

1 through 5. We revised the final rule to 

reflect peer reviewer comments, where 

appropriate, and the most current 

scientific information, including the 

results of the newer USGS climate 

match publication (Rodda et al. 2011), 

plus a number of new peer-reviewed 

journal articles. We have taken our best 

effort to identify the limitations and 

uncertainties of the climate-matching 

models and their projections used in the 

March 12, 2010, proposed rule. We have 

also taken our best effort to correct any 

grammatical or biological errors and 

clarify certain ambiguous statements. 

Because some of the comments referred 

only to those constrictor snake species 

we listed on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 

3330), we omit those comments from 

this final rule; we summarize and 

respond to them in the January 23, 2012, 

final rule to list the Burmese python and 

three other species. 

Comment PR1: In regard to the USGS 

publication ‘‘Giant Constrictors: 

Biological and Management Profiles and 

an Establishment Risk Assessment for 

Nine Large Species of Pythons, 

Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor,’’ 

which includes management profiles 

discussing colonization potentials with 

climate-matching maps, very few details 

or data are presented that would allow 

an independent test of the model, 

predictions, or assumptions. At a 

minimum, the threshold values that 

were used in the climate space model 

should be explicitly stated for each 

species. This would allow reviewers to 

evaluate the data and the assumptions 

used in the construction of the model. 

Response PR1: This general critique is 

incorrect; all of the species-specific 

information used to assess risks is 

presented in the document mentioned. 

That this procedure cannot be reduced 

to mathematical certainty is the reason 

a risk assessment (rather than a 

calculation) was conducted. This 

specific critique is also incorrect. The 

requested threshold values are provided 

graphically for each of the species in 

Reed and Rodda (2009). For example, 

the Python reticulatus values are in 

Figure 5.3 (page 84) (heavy and dashed 

black lines), the Eunectes murinus and 

Eunectes beniensis values are in Figure 

9.3 (page 224) (heavy black lines), and 

so forth. 

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 

climate match results, the USGS has 

published a data series report with data 

used for modeling and the equations 

corresponding to these lines (http://

pubs.usgs.gov/ds/579/) (Jarnevich et al. 

2011), but the graphical representations 

in Reed and Rodda (2009) provide the 

same information with the precision 

that is appropriate for the use of these 

values. Use of these values with greater 

precision would not be appropriate 

given the conceptual and scientific 

uncertainties that attend state-of-the-art 

implementation of climate matching. 

Comment PR2: The data used for the 

risk assessment seems fair. This 

reviewer, however, was not convinced 

that the assignment of low, medium, 

and high establishment and 

consequence scores was sufficiently 

objective or transparent. The process 

appears to involve high levels of 

uncertainty (pp. 253, 259: Reed and 

Rodda 2009). Though there is not really 

an alternative with the amount of data 

available, the approach would be more 

acceptable if it was transparent (what 

constitutes each level of certainty and 

how one decides on high, medium, or 

low for each contributing factor). 

Response PR2: The risk assessment 

process allows for analyzing, 

identifying, and estimating the 

dimension, characteristics, and type of 

risk. By applying analytical methods 

while acknowledging the assumptions 

and uncertainties involved, the process 

allows the assessors to utilize 

qualitative and quantitative data in a 

systematic and consistent fashion. The 

assessment strives for theoretical 

accuracy while remaining 

comprehensible and manageable, and 

the scientific and other data compiled 

for each snake species in the bio-profiles 

is organized and recorded in a formal 

and systematic manner. The assessment 

provides a reasonable estimation of the 

overall risk. The authors were careful to 

ensure that the process clearly 

explained the uncertainties inherent in 

the process and to avoid design and 

implementation of a process that 

reflected a predetermined result. 

Quantitative and qualitative risk 

assessments should always be buffered 

with careful professional judgment. If 

every statement was certain, we would 

not need a risk assessment. The need to 

balance risks with uncertainty can lead 

assessors to concentrate more on the 

uncertainty than on known facts that 

may affect impact potential. Risks 

identified for nonnative, invasive, large 

constrictor species (and other 

nonnative, invasive species besides 

large constrictors) in other regions often 

provide the justification in applying 

management measures to reduce risks in 

regions where the species have not yet 

been introduced. Thus, risk assessments 

should concentrate on evaluating 

potential risk. 

Uncertainty, as it relates to the 

individual risk assessment, can be 

divided into three distinct types: (a) 

Uncertainty of the process (method); (b) 

uncertainty of the assessor(s) (human 

error); and (c) uncertainty about the 

organism (biological and environmental 

unknowns). All three types of 

uncertainty will continue to exist 

regardless of future developments. The 

inferential estimation of organism risk 

can be rated using high, medium, or 

low. The biological and other 

information assembled under each 

element will drive the process, forcing 

the assessor to use the biological 

information as the basis for his or her 

decision. Thus, the process remains 

transparent for peer review. The high, 

medium, and low ratings of the 

individual elements contributing to the 

probability of organism establishment 

(such as organism with pathway, entry 

potential, colonization potential, and 

spread potential) cannot be defined or 

measured: The assessor has to use 

professional judgment because the 

values of the elements contained under 

‘‘Probability of Establishment’’ are not 

independent of the rating of the 

‘‘Consequences of Establishment.’’ 

Specific traits or biological 

characteristics were assessed for each 

snake species to arrive at each high, 

medium, or low rating. The strength of 

the analysis is not in the element-rating 

but in the detailed biological and other 

relevant information that supports the 

rating. Reed and Rodda (2009) followed 

the ANSTF 1996 (see Lacey Act 

Evaluation Criteria section, above, for 

explanation of this method) guidelines 

for combining scores and noting that 

certainty levels for each component of 

the process were followed by the risk 

assessors. The logic that was applied to 

develop every step of the risk 

assessment analysis can be found in 

Chapter Ten of Reed and Rodda (2009). 

Comment PR3: [Refers to previously 

listed species; see 77 FR 3330, January 

23, 2012] 

Comment PR4: [Refers to previously 

listed species; see 77 FR 3330, January 

23, 2012] 

Comment PR5: The term ‘‘zoological’’ 

is ambiguous and could lead to a 

potential loophole for those activities 

for which permitted importation could 

be allowed; hence, any activity 

pertaining to these snakes could be 

claimed to be ‘‘zoological.’’ 

Response PR5: This rulemaking 

addresses whether the identified species 

of large constrictor snakes qualify as 

injurious and, therefore, should be 

added to the list of injurious reptiles. 

The rule does not address under what 

circumstances a person may qualify for 

exception to the importation or 

interstate transportation prohibitions 

under the zoological purposes 

provisions. Therefore, this comment is 

outside of the scope of this rulemaking. 

Public Comments 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the public, particularly 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding the March 12, 

2010, proposed rule to list the nine large 

constrictor snakes. Therefore, the public 

comments generally refer to the nine 

species in the proposed rule, unless 

otherwise stated, and we respond for all 

nine species, unless otherwise stated. 

Because some of the comments referred 

only to those constrictor snake species 

we listed on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 

3330), we omit those comments from 

this final rule; we summarize and 

respond to them in the January 23, 2012, 

final rule to list the Burmese python and 

three other species. We consolidated the 

following comments and our responses 

into key issues that are not in any 

particular order. 

Health and Welfare of Human Beings 

(1) Comment: Some people have been 

killed and more have been injured in 

the United States by nonnative large 

constrictor snakes that were kept as 

pets. 

Our Response: The Humane Society 

of the United States submitted a list of 

577 reports that included accounts of 

human injuries and fatalities from 

nonnative constrictor snakes, nonnative 

constrictor snakes that escaped or were 

spotted in the wild, and nonnative 

constrictor snakes kept in inhumane 

conditions that were reported in the 

media that occurred in the United States 

between 1978 and mid-2014. The 

accounts included reports of Burmese 

pythons, African (rock) pythons, 

reticulated pythons, boa constrictors, 

green anacondas, and yellow anacondas, 

and unidentified large constrictor 

snakes. The list contains accounts from 

46 States, including Alaska and Hawaii. 

The reports included dozens of attacks 

on people, 14 of which resulted in 

human fatalities. Burmese python 

attacks reportedly resulted in five 

deaths. African (rock) pythons (not 

distinguished by species) reportedly 

attacked one person fatally. Reticulated 

python attacks reportedly resulted in 

the deaths of seven people. A 25-pound 

red-tailed boa constrictor killed a 34- 

year-old man. 

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 

statement under their ‘‘Best 

Management Practices’’ Web page 

(USARK 2014): ‘‘We understand that 

there are occupational hazards involved 

in the captive husbandry of the largest 

examples of five large snake species, 

and venomous reptiles. It is the position 

of USARK that only experienced and 

serious keepers should work with these 

animals.’’ 

We acknowledge reports of deaths 

and injury due to encounters with 

nonnative large constrictor snakes, but 

the accounts identified by the 

commenter involved snakes held in 

captivity. Human fatalities from 

nonvenomous snakes in the wild are 

rare (Reed and Rodda 2009). An indirect 

risk is that large snakes may stretch 

across roads to obtain heat from the 

pavement on cool days, posing a hazard 

to motorists who swerve to avoid hitting 

them (Snow et al. 2007; Harvey et al. 

2008). Please see ‘‘Potential Impacts to 

Humans’’ in the ‘‘Factors That 

Contribute to Injuriousness * * *’’ 

section for each species, above, for 

further information. 

(2) Comment: The actual physical 

danger that large constrictors pose to 

humans and public safety has been 

grossly overstated, and only 12 human 

fatalities have been attributed to these 

snakes since 1980, an average of 0.4 

deaths per year. Those fatalities are 

usually a direct result of either improper 

care and handling of the animal, or 

feeding-related errors on the part of the 

keeper or pet owner. Another 

commenter stated 10 human fatalities 

occurred from 1990 to 2012, or 0.43 per 

year, by captive constrictors. 

Our Response: We agree that, while 

13 human deaths that we know of have 

occurred since 1980, this number is 

small relative to other causes of death. 

We agree that the preeminent issue is 

not one of public safety, because we 

know of few large constrictor snake 

attacks in the United States from freeranging snakes. A study in Everglades 

National Park (Reed and Snow 2014) 

summarized occurrences of apparently 

unprovoked strikes to humans by large 

constrictors and the circumstances 

surrounding each of the five reported 

incidents, which occurred between 2006 

and 2012. All strikes were from 

Burmese pythons and directed toward 

biologists moving through flooded 

wetlands; two strikes resulted in minor 

injury and three in no injury. No strikes 

are known to have been directed at park 

visitors. The study concludes that, 

while risks to humans should not be 

completely discounted, the relative risk 

of a human being killed by a python in 

Everglades National Park appears to be 

extremely low. We also note that, in 

their native ranges, reports of large 

constrictor snake attacks on humans in 

the wild are rare, although they have 

occurred (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

However, the remoteness of the native 

ranges of any of the species may 

preclude deaths from being reported. A 

study of a small tribe of hunter-gathers 

(the Agta) in the Philippines 

summarized attacks by reticulated 

pythons (Headland and Greene 2011). 

Of 19 rural men and women attacked, 

11 died. While Reed and Rodda (2009) 

also state that virtually all known 

human fatalities are associated with pet 

manipulation, Snow et al. (2007) and 

Harvey et al. (2008) noted that large 

constrictors crossing roads could cause 

traffic accidents. In general, we agree 

that the risk to human safety is not in 

itself a substantial factor in listing any 

of these species as injurious. See also 

our response to Comment 1. 

(3) Comment: Boa constrictors should 

be removed from the rule. These snakes 

have never killed their keepers, nor 

have they killed anyone else. There has 

never been a documented human death 

by a boa constrictor. 

Our Response: For reasons discussed 

above in the section Withdrawal of the 

Boa Constrictor from Consideration as 

an Injurious Species, we are 

withdrawing our proposal to list the boa 

constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR 

11808; March 12, 2010). 

Large Constrictor Snakes as Pets and 

Hobby 

(4) Comment: Most people in the 

reptile hobby who choose to own these 

larger species are very responsible and 

do well in keeping their pets and 

investments healthy and safe, and this 

includes preventing their escape. It does 

not stand to reason that the actions of 

this very limited amount of negligent 

owners should affect millions of 

responsible pet owners. 

Our Response: While we do not 

dispute that most constrictor snake 

owners try to be responsible, the volume 

of imports and domestically bred snakes 

is large enough (averaging 29,520 

annually (for 2011 to 2013) for the four 

species that are being listed in this final 

rule and the boa constrictor; of that, 

6,135 for the four species that are being 

listed this final rule; Final Economic 

Analysis 2015, Table 8) that accidents 

do happen, resulting in snakes escaping 

or snakes being intentionally released. 

Shipping containers may be damaged— 

and live snakes able to escape— 

anywhere between the port of import 

and the destination of the pet owner’s 

home. In that case, the problem could 

arise before the pet owners acquire the 

animals. 

Another consideration is the risk 

involved with transporting large, 

powerful snakes. While keeping a snake 

in a sedentary home cage may not in 

itself be a difficult task, the situation 

may change when a 20-ft (6-m) snake 

weighing 200 pounds (91 kg) is 

transported in a car to a veterinarian. 

Unless the snake is transported in an 

escape-proof cage from the house to the 

automobile to the veterinarian, snakes 

may find more opportunities for escape. 

Conversely, small snakes may escape 

more easily than large ones because they 

are more likely to be transported 

casually, such as carried for show. For 

example, a boa constrictor that was 

transported around on its owner’s neck 

on a Boston subway escaped and 

survived for a month on the heated train 

in January 2011 before being captured 

(Associated Press 2011). 

We have based our determination on 

our evaluation of injuriousness to 

wildlife and wildlife resources and the 

likelihood that any of the four large 

constrictor snakes could escape, become 

established, and cause harm. 

(5) Comment: These snakes are not 

injurious wild animals. They are 

domesticated pets. 

Our Response: We recognize that 

many snakes are kept in captivity with 

no negative incidences and that they 

seem tame. However, the fact that 

various species of wildlife may be kept 

as pets does not remove these species 

from the scope of U.S. wildlife laws. 

Under the injurious wildlife provisions 

of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), all four 

of these species are wild. Therefore, we 

have the authority to list all of the four 

species of constrictor snakes once we 

determine that they are injurious. We 

base our determination as injurious on 

their effect on any one of the following: 

the interests of human beings, 

agriculture, horticulture, forestry, 

wildlife, or wildlife resources of the 

United States. 

(6) Comment: I have kept more of 

these animals than anyone you will ever 

meet, and I can assure you, they are not 

injurious in any way. 

Our Response: We recognize that 

there are various meanings of 

‘‘injurious.’’ However, under the 

Service’s authority, the Lacey Act (18 

U.S.C. 42), and for the purpose of this 

rule, injurious wildlife are wild 

mammals, wild birds, amphibians, 

reptiles, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and 

their offspring or gametes that are 

injurious to the interests of human 

beings, agriculture, horticulture, 

forestry, wildlife, or wildlife resources 

of the United States. A wildlife species 

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 

the above interests to be listed. If a 

species is injurious to wildlife or 

wildlife resources of the United States 

(including its territories and insular 

possessions), we have the authority to 

list that species. 

(7) Comment: We agree that 

ownership of certain animals should be 

restricted; however, we feel that 

banning the species Boa constrictor fails 

to address current concerns, is 

unnecessarily restrictive, and 

counterproductive. This species also 

represents the largest portion of the nine 

species proposed for listing as injurious. 

Our Response: For reasons discussed 

above in the section Withdrawal of the 

Boa Constrictor from Consideration as 

an Injurious Species, we are 

withdrawing our proposal to list the boa 

constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR 

11808; March 12, 2010). 

(8) Comment: This rule will destroy 

the ability of animal hobbyists, who are 

our future biologists and 

conservationists, to explore and learn 

about these specific animals, thus 

limiting exposure to the natural world at 

large. 

Our Response: The commenters did 

not explain how the rule will destroy 

the ability of animal hobbyists to learn 

about these animals. Hobbyists will still 

be allowed to keep their snakes and 

offspring, and to acquire additional ones 

within their State (and consistent with 

their State’s own laws). The long lives 

of these species improve the chances 

that the hobbyists will have their pets 

for one or more decades, generally much 

longer than amphibian and tropical fish 

hobbyists. Hobbyists still have many 

other species of snakes and other 

reptiles to choose from that are not 

listed as injurious. We hope that, with 

this rule, future biologists and 

conservationists will learn about the 

ecological role of these species in their 

native lands and in lands where they 

become invasive. 

(9) Comment: A number of 

commenters in active duty in the 

military and who live off base stated 

that their snakes help them to cope with 

stress from traumatic events. If they get 

transferred, they will not be able to 

bring their pet snakes. 

Our Response: The commenters are 

correct that, if they are transferred, they 

could not transport their pet snakes, 

unless the transfer is to a location in the 

same State. 

Unprecedented Regulation 

(10a) Comment: A ban placed by the 

government on a group of animals that 

is so prevalent in the pet industry and 

kept by so many hobbyists would be 

unprecedented. 

(10b) Comment: Other widely held 

pets have been banned by the Federal 

Government. For example, in 1975, the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

banned the sale or distribution of turtles 

with shells that measure less than 4 

inches in length in response to findings 

that pet turtles were responsible for a 

substantial number of Salmonella 

infections nationwide. These were 

primarily the baby red-eared sliders 

(Trachemys scripta) that were 

commonly sold in pet stores in the 

1950s, ’60s, and ’70s, and even given 

away for free. 

Our Response: The Lacey Act does 

not preclude listing a species that is 

prevalent in the pet industry, provided 

that the species meets the criteria for 

injuriousness. In addition, this 

regulation is not a ban on possessing or 

selling any of the species. Other animals 

in the pet trade have been banned by the 

Federal Government. For example, with 

the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 

(16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), Congress 

banned imports of many exotic bird 

species that were common in the pet 

trade to ensure that their native 

populations are not harmed by 

international trade. Another example is 

the Food and Drug Administration 

banning small turtles common in the pet 

trade (see Comment 10b). States may 

also have their own restrictions, and 

these restrictions may be more stringent 

than this Federal rule. For example, 

individual States may ban possession of 

any of these snake species. This final 

rule only establishes a prohibition 

against importation and interstate 

transportation of listed species without 

a permit. Furthermore, only one of the 

species that we are listing (reticulated 

python) is regularly in the reptile trade, 

although infrequently; the other three 

constrictor species are rarely or not 

traded. Lastly, the establishment of the 

Burmese python (listed as injurious in 

a final rule we published on January 23, 

2012, at 77 FR 3330) in South Florida 

is unprecedented anywhere in the 

United States for a large predator from 

the pet trade and demonstrates what 

could happen if other large constrictors 

have the opportunity to establish. 

Oftentimes, such new situations call for 

more stringent solutions than previously 

adopted. 

Other Animals More Injurious 

(11) Comment: A better argument 

based on safety and health statistics 

could be made to ban horses or dogs, as 

the average American is more likely to 

be injured or killed by either of those 

animals than any reptile. Certainly there 

are other species, such as feral cats, 

dogs, rats, pigeons, starlings, and pigs, 

that each cause more damage to the 

environment of South Florida. 

Our Response: As the commenter 

correctly points out, many species of 

feral domesticated animals are 

considered invasive and have caused 

harm to humans and natural resources 

in south Florida and other parts of the 

United States. However, under the 

Lacey Act, the Service has the authority 

only to list ‘‘wild’’ birds and ‘‘wild’’ 

mammals as injurious wildlife; under 18 

U.S.C. 42(a)(2), the term ‘‘wild’’ is 

specific to any animals that, whether or 

not raised in captivity, are normally 

found in a wild state. Dogs, cats, and 

horses are considered domesticated 

animals under our regulations at 50 CFR 

14.4 and, therefore, cannot be listed as 

injurious wildlife. 

Based on the best available 

information, we have found that the 

four species covered by this final rule 

are injurious to human beings, to the 

interests of agriculture, or to the wildlife 

or wildlife resources of the United 

States. This does not mean that we 

believe these snakes to be the most 

injurious of all wild animals. 

Effort To Ban Pets 

(12) Comment: This snake ban opens 

the door to many other animals being 

banned. If this rule is passed, then next 

it will be foreign reptiles all together, 

followed closely by a different ban, 

followed by an eventual ban on reptiles, 

period. Next it will be cats, dogs, fish, 

and birds. 

Our Response: This rule does not ban 

possession of any species. As stated 

above in the SUMMARY and elsewhere in 

this rule, this rule prohibits only the 

importation into the United States and 

interstate transportation of reticulated 

python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, and Beni anaconda. 

Prohibiting importation and interstate 

transportation is the only authority 

provided to the Secretary of the Interior 

by Congress under the injurious wildlife 

provisions of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 

42). Two of the four species of large 

constrictor snakes in this final rule are 

already in captivity in the United States 

and are available for acquisition within 

each State (unless otherwise regulated 

by your State’s laws). In addition, any 

species under consideration for listing 

as injurious is evaluated on a case-bycase basis, using all available 

information relevant to whether it is or 

is not injurious. Therefore, this rule 

does not set up a trend to regulate any 

particular species or groups of species. 

Second, the Lacey Act does not provide 

the authority to list domesticated 

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 

response to Comment 11 for more 

information. However, any reptile can 

be considered for injurious wildlife 

listing if it meets the listing criteria (see 

Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria, above, for 

explanation). 

Effect of Rule on Welfare of Large 

Constrictor Snakes 

(13) Comment: This rule change 

basically represents a death sentence for 

millions of reptiles in the United States. 

Many of these snakes will be abandoned 

and set free where they will surely 

suffer and die. 

Our Response: We disagree that this 

rulemaking will result in the death of 

millions of reptiles currently being held 

in captivity. We have been clear that all 

owners of any of the snakes listed as 

injurious will be allowed to keep them 

under this rule. For animals already in 

the United States, this rule only restricts 

transport between States. We emphasize 

that it will be lawful for pet owners to 

keep their pets (if allowed by State law). 

Therefore, we have no reason to believe 

that responsible, caring owners will kill 

or release them into the wild. Breeders 

may still be able to export through a 

port in their own State (see response to 

Comment 68 for exporting explanation). 

For breeders who can no longer export, 

they may find buyers in their own State. 

For information on how to find a home 

for a snake that a person can no longer 

keep, we posted some suggestions on 

http://www.regulations.gov at the time 

the proposed rule was published on 

March 12, 2010 (separate file 

‘‘Questions and Answers’’). We 

explained: 

‘‘If you are in a position where you 

must give up your pet [large constrictor 

snake], and zoos and humane societies 

have declined your efforts to donate the 

animal, you should contact either your 

State fish and wildlife agency or your 

local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

office. These two government agencies 

are the legal authorities that co-manage 

fish and wildlife in this country, and 

they can help you to resolve this issue. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

working with States around the country 

and the pet and aquarium industry 

through a campaign called 

HabitattitudeTM to help pet owners 

adopt environmentally responsible 

actions for surrendering their pets, such 

as: 

• Contacting the retailer for proper 

handling advice or for possible return; 

• Giving or trading with another pet 

owner; 

• Donating to a zoo, humane society, 

nature center, school, or pet retailer; and 

• Contacting a veterinarian or pet 

retailer for guidance on humane 

disposal of animals.’’ 

For those pet owners who move to 

another State, we also suggest 

contacting a local herpetology club or a 

national reptile organization with local 

members to find someone to adopt those 

constrictor snakes. And finally, if you 

live in Florida, ‘‘Anyone who possesses 

a conditional snake or lizard but cannot 

keep it can surrender the animal to a 

licensed recipient (adopter) at any time 

with no penalties’’ (FWC 2014). 

(14) Comment: What would happen to 

the businesses operated by thousands of 

families in the industry with this rule? 

It is doubtful that those animals would 

be humanely euthanized (due to 

finances and ethical objections), so 

those animals would either be subjected 

to inhumane practices or become 

liabilities to those persons who have 

them. It would be a cruel irony that the 

animal rights agenda of eliminating 

these animals from the pet trade would 

result in the destruction of millions of 

animals that have proven to be 

nondangerous. 

Our Response: Family businesses will 

still be able to operate, provided they 

either sell within their State or have a 

port of export directly from their State 

(see response to Comment 68 for 

exporting explanation). Businesses may 

switch to other species of snakes that 

are not listed. Please see our response to 

Comment 13 on alternatives for 

disposing of animals that you can no 

longer keep. Owners are encouraged to 

find legal alternatives, such as trading 

species with someone in their own State 

who has a species that is not listed and 

who is able to keep a listed species in 

that State. We emphasize that it will be 

lawful for pet owners to keep their pets 

(if allowed by State law) but unlawful 

to transport them across State lines. 

With the removal of the boa constrictor 

from consideration for listing, the effect 

to businesses is greatly reduced. 

Regarding the statement that these 

snakes are nondangerous, we emphasize 

that we distinguish between 

‘‘nondangerous,’’ which we assume the 

commenter means ‘‘does not harm 

people,’’ and ‘‘injurious,’’ which has a 

different meaning under the Lacey Act. 

We agree that these four species of 

snakes pose only a small risk of harm 

to people; however, we are listing them 

for their injuriousness. 

(15) Comment: Thousands of snakes’ 

lives will be spared because the majority 

of reptiles die during capture from the 

wild or subsequent transport or within 

the first year of captivity. Banning the 

importation of these species will ensure 

that many snakes will not fall victim to 

the harsh conditions of being shipped 

overseas. Snakes are often marketed as 

low-maintenance pets, and the families 

who take them home can become 

overwhelmed at the level of care 

required. 

Our Response: From the Service’s 

Law Enforcement Management 

Information System (LEMIS) data, we 

estimate that approximately 26,591 

snakes of the four species we are listing 

in this rule were imported from 2004 to 

2013. Some were probably captured 

from the wild. Imported snakes are then 

usually sent to animal dealers before 

being shipped to pet retailers. Finally, 

the snakes are typically acquired at a pet 

retailer and transported to a home or 

other location. Large constrictor snakes 

may become ill, injured, or die during 

transport. Since this listing will place 

prohibitions on importation and 

interstate movement of the four species, 

it is reasonable to assume that fewer 

animals will therefore die from 

importation and interstate transport. 

Although animal welfare is regulated by 

the Federal Government for some taxa 

(that is, primarily warm-blooded 

species) under such laws as the Animal 

Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), this 

was not a factor considered in our 

injurious wildlife evaluation and did 

not influence our final determination. 

Benefits of Having Large Constrictor 

Snakes in the United States 

(16) Comment: While Burmese 

pythons do consume native species 

such as wading birds, waterfowl, 

muskrats, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, 

and even bobcats and white-tailed deer, 

they are probably just as likely to prey 

upon the more common exotic species, 

such as feral cats and dogs, nonnative 

rats and mice, starlings, pigeons, 

collared doves, spiny-tailed iguanas, 

green iguanas, cattle egrets, and 

muscovy ducks. 

Our Response: We agree that large 

constrictor snakes can potentially prey 

on other nonnative species, and that this 

could be beneficial to native wildlife. 

Snow et al. (2007) reported that 

domestic cats, Old World rats, domestic 

chickens, and domestic geese have been 

found in Burmese python digestive 

systems in Florida. However, of greater 

conservation and management concern 

are the effects that invasive species pose 

to native populations of wildlife and 

wildlife resources—in particular, those 

that are endangered or threatened or 

otherwise at risk of extinction (Clavero 

and Garcia-Berthou 2005). Reed and 

Rodda (2009) listed a total of 64 Statelisted endangered or threatened species 

at risk from pythons or other large 

constrictors in Florida alone. This 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

12724 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

includes the highly endangered Key 

Largo wood rat, which has been found 

in the stomachs of Burmese pythons, 

and whose population may number only 

in the hundreds. As demonstrated in 

our injurious wildlife evaluation, we 

believe that the risks posed by large 

constrictor snakes to native wildlife and 

wildlife resources far outweigh the 

possible benefits they may have as 

predators of nonnative wildlife in the 

United States. We do not have 

information on what the other feral 

constrictor snakes have eaten, but we 

assume there would be similar effects 

from these four species due to the traits 

they share with the Burmese python. 

The negative effect of predation on rare 

native species is greater than the effect 

on exotic species because any decrease 

in populations of rare species makes it 

less likely for those populations to 

rebound. 

(17) Comment: Some commenters 

own boa constrictors from regions of 

Brazil that no longer have boa 

constrictors due to deforestation. Many 

of the reptiles present in captive 

collections are representative of 

vanishing bloodlines of wild 

populations of these species. They are 

conserving wild species. 

Our Response: Listing the four species 

in this final rule as injurious will not 

impact legitimate conservation efforts 

that U.S. breeders can carry out for 

species that may be negatively impacted 

by natural and manmade events within 

their native range. In general, the 

Service supports ex-situ conservation 

efforts, such as captive breeding, when 

done in a scientific manner for the 

conservation of a species within its 

native range. The Act also still allows 

export of listed species that could be 

used in reintroduction activities or other 

in-situ conservation efforts. The Act 

allows for the issuance of permits 

authorizing interstate movement or 

imports for scientific or zoological 

purposes, including conservation 

breeding operations. For reasons 

discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

(18) Comment: Many keepers I know 

are concerned about the worldwide 

decline of species, and a distributed 

network of determined keepers may 

prove the only hope for the survival of 

several of the species addressed. For 

example, the natural population of the 

Burmese python has been on a steady 

decline due to habitat loss. 

Our Response: The Service strongly 

supports ex-situ conservation programs 

that are scientifically designed to 

provide conservation benefits to species 

in their native range. The listing of these 

species as injurious will not prevent 

conservation breeding programs run by 

dedicated herpetologists and hobbyists 

from providing a conservation benefit to 

any of these species (see our response to 

Comment 17). 

State Issue (Not Federal Government) 

(19) Comment: The constrictor snakes 

should be listed by individual States, 

not by the Federal Government. 

Our Response: Many commenters 

suggested that we should not list any of 

these species and we should allow the 

States to regulate these species as they 

see fit. The Service is responsible for 

implementing and enforcing laws such 

as the Lacey Act, under which authority 

we are listing these species. We believe 

implementation of the injurious wildlife 

provisions reflects the shared StateFederal governance of invasive species 

challenges facing the United States as 

originally intended by Congress. Since 

these snakes have been found to be 

injurious to human beings and to 

wildlife and wildlife resources, we 

believe federally regulating movements 

of these four species of constrictors into 

the United States and between States 

and territories is an important step in 

limiting their effects. The States and 

other jurisdictions within the United 

States retain the ability to regulate these 

species as they determine appropriate 

within their boundaries. For reasons 

discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are giving the States and other areas 

under U.S. jurisdiction the opportunity 

to demonstrate the efficacy of Statebased measures to address the potential 

invasive nature of boa constrictors, 

including, if appropriate, promulgating 

their own regulations regarding the boa 

constrictor. 

(20) Comment: Mere presence of a 

species does not equate the threat of 

harm, especially when individuals are 

sighted in environments in which they 

cannot establish. If this is solid 

justification for listing a species as 

injurious, the Service will need to list 

every organism that has ever—and is 

ever—spotted outside of captivity in the 

United States. 

Our Response: The Service undergoes 

a rigorous evaluation before determining 

that any species is injurious. Mere 

presence does not qualify a species as 

injurious. The Service evaluates each 

species based on numerous criteria (see 

Lacey Act Evaluation Criteria, above). 

We also consider the potential to 

survive, become established, and 

spread; likelihood of release or escape; 

impact to endangered and threatened 

species and their habitats; and so on. 

We have determined that the four 

species of large constrictor snakes that 

are the subjects of this rule are injurious 

and should be listed. 

Rule Will Not Be Effective 

(21) Comment: This regulation change 

will not make the established 

population of Burmese pythons in 

Florida disappear. 

Our Response: [Refers to previously 

listed species; see 77 FR 3330, January 

23, 2012] 

(22) Comment: Such a rule change 

disallowing the interstate trade of these 

species is counterintuitive and a non 

sequitur to ban trade between every 

other State in the Union. 

Our Response: From our evaluation of 

each species (under the section ‘‘Factors 

That Contribute to Injuriousness * * *’’ 

for each species), we find that 

prohibiting the interstate trade of these 

species, along with prohibiting 

importation of them, will reduce the 

risk of these species becoming more 

widespread to new areas of the United 

States, including the territories and 

insular possessions. Please also see 

Need for the Final Rule, above. 

(23) Comment: The Lacey Act has 

never stopped the introduction or 

eradicated the feral populations of any 

invasive species, which makes it wholly 

ineffective in this case. 

Our Response: The commenter is 

correct that no eradication of 

established feral populations has been 

accomplished merely by the listing of a 

species as injurious, but we did not 

expect that result. Merely preventing 

introductions of new individuals will 

not result in the eradication of existing 

populations. The most likely way for the 

injurious listing provisions to be 

successful is if they are applied before 

a species is present in the United States 

or in vulnerable parts of the United 

States. The Beni and DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas that we are listing as 

injurious in this final rule may be 

prevented from becoming established in 

Florida, as well as other vulnerable 

areas of the country. Furthermore, the 

purpose of listing the reticulated python 

and green anaconda in all areas of the 

country is to prevent any areas of the 

country that do not currently have those 

species (see Potential Introduction and 

Spread sections for each species, above) 

from becoming invaded. Fowler et al. 

(2007) discuss the effectiveness of the 

Lacey Act listings by looking at all of 

the species that are currently listed as 

injurious. They state that, ‘‘None (0%) 

of the 7 species that were absent from 

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 

subsequently established populations, 

and two of the taxa that were present 

only in captivity (raccoon dog and 

brushtail possum) did not establish wild 

populations. [T]wo taxa that were 

established outside captivity at the time 

of the listing (European rabbit and Java 

sparrow) have not spread between 

[S]tates since listing.’’ In general, if the 

rule can prevent introductions to 

vulnerable parts of the country, it will 

be effective. 

Educational and Zoological Use 

Curtailed 

(24) Comment: The rule will impact 

educational outreach at zoos. Educators 

travel to neighboring States. Burmese 

pythons are a flagship species for these 

outreach education activities. The Act 

as currently written requires strict and 

uninterrupted double containment for 

injurious species. The inclusion of these 

four taxa of snakes on the list of 

injurious wildlife will make the use of 

any of these species in interstate 

education programs virtually 

impossible. 

Our Response: Zoos around the 

country commonly use live animals for 

education at the zoo and offsite. The 

listing of species as injurious will not 

prevent the continued use of these 

species, such as reticulated pythons, for 

education, although some restrictions or 

permitting may be required. Provided 

the animal has never been permitted 

under the Act (either the species was 

not listed under the Act and, therefore, 

authorization was previously not 

required for the animal to move in 

interstate transport, or the species was 

listed under the Act after the animal 

arrived in the State and never left), there 

would be no restrictions for using the 

animal for educational programs within 

the State where the zoo is located. The 

restrictions under the Act, such as 

double escape-proof containment, only 

apply once an animal has been 

‘‘permitted.’’ If the zoo never takes the 

animal out of the State, no permits or 

authorization is required. However, if 

zoo personnel want to travel across 

State lines with one of the listed 

species, the Act would come into effect. 

The Act requires that the zoo obtain a 

permit to carry out any interstate 

movement of a listed species and the 

specimens being moved would need to 

be in double-escape-proof containment. 

Permit applications to carry out 

interstate movement of listed species for 

educational purposes can be submitted 

to the Service. This is a similar 

procedure used by zoological and 

educational institutions to obtain 

permits for endangered and threatened 

species, so the institutions may already 

be familiar with the process. As of this 

final rule, the Service has already issued 

such permits for the four previously 

listed constrictor snakes (77 FR 3330, 

January 23, 2012). 

The commenter is correct that the 

double-escape-proof containment is a 

requirement for listed specimens that 

have been permitted. Moreover, as 

stated above, this requirement applies 

not only when the snake is being 

transported outside the zoo, but applies 

within the zoo as well. However, we 

have found that most zoos already 

contain their reptiles in double-escapeproof containment (such as a display 

case within a building). As such, they 

are already meeting this requirement or 

could meet it with a minimal extra cost 

over the standard housing requirements 

for the species. However, the 

containment of any injurious species is 

consistent with the preventative 

measures of the injurious wildlife 

provisions of the Lacey Act. 

(25) Comment: The cost of specimen 

replacement to zoos will increase 

dramatically. 

Our Response: The Service has no 

reason to believe that the cost of 

replacement would significantly 

increase beyond the cost of applying for 

any required permits or authorization, 

nor did the commenter provide any 

evidence of costs increasing. One of the 

species we are listing (reticulated 

python) is currently available from 

breeders in many States and can be 

obtained within a State without a permit 

once the listing goes into effect. Two 

others (DeSchauensee’s and Beni 

anacondas) have not been imported into 

the United States, and one (green 

anaconda) is not readily available due to 

limited captive breeding. If importation 

is required to acquire new animals, zoos 

would need to apply for an importation 

permit. The cost of a permit is $100 for 

importation or to acquire the species for 

the first time from outside the State 

where the zoo is located, which covers 

the whole shipment, even for multiple 

species and individuals. The cost is $25 

for a permit to transport or move 

animals from one exhibit to another 

within a permitted institution or 

between institutions that are already 

permitted to maintain the same 

injurious species. The commenter did 

not explain how often zoos replace 

specimens, so we do not know how 

much the cost will increase. Since most 

of these species have lifespans in 

captivity of 20 to 30 years (see Biology 

section for each species), we expect this 

need will not be frequent. As for the 

cost of the snakes, the commenter 

provided no information that this cost 

will increase, nor do we know whether 

the price of these species on the market 

will increase, decrease, or remain 

unchanged. Furthermore, zoos may 

become a primary beneficiary of 

constrictor snakes from owners who 

decide to give up their pets because they 

are moving out-of-State or for another 

reason. 

(26) Comment: The rule will impact 

our non-outreach collection; the permit 

preparation time, administrative costs, 

permit fees, and time delays will be a 

major hindrance to continuing the 

management of these species as part of 

the broader zoo network within the 

Association of Zoos and Aquariums 

(AZA). Replacing specimens in a timely 

fashion will be extremely difficult for 

our zoo and others. Ultimately, these 

species may have to be eliminated from 

our collections. 

Our Response: As stated earlier, the 

rule does not affect intrastate movement 

of these species nor does it restrict 

ownership or even captive breeding. It 

is anticipated that most zoos that 

already have these species have the 

capacity either to breed animals already 

held at the zoo or obtain additional 

specimens within their State. Zoos may 

become a primary beneficiary of 

constrictor snakes from owners who 

decide to give up their pets because they 

are moving out-of-State or for other 

reasons. If this is not sufficient, the Act 

does have provisions for obtaining 

specimens from other States or even 

from foreign sources. The Service 

recognizes that the permitting process 

imposes some increased administrative 

costs and is committed to exercising 

available flexibilities under its Lacey 

Act permitting authority to minimize 

permit application preparation and 

processing times and to reduce 

administrative costs. As the AZA 

pointed out in their comment (‘‘We 

commend FWS for working with AZA 

staff * * *’’), we are issuing permits 

that authorize multiple interstate 

movements for educational purposes 

over extended periods. The Service is 

committed to finding ways to minimize 

the time it takes for facilities to obtain 

authorization for interstate transport or 

importation so that zoos can continue 

their active management of these 

species. We do not believe that this 

listing or the January 23, 2012, listing 

will result in any zoo having to 

eliminate these species from their 

collections. 

(27) Comment: With my collection, I 

do school and library visits to give kids 

who generally do not get the chance to 

see these animals up close the 

experience to see them. In my mind this 

is one step needed in educating people 

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 

responsible pet keeping. I take large 

snakes and lizards from all over the 

world to kids who would normally 

never be able to see them. If you ban 

these reptiles, my life dream will be 

ruined, and I will not be able to 

continue my life mission to show 

people these amazing creatures up 

close. 

Our Response: We recognize that 

many people present large and small 

live animal programs in communities all 

over the country. We agree that such 

programs are important to teach 

conservation and the value of wildlife. 

However, this new rule will not prevent 

these programs from occurring. 

Providing no State lines are crossed, you 

can continue your educational programs 

without the need for a permit from the 

Service. Furthermore, educators may 

apply to the Service for a permit to 

transport these species across State lines 

for educational purposes, and we have 

already issued such permits for the four 

previously listed constrictor snakes (see 

77 FR 3330, January 23, 2012). Lastly, 

educators can also teach conservation 

principles by using snake skins, photos, 

and other tools to teach people about 

the problems of releasing nonnative 

species in the United States. We believe 

conservation can be taught without the 

exact live specimens of every animal 

being discussed. 

(28) Comment: This rule will 

eliminate a reptile culture for sharing by 

future generations. 

Our Response: The commenter did 

not explain how the reptile culture 

would be eliminated. This rule will not 

result in the elimination of reptile 

ownership or interest in reptiles. The 

listing does not prohibit ownership of 

these species or any other reptile 

species. While the listing will probably 

result in fewer specimens of these 

species being available commercially 

because the listing may reduce the 

economic incentive for some current 

breeders from continuing to breed the 

species, we do not believe that all 

captive breeding would stop. An 

unfortunate aspect of the need to protect 

our native wildlife and ecosystems by 

listing these species as injurious is that 

some people or organizations that 

currently possess these species will be 

affected. 

(29) Comment: If the additional 

species under consideration are listed, 

there will be no alternative giant snakes, 

and all institutions wishing to exhibit or 

breed large constrictors will have to 

undertake the regulatory burden that 

comes with the listing. 

Our Response: The commenter is 

correct that, with the listing of these 

four species, the number of alternative 

‘‘giant’’ snakes that could be imported 

or moved across State lines would be 

reduced. However, there are more than 

25 other species of constrictor snakes in 

the pet trade that are not regulated as 

injurious wildlife and would not require 

a Federal permit. For example, the 

amethystine python (Morelia 

amethistina) and scrub python (Morelia 

kinghorni) are giant constrictors and are 

not listed as injurious. While some of 

the species in trade may not be 

considered giant, they are nevertheless 

very large. Furthermore, zoological 

institutions that wish to display the 

listed species may continue to display 

ones currently in their possession or 

obtained within the State without 

obtaining a permit or they could request 

a permit to obtain snakes from outside 

their State. To date, the Service has not 

denied any applications submitted by a 

zoological institution that meets the 

issuance criteria under the Act. 

Violations and Penalties 

(30) Comment: If enacted, this 

rulemaking would have the 

unprecedented effect of putting as many 

as a million American citizens in 

possession of injurious wildlife and 

subject to potential felony prosecution 

under the Lacey Act. It could effectively 

create a new class of criminal out of 

law-abiding American citizens. This 

regulation would turn hobbyists’ current 

activities into a Federal crime. 

Our Response: These listings under 

the Lacey Act will have no effect on the 

majority of owners of these four species 

(two of which are likely not in U.S. 

trade or ownership). Pet owners who 

keep their snakes within their own State 

will not be affected. Examples of owners 

who will be affected are: (a) People who 

wish to take their pets to a veterinarian 

in another State; (b) people who wish to 

transport their pets across a State line 

for another reason, such as if the owners 

are moving; and (c) people who keep 

large constrictor snakes as a business 

and sell to other States. However, many 

States have laws against possessing wild 

animals, and these snakes may not be 

allowed into those States by State law 

anyway. Examples are Hawaii (all 

snakes), Florida (for reticulated python, 

green anaconda, and other species), 

Iowa (reticulated and other pythons and 

all Eunectes spp.), Louisiana 

(reticulated and other pythons and all 

Eunectes spp.), New York (reticulated 

and other pythons and green anaconda), 

and Texas (reticulated and other 

pythons and green anaconda) (see our 

Final Environmental Assessment 2015). 

State laws may be more stringent than 

Federal laws and should not be 

confused with Federal laws. Our 

response to (a) above is that pet owners 

are free to locate a veterinarian in their 

own State, and veterinarians may make 

house calls in another State if licensed 

in that State. The pet industry and 

veterinary organizations could work 

together to help the owners of the listed 

species to locate willing veterinarians 

within a reasonable driving distance. 

Our response to (b) above is that people 

who are moving should seek 

alternatives such as those suggested in 

our response to Comment 13. 

The subject of violations under the 

Lacey Act has frequently been 

misunderstood and caused undue 

consternation among animal owners. 

We will explain here how the Lacey Act 

will address the new injurious listings. 

A person would violate the injurious 

wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act (18 

U.S.C. 42, also known as title 18) if he 

or she did one of the following with any 

one of the constrictor species listed as 

injurious: (a) Transported between the 

States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or 

any territory or possession of the United 

States by any means whatsoever; or (b) 

imported into the United States from 

another country. In either case, 

notwithstanding there may be other 

laws being broken by the action that we 

are not considering here, these 

violations are considered misdemeanors 

and carry penalties of up to 6 months 

in prison and a $5,000 fine for an 

individual or a $10,000 fine for an 

organization under 18 U.S.C. 42. If, 

however, another law was also broken, 

the violation could become a felony 

under 16 U.S.C. 3372 (also known as 

title 16, which is the wildlife trafficking 

provisions of the Lacey Act), which 

carries higher penalties. For example, if 

the owner of a reticulated python in 

Florida did not have a permit as 

required by Florida State law, and that 

person transported the snake to another 

State, then the fact that the State law 

was broken and the snake was 

transported across State lines makes that 

action a title 16 violation. Therefore, 

while the listing of the species as 

injurious may put ‘‘as many as a million 

American citizens’’ in possession of 

injurious wildlife, no one will be in 

violation of the Lacey Act automatically, 

because possession is not prohibited. 

Furthermore, unless these people break 

laws under title 16, they would not be 

subject to potential felony prosecution 

under the Lacey Act. Hobbyists’ current 

activities would not become crimes 

provided their snakes stayed in-State or 

were exported directly out of the 

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 

their State’s borders. 

(31) Comment: The illegal snake 

industry thrives in Hawaii. The 

proposed ban will not stop the pet 

industry in utilizing smuggling as a 

means of selling illegal species. 

However, Lacey Act violations are 

serious and can result in steep penalties 

for offenders. Eliminating the legal 

source of snake imports and increasing 

the risks to black marketers will 

certainly lower the odds that a male and 

female of any particular species would 

escape together to initiate a naturalized 

invasive population. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

injurious wildlife provisions of the 

Lacey Act serve an important role in 

invasive species management, and we 

hope that the rule reduces the risk of 

smuggling and the opportunity for these 

four invasive snake species to establish 

in the wild. 

Unintended Consequences 

(32) Comment: Pet owners will release 

their snakes and the problem will be 

worse. The Lacey Act will do nothing to 

help the problem; if anything, it would 

have an adverse effect on the 

environment. Snake breeders who had 

been fully responsible beforehand may 

release their now worthless investments 

into the wild in retaliation of the rule 

change. Caring snake owners that 

cannot move across State lines with 

their beloved pets may instead release 

them as a means of avoiding forced 

euthanasia. The trust of responsible 

snake owners would be debilitated, and 

a large portion of snake owners 

deliberately becoming irresponsible 

poses a much larger risk than a few 

isolated irresponsible owners. 

Our Response: Many commenters 

stated that responsible owners would 

release or euthanize their snakes if this 

rule is finalized. We do not believe that 

this would be the case since pet owners 

will still be allowed to keep their snakes 

and sell or give them away within their 

State. Many States, including Florida 

(FWC 2014), have laws making it illegal 

to release nonnative animals into the 

wild. We posted some suggestions on 

http://www.regulations.gov at the time 

the proposed rule was published on 

March 12, 2010 (see separate file 

‘‘Questions and Answers’’), for how to 

find a home for a snake that a person 

can no longer keep; see our response to 

Comment 13, where they are repeated. 

With social networking so available 

on the Internet, a person moving to 

another State could possibly find a 

reptile enthusiast in their current State 

to adopt the pet. When the person 

moved to the new State, the person 

could contact reptile enthusiasts in the 

new State to see if any snakes were 

available for adopting. While that is not 

the same as keeping the same snake, it 

does present a responsible alternative. 

We believe that most people will 

choose to keep their snakes and also, of 

those owners who cannot because they 

are moving to another State or similar 

situation, they have options as 

presented above in this response and 

our response to Comment 13. While 

some misinformed pet owners or 

breeders might release their snakes, we 

do not believe that this activity will be 

widespread. The Service believes that 

the potential illegal conduct of a few 

irresponsible pet owners should not 

cause us to refrain from listing species 

that we have determined to be injurious. 

(33) Comment: This rule will create a 

lucrative black market in the trade of 

these nine species that will cost billions 

in tax dollars to enforce. Ultimately, the 

animals will suffer. There will always 

be unscrupulous dealers who will take 

advantage of prohibition. 

Our Response: The commenter 

provides no supporting evidence that a 

black market will be created for any of 

the nine species in the March 12, 2010, 

proposed rule. Therefore, we assume 

that the commenter is basing the 

statement on historical events with 

other species. We do not know if a black 

market will be created, although we 

acknowledge that some unscrupulous 

dealers may take advantage of people. 

However, we believe that the pet owners 

prefer to be law-abiding citizens and 

would find legal ways of dealing with 

new situations. 

(34) Comment: This rule will cause 

airlines to embargo snakes. They will 

refuse to transport them. 

Our Response: We hope that this rule 

does not influence airlines to implement 

an unnecessary embargo on transporting 

snakes within the injurious wildlife 

provisions of the Lacey Act (that is, 

intrastate or with a permit). It is our 

understanding that, unrelated to this 

rule or any injurious wildlife listing, 

some carriers have declined to transport 

live animals or specific dangerous 

animals. Shippers with the appropriate 

Federal permits, specifying how the 

animals should be transported in 

escape-proof containers, should be able 

to find a carrier. 

Environmental Threat 

(35) Comment: The peer-reviewed 

research (‘‘Giant Constrictors: Biological 

and Management Profiles and an 

Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine 

Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, 

and the Boa Constrictor’’) quantified the 

ecological risk that nine species of large 

constrictor snakes pose to the United 

States, looking at both the probability 

that the snakes would become 

established and the resulting 

consequences. Burmese pythons will eat 

a wide variety of reptiles, birds, and 

mammals of all sizes, and can deplete 

vulnerable species. 

Our Response: We agree that there is 

an environmental threat to native 

species in the United States, similar to 

that posed by the Burmese python, from 

the four species we are listing in this 

rule. We have explained this threat in 

our Environmental Assessment and in 

the sections ‘‘Potential Impacts to 

Native Species (Including Endangered 

and Threatened Species’’) for each 

species above. We concur that this 

threat is part of the justification for 

listing the four species as injurious. 

(36) Comment: The Burmese python 

invasion is an ecological calamity in 

progress. It is directly undermining the 

multibillion-dollar, nationally 

supported Everglades restoration project 

because the monitoring and success of 

that project are tied to measures of 

native wildlife ‘‘indicator’’ populations, 

which are now being consumed and 

reduced by these human-introduced 

predators. Had the Service considered 

the risk of the Burmese python under its 

Lacey Act listing authority 20 years ago, 

the agency might have prevented this 

invasion. 

Our Response: The South Florida 

Water Management District petitioned 

us to list the Burmese python in 2006, 

because the species was undermining 

their Everglades restoration effort, and 

we finalized the listing of that species 

as injurious on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 

3330). The four species we are listing in 

this rule share many of the traits of the 

Burmese python that create the risk of 

injuriousness. We agree that, if we had 

listed the species 20 years ago, the 

current problem might have been 

averted. This evidence gives further 

support for our listing of the four 

species of large constrictor snakes in 

this final rule before this situation 

happens with these species. 

(37) Comment: One recent paper 

linked declines up to 99 percent of 

small- and medium-sized mammals in 

Everglades National Park with the 

increased occurrence of Burmese 

pythons. 

Our Response: The study referred to 

correlated a decline of raccoons (99.3 

percent), opossums (98.9 percent), 

rabbits (possibly 100 percent), foxes 

(possibly 100 percent), and bobcats 

(87.5 percent) with the timing and 

geographic spread of the presence of 

Burmese pythons (Dorcas et al. 2012). 

Although the study is based on Burmese 

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 

believe that the constrictor species in 

this final rule could have a similar 

devastating effect on small- and 

medium-sized mammals wherever the 

snakes are found because all species in 

this final rule prey on similar animal 

types. 

(38) Comment: Another paper 

describes the establishment of boa 

constrictors in Puerto Rico that could 

severely impact native species, 

especially endangered and threatened 

species. 

Our Response: The commenter refers 

to Reynolds et al. (2012), which 

documents an established population of 

boa constrictors in Puerto Rico. We 

recognize that there is an established 

population of boas in Puerto Rico. For 

reasons discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

(39) Comment: A study published in 

2012 in Wildlife Research found that the 

danger of establishment of reptiles after 

introduction is actually much higher 

than previously thought—above 40 

percent. Reptile establishment success 

was 43 percent in North America, with 

an astounding 72 percent for islands. 

The report concluded, ‘‘[t]his suggests 

that we should focus management on 

reducing the number of herptile species 

introduced because both reptiles and 

amphibians have a high likelihood of 

establishing.’’ Compounding the dire 

results of this study is the fact that once 

established, not a single invasive reptile 

species has ever been eradicated 

through management efforts.’’ Thus, it is 

imperative that the Service take 

aggressive action to curtail the 

importation and interstate trade in 

injurious species. 

Our Response: Conventional 

perception has been that, of all the 

animals introduced into an area, only a 

small percent (around 10 percent) 

survive, and of those survivors, only a 

small percent (around 10 percent) 

reproduce and establish populations. 

The study referred to by the commenter 

(Ferreira et al. 2012) found that this 

small percentage of establishment 

underestimated reptiles. As the 

comment states, reptile establishment 

was 43 percent on the North American 

continent and 72 percent on islands. 

These results underscore how important 

it is to keep reptiles from being 

introduced into new areas. 

(40) Comment: ‘‘Boa constrictors are 

an injurious species and must be listed 

under the Lacey Act. Of the nine snake 

species originally proposed to be 

banned, the boa constrictor * * * has 

* * * established more introduced 

populations than any other boa or 

python species, clearly posing a threat 

to public safety and ‘‘the interests of 

agriculture, horticulture, forestry, [and] 

wildlife’’ * * *. Boa constrictors are 

already established in Florida and 

Puerto Rico, continue to threaten other 

areas such as Hawaii, where loose boa 

constrictors are being found with greater 

frequency; and are established and have 

negatively affected the native species in 

Cozumel and Aruba, providing a 

frightening predictor of the damaging 

impact they will have on U.S. States and 

Territories if they remain in the pet 

trade and import of such species is not 

prohibited. 

Our Response: For reasons discussed 

above in the section Withdrawal of the 

Boa Constrictor from Consideration as 

an Injurious Species, we are 

withdrawing our proposal to list the boa 

constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR 

11808; March 12, 2010). 

(41) Comment: The Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FWC) is committed to preventing the 

introduction of high-risk nonnative 

species, while assessing and managing 

the risks of species in trade, including 

large constrictors. Appropriate 

regulatory measures, along with 

outreach and education, are a key part 

of preventing the establishment of 

invasive exotic wildlife. FWC supports 

the efforts of the Service to reduce the 

potential of large constrictor snakes 

becoming established invasive species. 

FWC looks forward to partnering with 

the Service to prevent future invasions 

of high-risk nonnative species. 

Our Response: The Service 

appreciates the support by FWC. FWC 

sponsors Pet Amnesty Days, and FWS 

assists with those, so potential for 

release of snakes should be minimal. 

Because the listing as injurious does not 

prohibit ownership and because pet 

owners have alternatives to releasing 

their snakes, we believe there will be 

few cases where people would feel the 

need to release their snakes and that 

these few cases do not justify not listing 

them. We applaud FWC for being 

committed to preventing introduction of 

high-risk nonnative species. 

Comments From Organizations, 

Political Leaders, and Academia From 

Hawaii 

(42) Comment: Several endemic 

species that evolved on the islands are 

declining, already extinct, or at a high 

risk of extinction due to other 

introduced invasive species. On Guam, 

six endemic bird species were either 

extirpated or went extinct due to the 

brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) 

invasion (Smithsonian National 

Zoological Park). On Kauai, all the 

remaining endemic forest birds that 

have not gone extinct are endangered. 

They would not likely survive treetop 

predators such as boas. 

Our Response: We understand 

Hawaii’s and the other islands’ sensitive 

position. In this rule, we are adding 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda to the list of injurious 

wildlife. For reasons discussed above in 

the section Withdrawal of the Boa 

Constrictor from Consideration as an 

Injurious Species, we are withdrawing 

our proposal to list the boa constrictor 

as an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; 

March 12, 2010). 

(43) Comment: The pet industry 

disregards the real danger posed by 

importing exotic animals around the 

globe, but the proof of the trade’s risk 

is all around us. On Kauai, this includes 

a growing population of rose-billed 

parakeets threatening agriculture and 

spreading invasive seeds long distances 

throughout the forest. These were 

released pets. On the Big Island, 

escaped Jackson Chameleons 

established breeding populations and 

are consuming native insects and snails. 

Our Response: We understand 

Hawaii’s and the other islands’ 

ecologically sensitive positions. In this 

rule, we are adding reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list 

of injurious wildlife. For reasons 

discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

(44) Comment: In a letter to Secretary 

Jewell in March 2014, the Governor of 

Hawaii explained the importance of 

biosecurity to Hawaii and that this 

importance is recognized by The 

Republic of Palau, Federated States of 

Micronesia, and Republic of the 

Marshall Islands. The letter lists four 

resolutions that the State adopted to 

coordinate the State’s position on 

Federal invasive issues. One resolution 

(13–3) supports amendments to adding 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, Beni 

anaconda, and boa constrictor to the list 

of injurious wildlife under the Lacey 

Act. 

Our Response: We understand 

Hawaii’s and the other islands’ 

ecologically sensitive positions. In this 

rule, we are adding reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12729 

of injurious wildlife. For reasons 

discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

(45) Comment: One of the greatest 

tourist attractions of Hawaii is that it is 

a snake-free tropical ecosystem. If the 

perception that Hawaii is a safe place to 

hike in the jungle is lost, it will cost the 

State significant economic activity. In 

2013, tourism represented 21 percent of 

the GPD (gross domestic product) and 

was the largest single contributor to the 

State’s economy. 

Our Response: We understand 

Hawaii’s and the other islands’ 

ecologically sensitive positions. In this 

rule, we are adding reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list 

of injurious wildlife. For reasons 

discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

(46) Comment: A group coordinating 

Hawaii’s alien pest control efforts 

supports adding reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor to the list of injurious 

wildlife. The comment notes how many 

snakes are still being reported on the 

islands despite a State prohibition on 

possession of snakes. The comment 

explains that any snake can threaten 

unique island species. The comment 

adds, ‘‘Some may view Hawaii as 

relatively unimportant to the 

continental [United States], but invasion 

by snakes is a serious threat to military 

operations, the visitor industry, and the 

trans-Pacific trade routes.’’ 

Our Response: In this rule, we are 

adding reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list 

of injurious wildlife. For reasons 

discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

(47) Comment: The commenter 

supports adding reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor to the list of injurious 

wildlife. The comment refers to the 

brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) and 

the economic potential toll it could take 

($593 million to $2.14 billion annually) 

if the brown tree snake got into the 

Hawaiian Islands. The comment 

compares boas to brown tree snakes, 

because both are arboreal, produce the 

same number of offspring, and feed on 

the same prey. 

Our Response: In this rule, we are 

adding reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list 

of injurious wildlife. For reasons 

discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

Political Pressure 

(48) Comment: Politics are running 

the process. This entire movement is 

driven by animal rights extremists with 

deep pockets and a political agenda, and 

not science and reason. It is designed to 

end the trade in nonnative wildlife. 

Our Response: We received a petition 

from the South Florida Water 

Management District in 2006 to list the 

Burmese python. They were concerned 

about the ecological danger posed by 

Burmese pythons to the health of the 

Everglades. In our effort to address this 

petition, we realized that other species 

of large constrictors were becoming 

increasingly commonly found in 

Florida, and, therefore, we expanded 

our evaluation to include other species. 

The Service has been criticized in the 

past for being too late in listing species 

as injurious. We took a proactive 

approach to prevent future problems. 

The regulatory process to list the four 

species that are the subjects of this final 

rule was guided by biologists. We 

received peer-reviewed scientific 

documentation (the risk assessment) 

from a separate bureau (see our 

responses to Comments 49 and 99 on 

the USGS risk assessment). We also 

received comments from five 

independent peer reviewers on the 

proposed rule and supporting 

documents. This rule is an action to 

regulate the importation and interstate 

transport of four species of large 

constrictor snakes that have been found 

to be injurious. Much of the trade in 

these species of snakes can continue 

legally (except where States have their 

own prohibiting laws). We received tens 

of thousands of comments from both 

animal rights supporters and pet trade 

supporters. We considered the 

comments of all submitters equally. 

(49) Comment: It is not hard to 

understand why the USGS and 

biologists would be strongly interested 

in seeing more species added to the 

Injurious Wildlife List. They have 

decades of experience getting funding 

for injurious snake research; they are 

expert at it. Because of this history and 

the fiscal incentives involved, a tangible 

potential exists for bias, impropriety, 

and a lack of impartiality. Due to the 

obvious possibility of conflict of interest 

and bias, the USGS should have recused 

itself from the contract and funding to 

create this report. So far, the USGS 

‘‘report’’ provides the only scientific 

evidence (if one can actually call it 

scientific) that would justify any Federal 

regulatory action regarding these nine 

tropical snake species. 

Our Response: The Service, the 

National Park Service, and the USGS 

carefully segregated their roles in this 

rulemaking process so that policy 

objectives did not bias scientific results. 

USGS does not undertake any regulatory 

efforts associated with injurious wildlife 

so that it may concentrate specifically 

on the science of the issues. The Service 

and the National Park Service 

contracted with USGS to prepare the 

report on risk assessment because of 

USGS’s extensive expertise on the 

subject. Part of this expertise comes 

from their similar work on brown tree 

snakes, which were added to the list of 

injurious reptiles in 1990 (55 FR 17439, 

April 25, 1990). The risk assessment on 

the constrictor snakes provided an 

extensive review of the literature of the 

species, and while this information was 

used by the risk assessment’s authors to 

provide measures of risk on each 

species, the extensive literature review 

was also used separately by the Service 

biologists who wrote this rule. 

Therefore, this rule and the risk 

assessment were developed from 

independent scientific papers from 

authors all around the world. 

In addition, the peer reviewers of the 

March 12, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 

11808) and supporting documents state 

that the listing of all nine large 

constrictor snakes is scientifically 

justified and an appropriate step to 

protect native wildlife in the United 

States from the risks posed by the nine 

species. The 2011 USGS document 

entitled ‘‘Challenges in Identifying Sites 

Climatically Matched to the Native 

Ranges of Animal Invaders’’ also 

underwent peer review before it was 

published. Please see also our response 

to Comment 99 for more information on 

the USGS peer review process. 

(50) Comment: The rule was steered 

by the USGS. 

Our Response: The USGS’s role was 

to prepare one of the supporting 

documents (‘‘Giant Constrictors: 

Biological and Management Profiles and 

an Establishment Risk Assessment for 

Nine Large Species of Pythons, 

Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor’’). 

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, 

using the risk assessment document for 

its excellent summaries of the biology of 

the four species, as well as for its 

assessment of the risks. However, the 

Service has used the criteria set forth by 

the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 

Force (ANSTF 1996) to determine risks 

and its own injurious wildlife 

evaluation criteria to determine which 

species should be listed. The Service 

thoroughly considered each species, 

using biological information compiled 

by the USGS risk assessment authors 

and other available information. 

Because the risk assessment authors did 

such a thorough job of comprehensively 

compiling literature (more than 600 

references) on the nine species that were 

the subjects of the March 12, 2010 

proposed rule (75 FR 11808), we were 

able to utilize the report extensively for 

our own injurious wildlife evaluation of 

the four species that are the subjects of 

this rule. This compilation of references 

in one location greatly facilitated our 

evaluations, but it should not be 

construed that USGS directed our 

determinations. 

Misinterpretation of the Rule 

(51) Comment: The government does 

not have the right to ban animals that 

are so widely kept as pets. It is 

unconstitutional. It is my constitutional 

right to be able to express myself and I 

do that through reptiles. 

Our Response: Many commenters 

believe that the rule will ban possession 

of the four species of constrictor snakes 

we are listing as injurious in the rule. 

This is not true. An injurious wildlife 

designation prohibits importation into 

the United States and transport across 

State lines (including the District of 

Columbia and U.S. Territories and 

possessions). Pet owners will be 

allowed to keep their pets, sell them, or 

give them away within their own State, 

if allowed by State law. There is no 

Constitutional right to unregulated 

importation and interstate 

transportation of wildlife found to be 

injurious. 

Confusion With S 373 (Senate Bill 373) 

and HR 996 (House of Representatives 

Bill 996) 

(52) Comment: S 373 or HR 996 

should (or should not) be enacted. 

Our Response: Many commenters 

cited S 373 as the action on which they 

were commenting. We assume the 

commenters were referring to Senate 

Bill 373, which was introduced in 

February 2009. The bill was not passed 

into law. The bill was a separate but 

parallel action to the Service’s rule to 

list the constrictor snakes. Similarly, HR 

996, introduced in 2013, addresses a 

broader suite of invasive wildlife issues 

by Congress. We can only address 

comments regarding our specific rule. 

To ensure their comments on any 

Congressional bill are heard, the public 

should submit those comments to their 

members of Congress. 

More Burdens on Service 

(53) Comment: This proposal will 

most likely create more burdens on the 

already taxed Office [Division] of 

Management Authority and enforcement 

sections of the Service. 

Our Response: Both the Division of 

Management Authority and the Office of 

Law Enforcement are fully prepared to 

handle any increase in work that may 

result from this rule. We anticipate that 

the rule will not generate a significantly 

large increase in permit applications 

being submitted or increase in 

inspections at the ports. The Division of 

Management Authority receives more 

than 7,000 applications and issues more 

than 20,000 permits annually. Based on 

other listing activities involving species 

that are traded more frequently than the 

listed constrictors, the Division of 

Management Authority anticipates an 

increase of no more than 1 or 2 percent 

annually. 

While the listing of species as 

injurious that are already widely kept 

and sold as pets will present unique law 

enforcement challenges with respect to 

interstate transport, the interception of 

injurious wildlife to prevent both entry 

into the United States and spread of 

such species once they are in the 

country constitutes an investigative 

priority for Service Law Enforcement 

when such transport represents a threat 

to U.S. wildlife resources and habitat. 

The fact that the listing of these 

constrictor snakes will create additional 

work for enforcement officers does not 

outweigh the ecological importance of 

addressing the problems created by the 

import and interstate transport of these 

snakes. 

(54) Comment: Will the Department of 

the Interior properly fund this rule 

change when more pressing and 

immediate crises to the environment are 

happening? 

Our Response: This comment is 

outside of the scope of the rule. The 

funding to support this rule change after 

it takes effect will be in the form of law 

enforcement (such as port inspections) 

and permit processing as needed to 

administer the regulation. Please see our 

response to Comment 53, which 

addresses those subjects. 

(55) Comment: At our zoological 

institutions, we are concerned that the 

permit process will be affected because 

of a backlog of permit applications. 

Our Response: While processing time 

for any application can vary due to 

completeness of the application or 

current workload being handled by the 

Division of Management Authority, the 

Division is committed to processing any 

injurious wildlife application in the 

most timely and efficient manner 

possible. Based on the number of 

applications that we received since 

2012, when the first four constrictors 

were listed, we anticipate receiving 

fewer than 25 applications requesting 

authorization to conduct activities with 

all listed constrictors, and applications 

will typically be completed within 30 

days. Since any permit issued for 

interstate transport of a listed species is 

valid for 1 year or more and covers a 

specific geographic range where 

activities could occur, we do not 

anticipate that a 30-day processing time 

will result in any significant impacts to 

a zoo’s ability to carry out educational 

work outside their State of operation. 

Predecisional Proposed Rule 

(56) Comment: The proposed rule is 

predecisional. It is prejudicially 

constructed and telegraphs a 

predetermined end. 

Our Response: By the nature of a 

proposed rule (in general for all 

agencies), the agency publishes what it 

is proposing to be the regulation, 

including any findings that support the 

proposal. Therefore, all proposed rules 

indicate the agency’s position on a 

particular situation. A final rule may 

differ from what an agency proposes, 

but it may be exactly the same as the 

proposed rule. The purpose of a 

proposed rule is to obtain additional 

information, give the public notice of 

the proposal, and give the public the 

opportunity for comment. We review all 

the comments for new information and 

evaluation of our proposal, as we did for 

this rule. We clearly stated in our 

proposed rule that ‘‘We are evaluating 

each of the nine species of constrictor 

snakes individually and will list only 

those species that we determine to be 

injurious.’’ Thus, we made it clear that 

we left it open for us to list fewer than 

nine species, or none at all, if none was 

determined to be injurious based on 

new information. In fact, we listed four 

species in 2012 (77 FR 3330, January 23, 

2012), we are listing four more in this 

final rule, and we are withdrawing our 

proposal to list one other species (boa 

constrictor). 

If an agency feels that it could benefit 

from additional information before 

proposing a rule, it may publish an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

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 

more information. The new information 

is used to develop a proposed rule. We 

published such a notice on January 31, 

2008 (73 FR 5784), from which we 

received more information to apply to 

the proposed rule. 

(57) Comment: The Service failed to 

make a good faith effort to gather new 

information. 

Our Response: The Service provided 

ample notice and opportunity to 

comment on the proposed action. Here 

are examples of the opportunities 

provided by the Service to the public 

and stakeholders: 

• The Service published a notice of 

inquiry in the Federal Register on 

January 31, 2008 (73 FR 5784), as an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 

It explained why we were considering 

listing the genera Python, Boa, and 

Eunectes (which included more species 

than the four that we are listing in this 

final rule), what information we needed, 

and how the public could submit 

information to us. We provided a 90-day 

period to submit relevant information 

(ending April 30, 2008), which is a 

standard length of time. 

• On February 29, 2008, we 

participated in a panel discussion 

arranged by the pet industry. 

Representatives of the Pet Industry Joint 

Advisory Council (PIJAC) were present. 

Our representative opened the 

discussion by stating: ‘‘This notice of 

inquiry is an information gathering 

process. I really want to stress that this 

is not a proposed rule or action. As part 

of processing the petition we received to 

list Burmese pythons as injurious, we 

opened up this comment period to 

gather information on especially which 

species, particularly snakes such as the 

Burmese python, within these three 

genera might be a threat to native 

wildlife and wildlife resources. If there 

is a snake that has not yet been 

imported into the United States that 

might pose a threat to native wildlife, 

this information would be very useful. 

By the way, we worked with PIJAC in 

addressing some of the concerns, and 

we answered a short set of Q&As 

[questions and answers] with Reptiles 

Magazine.’’ 

• We participated in several 

chatrooms with stakeholders on http:// 

www.pethobbyist.com in February or 

March 2008. 

• The Service was interviewed by 

PIJAC about the NOI, and the interview 

was posted by ReptileChannel.com in 

2008. The Service explained why we 

were considering action, what 

information we were seeking, and how 

the public could provide their 

information. When we were asked why 

we were also requesting economic 

information, we answered, ‘‘We 

currently have little information about 

the value of domestic trade in these 

species, and it is our responsibility as 

part of this process to gather a range of 

information on the species of interest. 

This includes economic data.’’ 

• The Service was interviewed for a 

story on the constrictor snake NOI, and 

the story published in REPTILES 

magazine (Vol. 16, No. 5; May 2008). 

• On March 12, 2010, we published 

in the Federal Register (75 FR 11808) 

the proposed rule to list nine species of 

large constrictor snakes, all of which 

were included in the genera from the 

NOI, and for which we asked for new 

information. We provided a 60-day 

comment period for the public (ending 

on May 11, 2010), also a standard length 

of time. We provided the proposed rule, 

draft economic analysis, draft 

environmental assessment, and risk 

assessment to the public on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

• The Service met with the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) on April 

20, 2010, to discuss what information 

the SBA needed and what we needed. 

This meeting was within the public 

comment period for the proposed rule. 

• The Service met with SBA on April 

21, 2010, for a roundtable meeting with 

pet industry, zoo, and medical research 

representatives. This meeting was 

within the public comment period for 

the proposed rule. 

• Because of several requests for an 

extension of the comment period, we 

added another 30-day public comment 

period from July 1 to August 2, 2010 (75 

FR 38069; July 1, 2010). 

• We met with the SBA again on 

January 13, 2011, to discuss issues 

raised by SBA during the public 

comment periods. 

• We opened another 30-day public 

comment period on the 2010 proposed 

rule on June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35719). 

Please note that this occurred after we 

listed four of the constrictor snakes 

(Burmese (and Indian) python, Northern 

African python, Southern African 

python, and yellow anaconda) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3330). 

In summary, the public has known 

since January of 2008 that we were 

considering listing these three genera, or 

species from them, as injurious. We 

provided a total of 210 days for 

receiving public information and 

comments, and we participated in 

several meetings with stakeholders. We 

believe that we have made a good faith 

effort to gather information from the 

public. 

Inconsistent Use of Injurious Wildlife 

Listings 

(58) Comment: The manner in which 

the Service has handled invasive 

species has been inconsistent. For 

example, in Western Colorado, feral 

‘‘wild’’ horses and ring-necked 

pheasants are afforded wildlife 

protection status. Both are 

nonindigenous, introduced, or invasive 

species that compete with endemic 

species. 

Our Response: It is correct that some 

nonnative species, such as feral (wild) 

horses and ring-necked pheasants may 

receive protection under other laws. The 

protection for wild horses comes from 

the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and 

Burros Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. 1331 et 

seq.). Congress gave responsibility to the 

Secretary of the Interior under this 

public law to manage and protect wild 

horses on lands managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management and the Secretary 

of Agriculture for Forest Service lands. 

As for the pheasants, we agree that 

pheasants may compete with native 

species. However, it is not correct that 

the Service affords them protection. In 

fact, the ring-necked pheasant is 

specifically not protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 

703 et seq.) and is also exempt from the 

Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

4901 et seq.). Individual States, 

however, such as Colorado, may provide 

their own protections under State laws. 

Regional Listing 

(59) Comment: The regulation of these 

animals cannot be addressed at a State 

level only. Without restriction on 

importation, these animals will 

continue to be imported into other U.S. 

States, including those States that are 

directly adjacent to States that are 

vulnerable. 

Our Response: We agree that in most 

situations it is important to prohibit 

importation into the United States and 

interstate transportation of injurious 

species. There may be unique situations, 

however, where another course of action 

may be more effective in preventing the 

spread of an injurious species that has 

already been imported into the United 

States and, among other things, is 

widely located in many States. See the 

section Withdrawal of the Boa 

Constrictor from Consideration as an 

Injurious Species. We would expect 

such situations to be rare. 

(60) Comment: The alternative of 

cherry picking only those States with 

suitable habitat, but then applying the 

listing to all States, is legally suspect, 

particularly because the Service has 

never initiated public notice and 

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 

Evaluation Criteria. 

Our Response: The listing is based on 

many factors, but habitat suitability is 

only one of them. The factors that we 

used were explained in the proposed 

rule (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010), 

which was open to public comment. 

(61) Comment: No potential risk of 

establishment in or ecological harm to 

areas within Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the 

insular territories can be used to justify 

listing these snake species. Each of these 

jurisdictions already prohibits 

importation and possession of these 

animals. Their laws are enforceable 

through other provisions of the Lacey 

Act, which carry far greater criminal 

and civil penalties. 

Our Response: Hawaii and Puerto 

Rico prohibit the importation of these 

snakes, but the import regulations for 

the insular territories vary. The other 

provisions of the Lacey Act that we 

assume the commenter refers to is title 

16 (16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), which 

pertains to trafficking of wildlife and 

plants. However, the comment is not 

correct that those jurisdictions’ laws are 

simply enforceable under title 16. For a 

title 16 violation to occur, two acts must 

occur, both of which must be included 

in the required elements of the law. An 

example of a violation would be 

transport of wildlife in interstate 

commerce that is possessed in violation 

of a State law. By the Service listing the 

reticulated python and the three other 

species in this rule, title 16 becomes 

applicable but it will not address every 

violation of State law. 

(62) Comment: By its plain terms, the 

Lacey Act’s prohibitions extend to 

importation and ‘‘shipment’’ between 

the continental States as a single entity 

and other listed jurisdictions, such as 

Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The Service 

lacks the authority to restrict interstate 

transportation and commerce of a listed 

species between and among continental 

States. 

Our Response: The Service interprets 

the Lacey Act as giving us the authority 

to restrict transportation between any of 

the States, territories, and other 

jurisdictions (the District of Columbia) 

of the United States. We believe that 

this interpretation is consistent with the 

language and intent of the statute. 

(63) Comment: The proposal to list 

the remaining five species is arbitrary 

and capricious because it is based on 

improper speculation about the impacts 

of the species. The most notable 

omission is vehicular mortality, which 

reduces population size and fragments 

habitat and which occurs more 

frequently in the United States than in 

the native range of the five constrictor 

species because of higher road densities 

here. The Service has not properly 

accounted for other threats in urban 

areas, including persecution from 

humans, pollution, and paucity of 

natural refugia and other biophysical 

features needed for snakes to survive 

and reproduce. Instead, the Service 

relies almost exclusively on a climate 

envelope match that vastly 

overestimates the amount of suitable 

habitat for constrictors. 

Our Response: We believe that other 

considerations in and around developed 

areas may act in favor of constrictor 

survival, such as the lack of natural 

controls, the abundance of small prey 

(such as rats, pigeons, pets, farm 

animals), and refugia (such as houses, 

barns, and other buildings). The 

estimate of the potential range of the 

constrictor species uses climate match 

as a guide. As we state above in Need 

for the Final Rule, factors other than 

climate may limit the native range of a 

species beyond its historic range. Other 

factors, such as microhabitats, may 

provide small but significant areas that 

can support tropical species. For 

example, the State of Idaho supported 

our listing of pythons and anacondas in 

2012, because Idaho has an abundance 

of geothermal waters that could support 

feral populations of the large, semiaquatic snakes (Idaho 2012). 

(64) Comment: A nationwide listing is 

arbitrary and capricious and flawed 

policy, and less drastic alternatives 

should be seriously analyzed and 

adopted. 

Our Response: We interpret the intent 

of Congress under the Lacey Act’s 

injurious provisions to be national in 

scope. For example, some of the species 

listed by Congress, such as the fruit bats 

(Pteropus spp.), inhabit only the tropics 

and subtropics. 

(65) Comment: If the Service insists 

on applying an injurious listing 

nationwide, then the risk analysis for 

invasiveness must also be nationwide. 

That is, the ANSTF algorithm for 

organism risk potential must consider 

the ‘‘probability of establishment’’ and 

‘‘consequences of establishment’’ for a 

species throughout the entire United 

States, not only in the areas that Reed 

and Rodda (2009) identify as having 

suitable habitat. 

Our Response: The Service has 

considered the risks and consequences 

of establishment nationwide, because 

the risk assessment, including the 

climate matching, looked at the entire 

United States, as did the ANSTF 

organism risk potential. The 

justification for listing is found above in 

Factors That Contribute to Injuriousness 

for Reticulated Python and the 

corresponding sections for the three 

other species. 

Permitting 

(66) Comment: The Service should 

support a law for reptiles modeled after 

the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. 

Such a law would limit the importation 

of wild reptiles into the United States 

while allowing captive breeding of 

species currently in the United States, 

and allowing the interstate and 

international transportation of captivebred animals. 

Our Response: The comment is 

referring to the Wild Bird Conservation 

Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 4901–4916) 

(WBCA), which allows for obtaining a 

permit for personal pets. The WBCA 

was enacted on October 23, 1992, to 

ensure that native populations of exotic 

bird species are not negatively impacted 

by international trade to the United 

States. Under the WBCA, the Service 

may issue permits to allow import of 

listed birds for scientific research, 

zoological breeding or display, 

cooperative breeding programs, or 

personal pet purposes when the 

applicant meets certain criteria (such as 

a personally owned pet of an individual 

who is returning to the United States 

after being continuously out of the 

country for a minimum of 1 year, except 

that an individual may not import more 

than two exotic birds under this 

regulation in any year). The Service was 

not given the authority by Congress to 

issue permits for all the same purposes 

under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). If, 

by the words ‘‘support a law,’’ the 

commenter is asking us to write a final 

rule that includes a permit process for 

pets, we cannot do that under our 

current authority. By statute, we can 

grant permits only for zoological, 

educational, medical, or scientific 

purposes. 

(67) Comment: If the permitting 

process is not made considerably more 

efficient and flexible, individuals and 

institutions engaging in these purposes 

are likely to be negatively impacted. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

permitting process must be an efficient 

and effective process to ensure that 

activities that are allowable under the 

Act are authorized in a timely manner. 

The Division of Management Authority, 

which is responsible for the permitting 

process under the Act, has recently 

undergone a significant restructuring 

and reorganization. We do not 

anticipate that the number of permit 

applications that will be generated due 

to this listing will be significant. 

However, we believe that the 

restructuring of the Division will allow 

for a more efficient and effective 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 10, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 12733 

permitting process for all permit 

applications received by the Division. 

Economic Effect 

(68) Comment: Families dependent on 

reptile breeding businesses will lose 

their businesses. 

Our Response: Most commenters who 

asserted an expected loss of business 

did not explain why this would occur, 

but some did explain that they sell one 

or more of the nine species that were the 

subjects of the March 12, 2010, 

proposed rule mainly or entirely out-ofState or out of the country. Some stated 

which species they sell, and some did 

not specify. We agree that breeders who 

specialize in breeding only the species 

we are listing in this rule as injurious 

and who sell mainly or entirely out-ofState or out of the country will be 

greatly affected. However, those 

breeders who live in the States with 

designated ports (Alaska, California, 

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, 

Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and 

Washington) may continue to export 

from the United States through the 

designated port in their State (if allowed 

under State law), although they may not 

continue to ship to other States. For 

those breeders of other reptiles, this rule 

will not affect them. Those breeders 

who supply skins of the listed species 

for the designer clothing industry, such 

as for boots and belts, will still be able 

to ship skins across State lines, export 

them, and import them, consistent with 

other applicable laws. 

(69) Comment: The rule will ruin a $3 

billion industry. 

Our Response: This comment was 

based on the proposed rule, and nine 

species were included in the economic 

calculations. The commenters did not 

explain how they arrived at the $3 

billion figure. While the Service is not 

sure of the basis of this dollar amount, 

this figure was used by the United 

States Association of Reptile Keepers in 

a report to the Office of Management 

and Budget on March 1, 2010: ‘‘The 

trade in high quality captive-bred 

reptiles is a $3 billion dollar [sic] annual 

industry. The animals potentially 

addressed by rule change make up 

approximately 1/3 of the total dollar 

value trade annually.’’ Another 

significant dollar figure was identified 

in an article in ‘‘The Economist’’ 

(February 11, 2010): ‘‘Revenue from the 

sale of boas and pythons amounts to 

around $1.6 billion–1.8 billion each 

year.’’ 

We point out that the category of the 

‘‘sale of boas and pythons’’ did not 

specify what species were included, but 

most likely would include ball pythons, 

which make up by far the largest 

segment of three genera of constrictor 

snakes that are imported into the United 

States (78.6 percent from 2008 to 2010, 

and 88.1 percent from 2011 to 2013) and 

that we analyzed in our economic 

analysis (see Final Economic Analysis 

2012, 2015); ball pythons are a large 

segment of the domestic reptile trade. 

However, the same article in ‘‘The 

Economist’’ states, ‘‘The recession, 

however, has hurt what used to be a 

lucrative hobby. Fewer people want to 

splurge on snakes that cost thousands, 

if not tens of thousands, of dollars. 

According to Brian Barczyk, a snakebreeder, demand for ‘‘pet-grade’’ snakes, 

which cost under $50, has sunk even 

more than demand for ‘‘investmentgrade’’ ones, because the average person 

is hesitant to buy a new pet.’’ We also 

note that part of the snake breeding 

industry is for the sale of snake skins, 

and this part of the industry should not 

be affected (dead snakes or parts thereof 

are not listed as injurious). 

In addition, the Georgetown 

Economic Services report (GES; Collis 

and Fenili 2011) states that 18 percent 

of households (846,000) that own a 

reptile own a snake. Although the report 

does not say which species are the most 

commonly owned, based on 

observations, kingsnakes, corn snakes, 

garter snakes, and ball pythons are more 

commonly owned than any of the 

species in our March 12, 2010, proposed 

rule (75 FR 11808). Ball pythons 

comprised 64 percent of imports and 

domestic breeding of the three genera 

we reported on before our first final rule 

took effect on March 23, 2012 (Final 

Economic Analysis 2012; the nine 

species comprised 32 percent). 

Therefore, only a small percentage of 

households would be expected to own 

any of the species in this rule or the 

January 23, 2012, final rule (77 FR 

3330). 

We agree that our rule will negatively 

affect some aspects of the reptile 

industry, but we have no evidence to 

suggest that the prohibition on 

importation and interstate 

transportation of four species of snakes 

will cause the ruin of a $3 billion 

industry or even to the extent of $1.6 

billion. On the contrary, our final 

economic analysis shows the estimated 

potential annual retail value losses 

associated with all four species we are 

listing in this final rule is $1.9 to 4.1 

million (Final Economic Analysis 2015), 

plus $3.7 to 7.6 million for the four 

species listed in 2012 (Final Economic 

Analysis 2012), and a total annual 

decrease in economic output is $10.7 to 

21.8 million and $5.3 to 11.4 million for 

2012 and 2014, respectively. While this 

is not insignificant, it is a small fraction 

of the $3 billion quoted above. 

In addition, we note that the 

importation of constrictor snakes of the 

genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes 

declined from the peak in 2002 (the 

three genera = 233,705 snakes; Final 

Economic Analysis 2012) to 2013 (the 

three genera =110,070 snakes; Final 

Economic Analysis 2015). The decline 

in imports started well before we 

received the petition in 2006 that 

initiated our regulatory process. The 

ball python declined from 154,505 in 

2002, to 95,225 in 2013 (Final Economic 

Analysis 2012, 2015). The reduced 

imports were not likely due to our 

impending rule. The decline in imports 

could be due to decreased availability of 

captive-bred or wild-caught snakes in 

the export countries, the decreased 

demand in the United States, or the 

availability of domestically bred 

species. Furthermore, Collis and Fenili 

(2011) showed that lizard importation 

declined from 764,431 in 2006, to 

231,241 in 2010, a 70 percent drop. 

Another study showed that imports of 

all reptiles and amphibians decreased 

from 7.57 million in 2001, to 3.55 

million in 2009 (Herrel and van der 

Meijden 2014). Thus, the existing 

decline in constrictor snake importation 

seems to be unrelated to our regulatory 

process, and future declines should not 

necessarily be attributed to the listing of 

the four species in this final rule or to 

the 2012 listing of the other four species 

(77 FR 3330). 

(70) Comment: It is arbitrary and 

capricious to exclude boa constrictors 

from the injurious listing simply 

because of the reptile industry’s wildly 

exaggerated claims of economic 

hardship. 

Our Response: We are withdrawing 

our proposal to list the boa constrictor 

for the reasons discussed above in the 

section Withdrawal of the Boa 

Constrictor from Consideration as an 

Injurious Species. 

(71) Comment: As a matter of law and 

policy, listing species that have long 

been extant throughout the United 

States and subject to pet ownership and 

interstate commerce for several decades, 

as have the boa constrictor and 

reticulated python, comes with a higher 

burden to show injury to the interests 

the Lacey Act protects. 

Our Response: The Lacey Act does 

not make a distinction that the Service 

has a higher burden to show injury for 

species that have long been extant in the 

United States and subject to pet 

ownership. 

(72) Comment: Listing of constrictor 

snakes also inhibits efforts to eradicate 

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 

listing as injurious from the Everglades 

National Park and other locations in 

south Florida where they have been 

found. The Burmese python example 

shows that many of the most 

knowledgeable and effective 

herpetological experts will either limit 

or cease this activity if required to 

euthanize the captured snakes or 

forbidden from bringing the animals to 

a more suitable location out of State. 

Our Response: The commenter did 

not provide documentation that this 

situation has occurred for the Burmese 

python. The Service has no reason to 

believe that listing the reticulated 

python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, and Beni anaconda will 

inhibit efforts to eradicate them, 

especially because two of these species 

are not yet found in the country and 

none is established in any State. 

(73) Comment: State-level laws and 

regulations calibrated to the perceived 

threat and State and Federal 

partnerships in ‘‘early detection and 

response’’ programs are more effective 

means of addressing the issue. Federal 

regulations place a burden on State 

conservation resources and are 

unneeded and unnecessary in 47 States. 

Our Response: The Service greatly 

values early detection and rapid 

response programs, and the regulations 

promulgated in this rule should not 

place any burdens on them. The Service 

recognizes that there may be certain 

limited situations where State laws and 

related control measures may be as or 

more effective than listing under the 

Lacey Act. See our reasons for not 

listing the boa constrictor under the 

Lacey Act in the section Withdrawal of 

the Boa Constrictor from Consideration 

as an Injurious Species. But, in the case 

of the reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda, the 

Service has concluded that listing is 

necessary to protect the interests of 

human beings, agriculture, wildlife, and 

wildlife resources from the purposeful 

or accidental introduction and 

subsequent establishment of these 

snakes into ecosystems of the United 

States. 

(74) Comment: Economic, cost-benefit 

considerations cannot lawfully 

determine the Secretary’s decisions 

under the Lacey Act criteria in 18 U.S.C. 

42(a). 

Our Response: The Service does not 

use cost-benefit considerations when 

making listing decisions under the 

Lacey Act. The Service applies the 

standards and procedures under the 

Lacey Act and the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 500 et. seq) in 

promulgating its rules, but must also 

comply with the various other Acts and 

Executive Orders that govern Federal 

agency rulemaking, including, but not 

limited to, Executive Orders 12866, 

12988, 12603, 13211, and 13132, and 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, and National 

Environmental Policy Act. We 

completed the analysis and findings 

required under these statutes and 

Executive Orders; please see the 

Required Determinations section of this 

rule. 

(75) Comment: The ‘‘Broken Screens’’ 

report published by the Defenders of 

Wildlife (2007) documented that, from 

2000 to 2004, at least 710 different fullyidentified species of reptiles and at least 

47 additional reptile species without 

full species identification were 

imported into the United States. In sum, 

at least 757 reptile species were in trade 

at the time of publication. Adding the 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, Beni 

anaconda, and boa constrictor to the 

four species that were listed as injurious 

on January 23, 2012, represents a mere 

1.2 percent of the types of imported 

reptiles. 

Our Response: The comment 

accurately reflects the Defenders’ 

‘‘Broken Screens’’ data summary. The 

1.2 percent derived from a comparison 

to the data apparently includes three 

species not yet in trade, so the six 

species in trade from 2000 to 2004 

would represent less than 0.8 percent of 

the taxa of imported reptiles. 

Economic Analysis 

(76) Comment: The rule will have a 

detrimental economic impact on 

breeders and hobbyists, food producers, 

and caging and accessories producers. 

Our Response: The Service recognizes 

that the rule will curtail imports and 

interstate trade in the two snake species 

currently in trade in the United States 

(reticulated python and green 

anaconda); the listing of Beni and 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas should not 

have any economic effect on U.S. trade. 

The supporting documentation 

accompanying this rule—the final 

Economic Analysis and the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis— 

estimates the impacts on small 

businesses, as required by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), and the benefits 

and costs of the rule, as required by 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This 

analysis uses a regional input–output 

model to determine the impacts on 

supporting industries, such as snakerelated care and food suppliers. 

(77) Comment: The Service does not 

possess the information needed to do a 

credible benefit-cost or regulatory 

flexibility analysis on rules regarding 

constrictor snakes. 

Our Response: The data needs for 

conducting a comprehensive analysis of 

any industry are very intense. 

Commenters agreed with our conclusion 

that there is very little reliable public 

information available about the snake 

industry, but we have utilized 

information that was available to us 

through the end of the public comment 

period for the proposed rule. Executive 

Order 12866 states that ‘‘Each agency 

shall base its decisions on the best 

reasonably obtainable scientific, 

technical, economic, and other 

information concerning the need for, 

and consequences of, the intended 

regulation’’ (Section 1.b.7). The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act allows that 

the initial and final regulatory flexibility 

analyses may contain ‘‘more general 

descriptive statements if quantification 

is not practicable or reliable’’ (5 U.S.C. 

607). We received information during 

the public comment period that we used 

to prepare the final economic analysis. 

While we received other information, it 

tended to be anecdotal, describing 

impacts to a specific firm or individual, 

which is insufficient to describe 

industry-wide impacts. However, we 

used some anecdotal information to 

better describe how some firms or 

individuals will be impacted. The 

Service believes the analysis is based on 

the best reasonably obtainable 

information. 

(78) Comment: The Service ignored 

information submitted by industry 

participants and trade associations in 

response to its 2008 notice of inquiry. In 

addition, the Service misused the 

information it was provided by 

respondents to the notice. 

Our Response: Industry responses to 

the 2008 notice of inquiry (73 FR 5784; 

January 31, 2008) were a primary source 

of information for the economic 

analysis. Trade association data were 

the only source for most of the sales and 

price information in the economic 

analysis, and the associations are cited 

repeatedly in the report. The Service 

sought clarification of the data provided 

by a trade association with a 

representative of the association and the 

consultant who prepared the 

submission. The additional information 

obtained from the conversations was 

applied in the draft economic analysis. 

Many industry participants provided 

anecdotal information about their 

situations or made quantitative 

assertions. While informative, we 

cannot extrapolate anecdotal data about 

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 

industry as a whole. However, in the 

final economic analysis, some anecdotal 

information from the public comments 

is used to better depict potential 

impacts. 

(79) Comment: The Service employs 

baseless assumptions to estimate the 

information it lacks. 

Our Response: Using informed 

assumptions for reasonable ranges to fill 

data gaps is a well-recognized economic 

technique. By applying a range of prices 

and quantities, the economic analysis 

derives the approximate scale of retail 

sales from the partial information 

available. The analysis is transparent 

and the assumptions can be easily 

replaced with more reliable information 

when it becomes available. Additional 

information, such as interstate sales 

from Florida, was received during the 

second comment period. This 

information was used to revise the draft 

economic analysis to more accurately 

depict the impact to industry. Industry 

profiles were not submitted during 

public comment and are not publicly 

available. Therefore, some assumptions 

are still necessary in the economic 

analysis. 

(80) Comment: The economic analysis 

ignores wholesalers, transporters, and 

vendors of food and ancillary 

equipment. 

Our Response: The economic analysis 

includes an input–output analysis that 

takes into account all of the industries 

that contribute to delivering the product 

to the consumer. Wholesalers and 

equipment used in the production of 

snakes for sale are included in the 

input–output analysis based on retail 

sales. Shipping cost information on 

individual sales has been obtained since 

we made the draft economic analysis 

available (March 12, 2010; 75 FR 

11808). This information was used to 

revise the economic analysis. 

(81) Comment: The Service also 

ignores pricing premiums for snakes, 

particularly for color morphs, dwarfs, 

etc. 

Our Response: The aggregate 

information available and provided by 

the trade associations was insufficient to 

segment the market for different classes 

of snake for the draft economic analysis. 

The knowledge that ‘‘pricing premiums 

reach up to 60 times the price of a 

‘normal’ snake’’ (PIJAC, August 2, 2010, 

FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015–4531.1, p. 4) 

suggests that there are at least two 

market segments for a species—one for 

‘normal’ snakes and one for high-end 

collectible snakes. We received 

additional pricing information during 

the 2010 public comment periods that 

more accurately depicts pricing 

premiums, and we used it in the revised 

economic analysis. 

(82) Comment: The initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) 

underestimates the economic impact on 

small entities. 

Our Response: We revised the IRFA to 

incorporate new information submitted 

during the course of the public 

comment periods. 

(83) Comment: The IRFA does not 

discuss significant alternatives. 

Our Response: The subject of the 

proposed rule was amending the 

regulations at 50 CFR 16.15 to add nine 

species of constrictor snakes to the list 

of injurious species under the Lacey 

Act. Management of feral snake 

populations is a much broader topic that 

the Service is vigorously pursuing but 

that is not within the purview of this 

rulemaking. Therefore, the alternatives 

considered in the environmental 

assessment are the only relevant 

choices. 

(84) Comment: The draft economic 

analysis fails to quantify the benefits of 

the proposed rule. 

Our Response: The benefits of the rule 

include both avoided costs of 

extirpating feral snake populations and 

maintained ecological services from 

areas that might have been harmed by 

released snakes. Little information is 

available about either of these sources 

that would allow the quantification of 

benefits. OMB Circular A–4, guidance 

for implementing E.O. 12866, recognizes 

that benefits are rarely fully quantified 

and recommends a qualitative 

discussion of the sources of benefits. We 

added this discussion to the final 

economic analysis (2012, 2015). 

(85) Comment: The draft economic 

analysis lacks clarity in its exposition. 

Our Response: The Service sought 

public comments on the draft economic 

analysis made available with the 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

Per public comments received, the 

Service added additional clarification to 

the final economic analysis (2015) for 

this final rule. Please refer to the full 

revised final economic analysis and 

regulatory flexibility analysis, which are 

available in the docket for this rule (at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015). 

(86) Comment: A recent economic 

report conducted by a third-party 

economics firm, Blue Sky Consulting 

Group, shows that the listing of the 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, Beni 

anaconda, and boa constrictor would 

not have a drastic effect on small 

businesses that deal in the sale of 

reptiles, concluding that listing would 

result in little or no net change in 

economic activity, consumer spending, 

or employment. Any decline in 

consumer spending and economic 

activity related to these five snakes 

would be offset by increased spending 

and economic activity in other subsectors of the reptile trade and in other 

sectors of the economy, with little or no 

net change in overall economic activity 

or employment. In addition, to the 

extent that Lacey Act listing reduces the 

likelihood of these species becoming 

established as invasive species, Federal, 

State, and local agencies will experience 

reduced costs for habitat restoration and 

invasive species control. The Blue Sky 

report also found that the Service’s 

economic analysis did not assess the 

extent to which reductions in 

employment in the snake trade (for 

listed species) would be offset by gains 

in other areas of the economy as 

consumers reallocate spending away 

from listed species to unlisted species, 

to other reptile pets, or to other goods 

and services. This may have created a 

mistaken impression that listing 

constrictor snake species under the 

Lacey Act would result in a net 

reduction in consumer spending, 

employment, and economic activity. 

Our Response: The Service agrees 

with this comment. As we stated in our 

2012 final economic analysis, ‘‘Impacts 

also are dependent upon whether or not 

consumers would substitute the 

purchase of an animal that is not listed, 

which would thereby reduce economic 

impacts described in this economic 

analysis. There are no marketing data 

that estimate how consumer preference 

may change due to the listing thus 

changing the types of snakes that 

businesses sell. This analysis does not 

account for this type of substitution 

effect.’’ In other words, we did not make 

assumptions for which we had no 

specific information, even though such 

substitutions would likely occur. This 

makes our estimate more of a worst-case 

scenario. 

(87) Comment: An economic 

assessment of the reptile industry 

commissioned by the U.S. Association 

of Reptile Keepers (USARK) and 

prepared by Georgetown Economic 

Services (GES), a subsidiary of USARK’s 

lobbying firm, failed to take into 

account that a restriction on one 

particular consumer spending option 

usually has an approximate zero net 

effect on employment or 

macroeconomic activity. Consumers 

will simply replace the product with 

another similar product. For example, in 

1975, the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) banned the sale or distribution of 

turtles with shells that measure less 

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 

findings that pet turtles were 

responsible for a substantial number of 

Salmonella infections nationwide. The 

industry claimed economic risk in 

response to the ban. However, the ban 

on small turtle sales resulted in an 

increase in the number of other reptiles, 

such as iguanas, sold as pets. The trade 

will invariably shift to these other 

species if the selling of the large snakes 

is curtailed. 

Our Response: Please see our 

response to Comment 86. 

(88) Comment: The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) suggested that, at 

a minimum, the Service publish a 

supplemental initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis that fully addresses 

the issues in the 2010 IRFA. 

Our Response: The service believes 

that SBA’s concerns were adequately 

addressed in the 2012 final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) on which the 

2015 FRFA is based, and that a 

supplemental IRFA is not needed. 

(89) Comment: According to the GES 

report, listing the 10 [sic] constrictor 

snakes on the injurious wildlife list 

would cost small businesses as much as 

$104 million in the first year and as 

much as $1.2 billion over 10 years. 

Our Response: The GES report 

concluded that the economic costs to 

the industry over the first 10 years of 

lost revenues to be between $505 

million and $1.2 billion. However, that 

figure is based on a discount rate of 3.25 

percent and an annual growth rate of 7 

percent (Collis and Fenili 2011), 

whereas the Office of Management and 

Budget (Circular A–94, October 29, 

1992) states that Federal agencies use a 

discount rate of 7 percent. Additionally, 

it is not clear that an assumption of a 

7 percent annual growth rate over a 

period of 10 years in the future is 

justified. Using a 7 percent discount rate 

without the assumption of a 7 percent 

annual growth rate (zero growth rate), 

the range would be $568 million to $779 

million, which is within the GES 

estimate of $372 million to $900.9 

million, using a discount rate of 3.25 

percent and a zero annual growth rate. 

(90) Comment: Referring to the GES 

report, an economist stated that the 

analysis has serious flaws because of 

these reasons: (a) Ignores likely 

substitution effects on the part of both 

the reptile industry and reptile owners, 

which leads to a likely large upward 

bias in the resulting estimates of 

negative economic impacts from the 

proposed rule. (b) Focuses only on the 

negative impacts on one small segment 

of the reptile industry (that is, breeders 

and importers of these nine large 

constrictor snakes) and snake owners 

that may result from the implementation 

of the proposed rule, while completely 

ignoring the positive impacts the rule 

would have in terms of benefits for 

native wildlife, including endangered 

and threatened species, avoided control 

and eradication expenditures by 

government agencies, and human safety. 

(c) Uses an inappropriate discount rate 

that by itself leads to a substantial (close 

to 20 percent) overstating of the 

projected future costs of the rule. (d) 

Incorrectly applies the term ‘‘economic 

losses’’ when referring to what in fact 

are reductions in revenues for this small 

segment of the reptile industry. 

Our Response: In general, the Service 

concurs with these statements; using the 

OMB discount rate of 7 percent results 

in a 16 percent decrease in the 10-year 

aggregate cost compared with using a 

3.25 discount rate with an assumption 

of zero annual growth. 

Biological 

(91) Comment: With the exception of 

predation by a Python molurus 

bivittatus on endangered Key Largo 

woodrats (Neotoma floridana smalli), 

there is no evidence of significant 

adverse environmental, human health, 

or economic impacts by these feral 

populations. 

Our Response: Based upon what we 

know of the diet of Burmese pythons (77 

FR 3330; January 23, 2012) in their 

native ranges and in Florida, and the 

four large constrictor snakes that are the 

subjects of this rule (snakes that share 

the same traits), we find that federally 

protected species, such as the 

endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow 

(Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis), the 

endangered Florida panther (Puma 

(=Felis) concolor coryi), and the 

endangered American crocodile 

(Crocodylus acutus), are at risk of 

predation by these constrictors if they 

become feral. Reed and Rodda (2009) 

list a total of 64 federally and Statelisted endangered or threatened species 

at risk from giant constrictors in Florida 

alone. As discussed earlier, additional 

Federal and State-listed species are at 

risk in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Texas, and 

other areas of the United States from the 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda. Please see our response to 

Comment 37 regarding the Burmese 

pythons linked to declines of up to 99 

percent of populations of small- and 

medium-sized mammals as prey in 

Everglades National Park. 

(92) Comment: The majority of these 

species have never been documented as 

being introduced into new 

environments. Despite having been 

detected in the vicinity of the 

Everglades since the 1970s, Burmese 

pythons are still limited to that general 

area. 

Our Response: Of the four species we 

are listing in this rule, two are not yet 

in trade, another is involved in trade in 

minor amounts, and one is somewhat 

common in trade. Thus, their listing is 

intended to prevent their establishment 

in the wild through escapes or releases. 

The Burmese python illustrates the need 

to be proactive; although individual 

pythons had been regularly observed in 

the Everglades region since the mid1990s, it was not until 2006 that a 

reproducing population was 

documented to be present there. By that 

time, the population was well 

established over a sizable area. 

(93) Comment: The Burmese python 

population in south Florida was 

significantly reduced by the 2009–2010 

winter cold weather. 

Our Response: This comment refers to 

the previously listed Burmese python 

(77 FR 3330; January 23, 2012). Many 

Burmese pythons died during the record 

cold 2009–2010 winter, but many 

survived to reproduce and expand their 

range in south Florida (see the Final 

Environmental Assessment 2015). 

(94) Comment: There is no scientific 

information indicating that large body 

size increases the likelihood that a 

species will become invasive. In fact, 

the opposite is likely the case since 

large-bodied animals are more readily 

evident and thus more likely to be 

removed from the environment before 

they can establish a viable population. 

Our Response: The list of traits shared 

by the giant constrictors includes many 

of the traits that either increase the 

severity of their probable ecological 

impacts or exacerbate the challenge of 

controlling or eradicating them. The 

cryptic coloration of these snakes is a 

common form of camouflage where the 

snakes are similar to their surroundings, 

making them very difficult to detect and 

be removed from the environment. 

Burmese pythons have established 

viable populations partly because they 

are hard to detect, have high 

reproductivity, and occupy a variety of 

habitat types, and the four species listed 

in this final rule have the same traits. 

Thus, in comparison to potential 

invaders lacking these traits, this group 

of snakes constitutes a particularly high 

risk. A large body size would be a 

disadvantage for an animal whose size 

sets it off from its surrounding 

environment, such as a bear, which 

stands 1–1.2 m (3–4 ft) above ground 

level. However, even the largest pythons 

and anacondas extend only a foot above 

ground level, and are easily concealed 

by ground vegetation or water. A large 

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 

for predators that hunt actively on a 

regular basis, because they would stand 

out more. Neither of these situations is 

true for the large constrictors, which are 

primarily sit-and-wait predators and 

which move along very low to the 

ground. These attributes, combined with 

the fact that these snakes have no 

similar ecological equivalents in the 

United States with respect to size of 

prey items they can consume, make 

them a successful predator on naı ̈ve 

wildlife that may otherwise not even 

have native predators (such as Florida 

panthers), thus increasing the likelihood 

that they will successfully invade areas 

of the United States that have suitable 

climate. In a study to determine why so 

few invasive reptiles in Florida 

succeeded as well as the Burmese 

python, Reed et al. (2012) found that the 

snake’s giant size was one of the highest 

correlated factors. 

(95) Comment: Which of the nine 

species of constrictor snakes are 

definitely reproducing in the wild in the 

United States? 

Our Response: Of the four large 

constrictor snakes we are listing in this 

final rule, none is currently confirmed 

breeding in the wild in the United 

States. The purpose of this final rule is 

to prevent these species from 

establishing populations in the wild. 

(96) Comment: Neither the State nor 

the Federal Government has made 

substantial investments in strategic 

programs for the eradication or control 

of Burmese python on the lands they 

manage. In South Florida, the cost of 

eradication of the Burmese python has 

been relatively small. 

Our Response: [Refers to previously 

listed species; see 77 FR 3330, January 

23, 2012] 

(97) Comment: The most effective and 

least costly methods would focus on 

preventing establishment of any 

potentially invasive species and would 

include early detection and rapid 

response (EDRR). Eradication of 

established populations is very rarely 

effective and always costly. 

Our Response: We agree. We also 

agree that EDRR programs can be of 

benefit once prevention options have 

been exhausted or proven to be 

ineffective. Sometimes considered the 

‘‘second line of defense’’ after 

prevention, EDRR is a critical 

component of any effective invasive 

species management program. When 

new invasive species infestations are 

detected, a prompt and coordinated 

containment and eradication response 

can reduce environmental and 

economic impacts. This action results in 

lower cost and less resource damage 

than implementing a long-term control 

program after the species is established. 

Early detection of new infestations 

requires vigilance and regular 

monitoring of the managed area and 

surrounding ecosystem. An EDRR 

system will provide an important 

second line of defense against invasive 

animals that will work in concert with 

a first line of defense—that is, Federal 

regulations to prevent unwanted 

introductions by listing as injurious 

wildlife. Prevention is why we are 

listing the four large constrictor snakes 

that are the subjects of this final rule, 

which are either not yet found in the 

United States or not yet found to be 

reproducing in the United States. 

(98) Comment: Two papers published 

in the journal Biological Invasions, one 

by USDA wildlife researchers and 

another authored by scientists at several 

research institutions including the 

University of Florida, have concluded 

that Burmese pythons cannot survive for 

any length of time outside south Florida 

unless they have the ability to find 

appropriate burrows or cavities to allow 

hibernation for several months during 

the winter. Given that this snake is 

primarily a tropical and subtropical 

species, it may not have evolved the 

behavior or physiology to successfully 

hibernate. Another paper (Jacobson et 

al. 2012) calls into question the 

fundamental premise of the USGS 

climate work that pythons can migrate 

north out of south Florida and across 

the southern third of the United States. 

Although this study specifically 

addresses Burmese pythons, it has clear 

implications for the reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor. 

Our Response: This comment refers 

specifically to a previously listed 

species (see 77 FR 3330, January 23, 

2012) but the relevant science also 

applies conceptually to the reticulated 

python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, and Beni anaconda, 

because they share with the Burmese 

python such traits as how they regulate 

their body temperature. 

The winter of January 2010 was one 

of the coldest on record in southern 

Florida. Burmese pythons were 

documented to tolerate these 

conditions. In the USDA study (Avery et 

al. 2010), two of nine (22 percent) of the 

Burmese pythons survived the cold 

spell. This study was conducted in 

Gainesville, Florida, 400 km (248.5 mi) 

north of the known range where they are 

currently reproducing; this region of 

Florida also experienced record cold 

weather. The Mazzotti et al. (2010) 

study, which was conducted within the 

Everglades region, found that 1 of 10 

telemetered Burmese pythons survived 

(10 percent) and 59 of 99 (60 percent) 

of nontelemetered pythons survived. 

Subsequently there have been sightings 

and recent removals of Burmese 

pythons and Northern African pythons 

in south Florida, including a mating 

aggregation of Burmese pythons with 

one gravid female and four males (Snow 

2010). Therefore, despite the coldest 

winter on record since at least the 1940s 

(NOAA 2010), south Florida still has 

reproducing populations of nonnative 

large constrictor snakes. While the 

abundance of pythons clearly declined 

during this record cold winter, the 

population has recovered rapidly in 

south Florida, where the average female 

reaches reproductive maturity within 3 

years and can subsequently produce 

more than 30 (but up to 107) eggs per 

clutch annually or biennially (Harvey et 

al. 2008). 

Dorcas et al. (2011) published another 

study in Biological Invasions. They 

relocated 10 Burmese pythons from the 

Everglades to an outdoor research 

setting in South Carolina. The following 

January, they all died. However, they 

had not had a chance to acclimate to a 

milder winter before getting hit with 

record cold. Dorcas et al. (2011) 

concluded: ‘‘Some pythons in our study 

were able to withstand long periods of 

considerably colder weather than is 

typical for South Florida, suggesting 

that some snakes currently inhabiting 

Florida could survive typical winters in 

areas of the southeastern United States 

more temperate than the region 

currently inhabited by pythons. 

Moreover, our results are specific to 

translocated pythons from southern 

Florida. Burmese pythons originating 

from more temperate localities within 

their native range may be more tolerant 

of cold temperatures and would 

presumably be more likely to 

successfully become established in 

temperate areas of North America. The 

susceptibility to cold we observed may 

reflect a tropical origin of the Florida 

pythons or acclimatization of snakes to 

warm southern Florida winters early in 

life.’’ If the snakes in any of the research 

studies had been provided such refugia 

as gopher tortoise burrows, they may 

have shown that they could survive 

even lower temperatures without 

hibernating. Given the climate 

flexibility exhibited by the Burmese 

python in its native range (as analyzed 

through USGS’ climate-matching 

predictions in the United States), we 

would expect new generations within 

the leading edge of the population’s 

nonnative range to become increasingly 

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 

climates. Likewise, we would also 

expect the reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to have 

the same climate flexibility, and new 

generations along the leading edge may 

become increasingly adaptable and able 

to expand to colder climates. 

A subsequent paper (Jacobson et al. 

2012) concluded that it would be 

unlikely that Burmese pythons will be 

able to expand to or colonize more 

temperate areas of Florida and adjoining 

States due to their lack of behavioral 

and physiological traits to seek refuge 

from cold temperatures. However, there 

is nothing in the paper that undermines 

the original approaches or conclusions 

of Rodda et al. (2009). Many factors, 

including temperature, may limit the 

distribution of pythons in the United 

States, but Jacobson et al. (2012) give no 

insight to what those limitations might 

be. Based on the rationale described in 

the paper, most of the continental 

United States is unsuitable even for 

native snakes, and that is not the case. 

(99) Comment: The ‘‘Reed and Rodda 

Report’’ was only subject to an internal 

review process. Any policy changes or 

legislation that will have an effect on 

the freedoms of American citizens 

should be based on sound scientific 

evidence as well as the merit of a true 

scientific peer review process. 

Our Response: Dr. Susan Haseltine, 

Associate Director for Biology, USGS, 

responded on January 23, 2010, to a 

press release issued by a reptile-trade 

organization and an accompanying 

letter by a group of veterinarians and 

other scientists regarding the USGS peer 

review process. She said, ‘‘The USGS 

provides unbiased, objective scientific 

information upon which other entities 

may base judgments. To ensure 

objectivity, independent scientific 

review is required of every USGS 

publication. Standards require a 

minimum of two reviews, and adequacy 

of the author’s responses to reviews is 

assessed by both research managers and 

independent scientists within the 

USGS. USGS went well beyond the 

requirements by soliciting reviews from 

20 reviewers (18 of them external to the 

USGS). Reviewers comprised a large 

portion of the global expertise on both 

the biology of giant constrictor snakes 

and the management of invasive 

snakes.’’ 

The USGS follows mandatory 

fundamental science practices for peer 

review, which can be read at the 

following Internet site: http://

www.usgs.gov/usgs-manual/500/502- 

3.html. This policy establishes the 

requirements for peer review of USGS 

information products and applies to all 

USGS scientific and technical 

information, whether it is published by 

the USGS or an outside entity. 

(100) Comment: For the 2012 final 

rule, the Service neglected relevant 

information and scientific reports 

brought to its attention during the 

comment period or published shortly 

thereafter. The Service also neglected 

information in reports contrary to 

conclusions they drew. Some studies 

were selectively quoted, giving 

misleading impressions about their 

findings. These legal errors cannot be 

repeated as the Service makes a 

determination regarding reticulated 

python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor. 

Our Response: For the final rule 

published on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 

3330), the Service reviewed all 

documents that were provided to us 

prior to the final determinations being 

made. We used information that we 

found to be relevant, including citing 

papers that we found not defensible, for 

which we explained why (see Need for 

the Final Rule above). For this final rule, 

we reopened the comment period on the 

proposed rule for an additional 30 days 

(see 79 FR 35719, June 24, 2014), and 

we considered all relevant information, 

including information that we had 

received after the decisions for the first 

four species of constrictor snakes had 

been made, along with other available 

information concerning the reticulated 

python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor. 

(101) Comment: The National Park 

Service (NPS) described where boa 

constrictors, reticulated pythons, and 

two of the anacondas have been 

captured outside of captivity in Florida 

and other States. NPS also comments 

that the potential range for the boa 

constrictor includes NPS units such as 

Cumberland Island and Gulf Coast 

national seashores, Cape Canaveral, 

Virgin Islands National Park, and other 

sites in Puerto Rico, the Florida Keys, 

and elsewhere. The reticulated python 

has been found on the loose in Florida, 

California, Colorado, Hawaii, and 

Massachusetts. The potential range for 

the three the anacondas includes 

Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands. 

Our Response: We considered the 

information submitted by NPS and have 

incorporated that information into our 

analysis where appropriate. In this rule, 

we are adding reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list 

of injurious wildlife. For reasons 

discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

(102) Comment: NPS’s review of 

biological studies shows that: (a) The 

probability of detection of Burmese 

pythons in the environment is 

extremely low because they are highly 

cryptic in a variety of native and 

nonnative habitats. The reticulated 

python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor are also highly cryptic and 

thus difficult to detect. Similar to the 

Burmese python, they would likely be 

present, breeding, and causing impacts 

to the environment long before an 

invasion is fully recognized. By the time 

there is sufficient evidence gathered to 

determine that an invasion has 

occurred, a population will likely have 

expanded beyond the stage of 

eradication or containment. (b) Peerreview science confirms the serious 

environmental impact of Burmese 

pythons on wildlife in the Everglades. 

The green anaconda is the largest and 

heaviest of the constrictor snakes and 

has a prey base that includes aquatic 

species in larger proportion than the 

Burmese python. The boa constrictor is 

the most arboreal of the constrictor 

species addressed in this rulemaking 

process and is known to take birds from 

all forest strata in addition to preying on 

mammals. The reticulated python is 

noted as a good swimmer, is tolerant of 

salt water, and is likely able to colonize 

coastal islands from mainland shores. 

Such traits suggest potential to cause as 

much or greater damage to wildlife than 

the Burmese python has, particularly 

when cumulative impacts are 

considered. (c) Because an invasion of 

cryptic constrictor snakes, such as the 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, Beni 

anaconda, and boa constrictor, can only 

be determined after a large number are 

present in the environment, control and 

management after they become 

established in the wild is costly and 

both time and labor intensive. Further, 

eradication may never be possible. 

Current control and management tools 

for the Burmese python are extremely 

limited in their success, in spite of 

nearly 10 years of research and 

management efforts. If we use the 

several decades of information on the 

effort to contain brown tree snakes in 

Guam as a guide, efforts to develop 

landscape-scale control tools for 

constrictor snakes in south Florida is 

likely to require tens of millions of 

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 

effective and affordable means of 

control for invasions by large constrictor 

species is prevention from introduction, 

whether accidental or intentional. (d) 

Trade and transportation have been 

cited as the ultimate drivers of invasive 

species introductions, including those 

on NPS lands. Personal ownership via 

the pet trade is the principal pathway by 

which large constrictor species have 

been introduced into the environment 

in south Florida. Efforts in education 

and outreach are extensive but are not 

able to prevent all intentional or 

accidental releases of captive snakes 

into the wild. For the six large 

constrictor species that have been found 

outside of captivity in Florida, personal 

ownership in the pet trade was 

demonstrated as the principal pathway 

that has resulted in their presence in the 

environment. (e) New information on 

Burmese pythons has documented 

unprovoked attacks by wild pythons on 

humans in Everglades National Park. 

Attacks by reticulated pythons on 

humans in their native range are 

documented and include multiple 

fatalities. NPS is concerned about 

impacts to human health and safety as 

well as impacts to native wildlife and 

habitats on NPS lands. 

Our Response: The Service concurs 

with these comments. In this rule, we 

are adding the reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda to the list 

of injurious wildlife. For reasons 

discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

(103) Comment: An authority on the 

physiology and biology of pythons and 

boas makes these two conclusions: (a) 

These snakes are unable to expand their 

populations beyond southern Florida 

and will undoubtedly experience 

periodic population die-offs resulting 

from episodes of freezing temperatures. 

(b) It is doubtful that these species 

present a risk to natural populations of 

vertebrates because the amount of food 

that they eat is trivial compared to the 

yearly intake of a similar size carnivore 

(such as feral cats). (c) Finally, these 

snakes are valuable for scientific and 

biomedical research. 

Our Response: We believe the species 

can potentially spread, but we will 

likely not know for certain until it is too 

late to act. Some individual snakes may 

die from cold weather, but some 

Burmese pythons, which are closely 

related, have already survived record 

cold temperatures in Florida. For the 

second statement, we believe that many 

large constrictors will attain much larger 

sizes than feral cats and that they will, 

therefore, consume each more than the 

5 kilograms per year that the commenter 

estimates in his public comment. If 

these prey items are declining species, 

the snake predation will pose a risk to 

natural populations of vertebrates. 

Finally, scientific and biomedical 

researchers will still be able to obtain 

permits for importation and interstate 

transportation. 

(104) Comment: The subspecies Boa 

constrictor imperator is indigenous to 

the Sonoran Desert of northern Mexico 

but has never naturally expanded its 

range to include the United States. 

Our Response: For reasons discussed 

above in the section Withdrawal of the 

Boa Constrictor from Consideration as 

an Injurious Species, we are 

withdrawing our proposal to list the boa 

constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR 

11808; March 12, 2010). 

(105) Comment: In 2013, the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission launched ‘‘The Python 

Challenge,’’ a legal hunt designed to 

highlight the problem of these invasive 

predators. This hunt attracted roughly 

1,600 hunters, yet only 68 snakes were 

captured. 

Our Response: [Refers to a previously 

listed species; 77 FR 3330, January 23, 

2012.] This hunt was organized to 

heighten public awareness of the 

invasive species problem. The hunt 

confirmed how difficult it is even for 

dedicated hunters to locate the cryptic 

animals. The reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda are just as 

cryptically colored and just as difficult 

to locate in the field. 

Other 

(106) Comment: The Service has not 

thoroughly considered the full 

implications of the rule regarding effects 

on the pet industry. 

Our Response: We understand that 

the implications of this rule are 

complex. We have endeavored to 

consider all aspects of listing the 

reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda as injurious, including 

alternatives, using the best available 

information. Please see Alternatives to 

Listing, below, for an explanation of the 

alternatives that we considered. We 

have also made every effort to consider 

all of the indirect and cumulative 

effects. For reasons discussed above in 

the section Withdrawal of the Boa 

Constrictor from Consideration as an 

Injurious Species, we are withdrawing 

our proposal to list the boa constrictor 

as an injurious reptile (75 FR 11808; 

March 12, 2010), thus decreasing the 

effects on the pet industry. 

(107) Comment: Because the addition 

of any species to the lists of injurious 

species under the Lacey Act results in 

the nationwide ban of that species, a 

nationwide impact study should be 

performed. 

Our Response: The commenter did 

not explain what type of nationwide 

impact study should be performed. We 

did, in fact, develop two nationwide 

impact studies, an economic analysis 

and an environmental assessment, drafts 

of which we posted on http://

www.regulations.gov on March 12, 2010, 

with the proposed rule, and final 

versions of which are also available at 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015 

for the species listed in 2012 and the 

species we are listing in this final rule. 

We used the best available information, 

and we believe these impact studies are 

sufficient. We also believe we made a 

good-faith effort to locate information 

(see also response to Comment 57). 

(108) Comment: We request an 

extension of the comment period for the 

proposed rule to provide our members 

much needed time to provide 

comments, data, and analysis that will 

be instrumental to the Service’s final 

decision. 

Our Response: We received requests 

for an extension of the public comment 

period for up to 90 days. We granted 

two additional 30-day comment periods 

to the original 60 days, for a total of 120 

days for the proposed rule’s comment 

period. We believe that amount of time 

was sufficient, even for a complex rule, 

considering we were seeking similar 

information to that for the 2008 notice 

of inquiry (73 FR 5784; January 31, 

2008). 

(109) Comment: One commenter 

referred to a memo written in 2007 by 

a former Service Assistant Director and 

Chief of Law Enforcement. The 

comment quoted the memo, ‘‘The 

injurious species provisions of the 

Lacey Act were clearly not designed to 

deal with a species that is already a 

significant part of the pet trade in the 

United States’’ and ‘‘It could, however, 

make a felon out of a reptile enthusiast 

in Wisconsin who sells one python to 

an individual in Minnesota.’’ The 

commenter stated that the Service has 

not made a case for the rule. 

Our Response: The memo that the 

commenter referred to was an 

information memorandum to the 

Service’s Director regarding the petition 

to list the Burmese python from the 

South Florida Water Management 

District in 2006. The memo described 

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 

others could consider. The statements 

quoted by the commenter are verbatim. 

However, at the time the memo was 

written, the USGS risk assessment (Reed 

and Rodda 2009) had not yet been 

completed. No decision had been made 

by the Service at the time of the memo. 

The Service’s memo acknowledges, ‘‘We 

expect to have the risk assessment—an 

essential first step in any evaluation for 

injurious designation—completed in 

approximately one year.’’ That was, 

however, an underestimation of the time 

it would take to prepare such a thorough 

document and have it extensively peerreviewed. Once that risk assessment was 

completed, it became clear that all nine 

species included in our March 12, 2010, 

proposed rule (75 FR 11808) should be 

evaluated by the Service for possible 

listing as injurious. 

The memo’s statement, ‘‘The injurious 

species provisions of the Lacey Act were 

clearly not designed to deal with a 

species that is already a significant part 

of the pet trade in the United States’’ is 

true in that the pet trade was not 

established to the degree it is today 

when the Lacey Act was passed by 

Congress in 1900. That does not, 

however, mean that the injurious 

species provisions cannot be an 

effective tool in invasive species 

management. The reason that we are 

listing the reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda as 

injurious is that the listings may prevent 

their establishment in vulnerable parts 

of the country. In addition, two of the 

species are not currently part of the 

constrictor pet trade, and the reticulated 

python and green anaconda comprise 

less than 1 percent each of total 

constrictor snake imports (for the genera 

Python, Boa, and Eunectes) for 2008 to 

2010. Therefore, taking the proactive 

step to list them as injurious species 

now will reduce the likelihood that 

their numbers will increase in the 

United States and pose a risk to native 

wildlife in the future. The Service has 

determined, however, that the boa 

constrictor should not be listed as an 

injurious species under the Lacey Act 

for the reasons explained in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

including, in part, that the species is 

widely held in captivity in the United 

States in high numbers, often as pets. 

As for the comment from the memo, 

‘‘It could, however, make a felon out of 

a reptile enthusiast in Wisconsin who 

sells one python to an individual in 

Minnesota,’’ that statement was also 

quoted correctly and is correct under 

certain situations. However, those 

situations are more representative of 

worst-case scenarios. A variety of other 

laws are often violated when people 

engage in illegal wildlife trafficking, 

some of which are Federal felonies. 

However, a stand-alone violation of the 

interstate transport or import 

prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. 42 is a 

misdemeanor, not a felony. Please also 

see our response to Comment 30 for an 

explanation of the misdemeanor and 

felony violations. 

Alternatives to Listing 

(110) Comment: This is a summary of 

the alternatives suggested through the 

public comment process. Where noted, 

they are explained further in the text of 

the preamble above. 

(a) List some or all of the nine species, 

but: 

• Exempt color and pattern genetic 

mutations of these snakes from the 

listing as albinos, leucistics, etc. 

Our Response: The commenter 

explains that albinos and leucistic 

(having reduced pigmentation) snakes 

have a far lesser chance of survival in 

any wild environment. Not listing these 

color and pattern mutations would have 

a smaller financial impact on the 

industry and no financial impact on the 

government. The commenter may be 

correct that such color variations may 

have a lesser chance of survival in the 

wild. However, the survival differential 

is unknown, so we have assumed that 

all color variations still pose a 

substantial risk to the welfare of wildlife 

or wildlife resources of the United 

States. Furthermore, if snakes escape to 

the wild, their offspring may not have 

the same obvious color pattern and may 

perpetuate normally patterned 

populations given gene dominance, 

expression, mutation, and natural 

selection. 

• Exempt hybrids. 

Our Response: We realize that hybrids 

often are worth significantly more 

money than the parent species 

separately. Allowing hybrids would 

preserve more of the income of some 

breeders. However, we have determined 

that hybrids are at least the same risk as 

the parent species are to the welfare of 

wildlife or wildlife resources of the 

United States. The Wildlife Society 

commented, ‘‘Hybrids between two 

invasive species are also invasive 

themselves and must be listed as 

injurious along with the exotic parental 

species. Hybrids maintain many of the 

characteristics of the parent species; this 

means that hybrids will retain an ability 

to reach the large sizes and continue the 

voracious dietary habits of the parental 

species, and they will cause as much 

damage to native threatened and 

endangered species and the 

environment as pure species ancestors. 

Many closely related constrictor species 

are known to hybridize, and it is likely 

that many of the invasive constrictors 

noted in the proposed rule have this 

same ability. Some hybrid combinations 

may result in sterile offspring, however, 

some do remain fertile. Furthermore, 

each individual snake still has the 

capability of causing extensive damage 

within its lifetime.’’ 

• Do not list the species Boa 

constrictor. 

Our Response: For reasons discussed 

above in the section Withdrawal of the 

Boa Constrictor from Consideration as 

an Injurious Species, we are 

withdrawing our proposal to list the boa 

constrictor as an injurious reptile (75 FR 

11808; March 12, 2010). 

• List regionally only where there is 

a climate match. 

Our Response: Creating this type of 

geographical restriction or exemption 

(or both) under the Lacey Act would 

make enforcement of the regulations by 

the Federal Government, in cooperation 

with the affected States, virtually 

impossible. Furthermore, the authority 

to list regionally is unclear and 

untested. 

• Allow for the interstate travel for 

captive-bred animals. 

Our Response: Please see our 

response to Comment 66. 

• Remove the status of the Port of 

Miami as an agricultural port and a port 

of entry. Move the port of entry north, 

maybe to one of the New England ports 

where the weather will eradicate 

anything that would be lost or illegally 

released. 

Our Response: This alternative is 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In 

addition, it is highly impractical. While 

Miami is the port with the most imports 

of the reticulated python, green 

anaconda, and boa constrictor (94.2 

percent from 2011 to 2013; Final 

Economic Analysis 2015), two other 

warm-weather southern ports (Los 

Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth) also 

received imports of thousands of the 

species identified in the March 12, 

2010, proposed rule. These three ports 

account for 99 percent of all imports of 

the reticulated python, green anaconda, 

and boa constrictor. 

• The Service should consider paying 

restitution to or compensating these 

people for their losses, by buying the 

animals and the businesses that will no 

longer exist, suddenly made worthless, 

at fair market value, and then debating 

the question on how to dispose of those 

animals. 

Our Response: This rule does not 

affect people’s ability to own, possess, 

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 

allowed by State law. In addition, 

neither the Service nor the Department 

of the Interior has programs or 

authorities to compensate people for 

losses that may be related to this 

injurious wildlife listing. The Service 

can work with the affected States and 

industry, and offer technical assistance 

to provide environmentally risk-free 

approaches to disposing of constrictor 

snakes that businesses or pet owners no 

longer want to keep. Please also see our 

response to Comment 13 where we 

provide options for people to dispose of 

snakes responsibly. 

(b) Do not list any of the species. 

Instead: 

• Let the States regulate their own 

captive wildlife, such as following 

FWC’s comprehensive approach in 

Florida. 

Our Response: Please see our 

response to Comment 19. 

• Allow the industry to self-regulate 

and educate with the Internet, etc.; 

United States Association of Reptile 

Keepers best management practices; 

State and local risk assessment industry 

best management practices (BMPs) as 

suggested by Dr. Frank Mazzotti; and 

HabitattitudeTM. 

Our Response: We fully support all of 

these suggestions and look forward to 

working with all entities that endorse 

them. However, they are voluntary 

actions, with no guarantee that 

organizations or their members will 

cooperate. Of note is that these 

opportunities have been available for 

many years, but, for example, USARK 

has not published large constrictor 

snake best management practices to 

protect the environment (such as asking 

the public not to release nonnative 

species into the wild) on their Web site 

as of this date. We believe that both 

voluntary and regulatory actions are 

necessary to safeguard our ecosystems 

with more assurance. 

• Issue permits and registrations, 

require microchipping, apply severe 

fines and criminal charges, etc., for the 

miskeeping or release of these animals 

in any State. 

Our Response: These alternatives do 

have potential for preventing accidental 

and intentional escapes. However, the 

Service does not have the authority to 

issue permits for pets or for any use of 

injurious species other than for medical, 

zoological, educational, or scientific 

purposes. 

(c) PIJAC offered to discuss options 

with the Service in detail including 

developing a comprehensive, State-led 

prevention and early detection and 

rapid response program. 

Our Response: Industry and State 

partnerships are very important to the 

Service and Department of the Interior 

in our efforts to manage invasive 

species. As examples, the Department 

signed a memorandum of understanding 

with PIJAC in 2009, to create public 

awareness—through such public 

campaigns as HabitattitudeTM—about 

the threat of invasive species and to 

promote responsible pet ownership 

practices to prevent the accidental or 

intentional release of invasive species 

by pet owners. The Service also partners 

with States to develop a national aquatic 

invasive species program, and we 

support many State management actions 

through cost-share grants for 

implementation of State Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Management Plans. 

These partnerships with industry and 

States are essential aspects of managing 

the invasive species problem facing the 

nation and have been found to be 

particularly important in developing the 

most effective means for controlling the 

further establishment, spread, and 

damage from boa constrictors, as 

explained in the section Withdrawal of 

the Boa Constrictor from Consideration 

as an Injurious Species. Also important, 

however, is the Federal Government’s 

authority to regulate importation and 

interstate transport of species found to 

be injurious wildlife under 18 U.S.C. 42 

when appropriate. This authority is one 

important aspect of an overall national 

strategy to reduce the risks from 

introduction and spread of harmful 

nonnative species. 

(d) AZA offered an alternative to 

adopting the proposal by supporting a 

coordinated regional response to 

Florida’s pythons, and invasive species 

in general, through a multipronged 

approach: 

• A national educational program 

should be developed to bring the risks 

of invasive species to a broad audience 

and emphasize responsible pet 

ownership and gardening practices. 

Our Response: The Service is working 

with stakeholders on HabitattitudeTM

and Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers! National 

campaigns. The Service also worked on 

the development of ANSTF’s Water 

Gardening Guidelines, which became 

available to the public in 2014. 

• Increased support and coordination 

is needed for State and local early 

detection, rapid response, and 

eradication efforts, including organized 

volunteer invasive species corps to help 

protect local ecosystems. 

Our Response: The most effective and 

least costly methods should focus on 

preventing establishment of potentially 

invasive species (see our response to 

Comment 97), which is the intent of this 

rule. 

• Guidelines should be developed to 

help States evaluate and manage the 

particular invasion risks in their region, 

including improved data collection and 

record-keeping, containment facility 

standards, and legitimate methods for 

unwanted pet disposition. 

Our Response: We are unclear if this 

recommendation is directed toward the 

Service. We suggest that it is more 

appropriate for AFWA to address this 

recommendation. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866. OMB bases its determination 

upon the following four criteria: 

(1) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(2) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(3) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Executive Order 12866 Regulatory 

Planning and Review (U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget 1993) and a 

subsequent document, Economic 

Analysis of Federal Regulations under 

Executive Order 12866 (U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget 1996), identify 

guidelines or ‘‘best practices’’ for the 

economic analysis of Federal 

regulations. With respect to the 

regulation under consideration, an 

analysis that comports with the Circular 

A–4 would include a full description 

and estimation of the economic benefits 

and costs associated with 

implementation of the regulation. These 

benefits and costs would be measured 

by the net change in consumer and 

producer surplus due to the regulation. 

Both producer and consumer surplus 

reflect opportunity cost as they measure 

what people would be willing to forgo 

(pay) in order to obtain a particular good 

or service. ‘‘Producers’ surplus is the 

difference between the amount a 

producer is paid for a unit of good and 

the minimum amount the producer 

would accept to supply that unit. 

Consumers’ surplus is the difference 

between what a consumer pays for a 

unit of a good and the maximum 

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 

to pay for that unit (U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget 1996, section 

C–1).’’ 

Large constrictor snakes are 

commonly kept as pets in U.S. 

households, displayed by zoological 

institutions, used for science and 

research, and used as educational tools. 

Because none of the four species we are 

listing in this rule is native to the 

United States, the species are obtained 

by importing or breeding in captivity. 

We provided a draft economic analysis 

to the public at the time the March 12, 

2010, proposed rule (75 FR 11808) was 

published (on http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015) and offered 

two public comment periods totaling 90 

days. Using the comments we received 

on the draft economic analysis and new 

information we acquired, we revised the 

economic analysis and provided the 

final version on http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015 for the four 

species we listed as injurious in 2012 

(see 77 FR 3330, January 23, 2012). We 

opened another 30-day public comment 

period on June 24, 2014 (79 FR 35719) 

on the five remaining species in the 

proposed rule, for a total of 120 public 

comment days. We prepared another 

economic analysis for the four species 

that are the subjects of this final rule 

(reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s 

anaconda, green anaconda, and Beni 

anaconda) using the same protocols as 

in 2012. We provide a summary here of 

the part of the final economic analysis 

(2015) relevant to those four species. 

In the context of the regulation under 

consideration, the economic effects to 

three groups would be addressed: (1) 

Producers; (2) consumers; and (3) 

society. With the prohibition of imports 

and interstate transport, producers, 

breeders, and suppliers would be 

affected in several ways. Depending on 

the characteristics of a given business 

(such as what portion of their sales 

depends on out-of-State sales or 

imports), sales revenue would be 

reduced or eliminated, thus decreasing 

total producer surplus compared to the 

situation without the regulation. 

Consumers (pet owners or potential pet 

owners) would be affected by having a 

more limited choice of constrictor 

snakes or, in cases where species were 

not available within their State, no 

choice at all if out-of-State sales are 

prohibited. Consequently, total 

consumer surplus would decrease 

compared to no injurious listing. Certain 

segments of society may value knowing 

that the risk to natural areas and other 

potential impacts from constrictor snake 

populations is reduced by implementing 

this rule. In this case, consumer surplus 

would increase compared to no 

injurious listing. If comprehensive 

information were available on these 

different types of producer and 

consumer surpluses, a comparison of 

benefits and costs would be relatively 

straightforward. However, information 

is not currently available on these 

values, so a quantitative comparison of 

benefits and costs is not possible. 

The data currently available are 

limited to the number of constrictor 

snake imports each year, the estimated 

number of constrictor snakes bred in the 

United States, and a range of retail 

prices for each constrictor snake 

species. Using data for the three genera 

Python, Boa, and Eunectes, we provide 

the value of the reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor sold as a rough 

approximation for the social cost of this 

final rulemaking and alternatives 

considered. We provide qualitative 

discussion on the potential benefits of 

this rulemaking. In addition, we used an 

input–output model in an attempt to 

estimate the secondary or multiplier 

effects of this rulemaking—job impacts, 

job income impacts, and tax revenue 

impacts (discussed below). 

With this rule, the importation and 

interstate transport of four species of 

large constrictor snakes (reticulated 

python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, and Beni anaconda) 

will be prohibited, except as specifically 

permitted. The annual retail value 

losses as a result of this rule are 

estimated to range from $1.9 million to 

$4.1 million (Final Economic Analysis 

2015). 

The broad indicator of the economic 

impacts of the alternatives, economic 

output or aggregate sales, includes three 

types of effects: Direct, indirect, and 

induced. The direct effects are the 

changes in annual retail value due to the 

implementation of a given alternative. 

‘‘Indirect effects result from changes in 

sales for suppliers to the directly 

affected businesses (including trade and 

services at the retail, wholesale and 

producer levels). Induced effects are 

associated with further shifts in 

spending on food, clothing, shelter and 

other consumer goods and services, as a 

consequence of the change in workers 

and payroll of directly and indirectly 

affected businesses’’ (Weisbrod and 

Weisbrod 1997). The indirect and 

induced effects represent any multiplier 

effects due to the loss of revenue. These 

cost estimates include the various 

potential scenarios we considered. 

Businesses or individuals importing 

or transporting listed species across 

State lines could face penalties for 

Lacey Act violations. The penalty for a 

Lacey Act violation is not more than 6 

months in prison and not more than a 

$5,000 fine for an individual, and not 

more than a $10,000 fine for an 

organization. 

Under this final rule, the probability 

of the four species of large constrictor 

snakes establishing populations within 

the United States should decrease 

compared to the ‘‘no action’’ alternative. 

The change in probability is unknown. 

Alternatives Considered 

The draft economic analysis (2010) 

considered two other alternatives, in 

addition to listing all (Alternative 2) or 

none (Alternative 1) of the nine species 

under consideration. Alternative 3 

would list the seven species known to 

be in trade in the United States (that is, 

all but the Beni and DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas). Alternative 4 would list the 

five species judged to have a high 

‘‘overall risk potential’’ in the USGS 

evaluation (Reed and Rodda 2009), 

while excluding the four species judged 

to have a medium overall risk potential 

(that is, the two nontraded species, plus 

the green anaconda and reticulated 

python). 

For the final economic analysis for 

this final rule (2015), our alternatives 

changed because we had already listed 

four species as injurious (see 77 FR 

3330, January 23, 2012). Therefore, 

Alternative 2A would list the five 

species remaining from the proposed 

rule (reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor); Alternative 2B would list 

the four species we are listing in this 

final rule (reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda); 

Alternative 3 would list the three 

species that are currently in trade 

(reticulated python, green anaconda, 

and boa constrictor); and Alternative 4 

would list only the boa constrictor, 

which is the only species of the five 

remaining ones that Reed and Rodda 

(2009) determined to have a high risk 

potential (all nine species, however, are 

injurious). 

Compared to the alternative of listing 

all five species (2A), Alternative 2B 

would have less effect on current sales 

revenues or indirect economic impacts 

from the loss of such revenues, because 

there are currently no sales revenues 

from two of these species and the rule 

does not include the boa constrictor, the 

one remaining species with the highest 

overall risk potential (Reed and Rodda 

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 

subject of noticeable trade, and that is 

less than 4 percent of imported 

constrictor snakes of the genera Python, 

Boa, and Eunectes (Final Economic 

Analysis 2015). Alternative 2A would 

have the same economic impacts as 

Alternative 3, because the two species 

that are not in Alternative 3 are not in 

trade. 

Alternative 3 would, however, allow 

consumers to substitute the two species 

not in trade (in addition to the many 

other substitute species already 

available) for the purchase of the 

prohibited species, thus reducing 

economic impacts to the degree that 

there would be substitute purchases of 

these two species. However, the 

possibility of substitute purchases is 

itself a potential problem in that the two 

currently nontraded species are so 

similar in appearance to the green and 

yellow anacondas that it would be 

difficult for enforcement officials to 

distinguish green or yellow anacondas 

that were mislabeled as Beni or 

DeSchauensee’s anacondas. In addition, 

acting to prevent the importation of 

these two species before trade in them 

emerges means that environmental 

injury from them can be prevented, 

which is far more effective than waiting 

until after injury has already occurred to 

act to limit it. 

Alternative 4 (listing only the one 

species determined to have a high 

‘‘overall risk potential’’ in Reed and 

Rodda (2009)) would limit the rule to 

the species with the greatest potential 

for environmental injury. Of the four 

species that would not be listed under 

this alternative, two anacondas are not 

currently in trade in the United States, 

and one (the green anaconda) is in very 

limited trade (less than half a percent of 

imported constrictor snakes of the 

genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes). The 

economic impact of the one-species 

alternative (Alternative 4) would be 

slightly less than the five-species 

alternative (Alternative 2A) and the 

three-species alternative (Alternative 3) 

because the boa is the primary species 

in trade of the five species, but greater 

than the four-species alternative, which 

does not include the boa (Alternative 

2B). 

The relative level of risk associated 

with each species is determined by the 

criteria specified in the section Lacey 

Act Evaluation Criteria. Even in the case 

of those species with medium risk, the 

particular areas where the climate 

match occurs are notable for the number 

of endangered species found there (such 

as Hawaii, southern Florida, and Puerto 

Rico). That fact, the potential that 

yellow anacondas would be difficult for 

enforcement officials to distinguish if 

mislabeled as DeSchauensee’s 

anacondas and green anacondas would 

be difficult for enforcement officials to 

distinguish if mislabeled as Beni 

anacondas, and the fact that the 

opportunity to act preventively before 

most of these species became 

established would be lost under this 

alternative all argued in favor of 

Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 3. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

[SBREFA] of 1996) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (that is, small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis 

to be required, impacts must exceed a 

threshold for ‘‘significant impact’’ and a 

threshold for a ‘‘substantial number of 

small entities.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. A final regulatory flexibility 

analysis was prepared for the four 

species listed in 2012 (see 77 FR 3330, 

January 23, 2012) and another was 

prepared for the four species in this 

final rule in 2015, which we briefly 

summarize below. See ADDRESSES or 

http://www.regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015 

for the complete documents. 

This rule lists four constrictor snake 

species (reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, and Beni anaconda) as 

injurious species under the Lacey Act. 

Entities impacted by the listing include: 

(1) Companies importing live snakes, 

gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids; (2) 

companies (breeders and wholesalers) 

with interstate sales of live snakes, 

gametes, viable eggs, and hybrids; (3) 

entities selling reptile-related products 

and services (pet stores, veterinarians, 

and shipping companies); and (4) 

research organizations, zoos, and 

educational operations. Importation of 

the four constrictor snakes will be 

prohibited, except as specifically 

authorized. Impacts to entities breeding 

or selling these snakes domestically will 

depend on the amount of interstate sales 

within the constrictor snake market. 

Impacts also are dependent upon 

whether or not consumers substitute the 

purchase of an animal that is not listed, 

which would thereby reduce economic 

impacts. 

For businesses importing any of the 

four large constrictor snakes we are 

listing in this final rule, the maximum 

impact of this rulemaking will result in 

20 to 28 small businesses (39 percent) 

having a reduction in their retail sales 

of 1 percent. 

In addition to companies that import 

snakes, entities that breed and sell large 

constrictor snakes will also be impacted. 

These entities include distributors, 

retailers, breeders and hobbyists, and 

exhibitors and trade shows. We do not 

know the total number of businesses, 

large or small, that sell or breed the two 

species we are listing in this rule that 

are currently in trade domestically. 

However, we know approximately the 

number of businesses that sell or breed 

large constrictor snake species of the 

genera Python, Boa, and Eunectes and 

that, overall, the reticulated python, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor represent 39 percent of all 

U.S.-bred large constrictor snake sales of 

those three genera. Because we do not 

know exactly how many businesses sell 

those five species, we extrapolated the 

percentage of sales to determine the 

number of affected businesses. Thus, we 

assume that 8 percent of businesses sell 

or breed the reticulated python and 

green anaconda (the two snake species 

in U.S. trade in this final rule) and that 

approximately 60 to 85 percent of these 

entities would qualify as small 

businesses. Therefore, approximately 

490 to 1,281 small businesses will be 

affected. Impacts to this group of 

businesses as a whole could represent 

an 8 percent reduction in retail value. 

In addition to snake sales, ancillary 

and support services comprise part of 

the snake industry. Four major 

categories include: (1) Food suppliers 

(such as for frozen or live rats and 

mice), (2) equipment suppliers (such as 

for cages, containers, lights, and other 

nonfood items), (3) veterinary care and 

other health-related items, and (4) 

shipping companies. The decrease in 

constrictor-snake-industry economic 

output and related employment from 

baseline conditions is $5.3 to 11.4 

million for the reticulated python and 

green anaconda. This estimate includes 

impacts to the support service 

businesses. The number of businesses 

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 

constrictor snake market is unreported. 

Thus, we do not know the impact to 

these types of individual businesses. 

Under the final rule, the interstate 

transport of the reticulated python and 

green anaconda (the two constrictor 

snakes currently in U.S. trade in this 

final rule) will be discontinued, except 

as specifically permitted. Thus, any 

revenue that would be potentially 

earned from this portion of the business 

will be eliminated. The amount of sales 

impacted is completely dependent on 

the percentage of interstate transport. 

That is, the impact depends on where 

businesses are located and where their 

customers are located. 

This final rule may have a significant 

economic effect on a small number of 

small entities as defined under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This rule is not a major rule under 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

This rule: 

a. Will not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

According to the final economic 

analysis (USFWS 2015), the annual 

retail value losses for the four 

constrictor snake species we are listing 

in this final rule are estimated to range 

from $1.9 million to $4.1 million. In 

addition, businesses would also face the 

risk of fines if caught importing or 

transporting these constrictor snakes, 

gametes, viable eggs, or hybrids across 

State lines. The penalty for a Lacey Act 

violation under the injurious wildlife 

provisions is not more than 6 months in 

prison and not more than a $5,000 fine 

for an individual and not more than a 

$10,000 fine for an organization. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers; 

individual industries; Federal, State, or 

local government agencies; or 

geographic regions. Businesses breeding 

or selling the listed snakes will be able 

to substitute other species and maintain 

business by seeking unusual 

morphologic forms in other snakes. 

Some businesses, however, may close. 

We do not have data for the potential 

substitutions, and, therefore, we do not 

know the number of businesses that 

may close. 

c. Will not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

This final rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. This 

final rule will not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. A 

statement containing the information 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not 

required. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), the rule does not have 

significant takings implications. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. This rule will not impose 

significant requirements or limitations 

on private property use. Any person 

who possesses one or more snakes of the 

four species we are listing in this rule 

can continue to possess, sell, or 

transport them within their State 

boundaries. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this rule does not have 

federalism implications. This rule will 

not have substantial direct effects on 

States, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The rule does not 

have substantial direct effects on States 

because it: (1) Imposes no affirmative 

obligations on any State, (2) preempts 

no State law, (3) does not limit the 

policymaking discretion of the States, 

(4) requires no State to expend any 

funds, and (5) imposes no compliance 

costs on any State. Executive Order 

13132 requires Federal agencies to 

proceed cautiously when there are 

‘‘uncertainties regarding the 

constitutional or statutory authority of 

the national government,’’ but there are 

no such uncertainties here. The 

statutory authority of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to designate injurious 

species pursuant to the Lacey Act is 

clear. The Executive Order also 

encourages early consultation with State 

and local officials, which the Service 

has done. Therefore, in accordance with 

Executive Order 13132, we determine 

that this rule does not have federalism 

implications or preempt State law, and 

therefore a federalism summary impact 

statement is not required. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that the rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. The 

rule has been reviewed to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity, was 

written to minimize litigation, provides 

a clear legal standard for affected 

conduct rather than a general standard, 

and promotes simplification and burden 

reduction. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose new 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. OMB has approved the 

information collection requirements 

associated with the required permits 

and assigned OMB Control No. 1018– 

0093, which expires May 31, 2017. An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor and 

a person is not required to respond to 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have reviewed this rule in 

accordance with the criteria of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

Department of the Interior NEPA 

regulations (43 CFR part 46), and the 

Departmental Manual in 516 DM 8. This 

action is being taken to protect the 

natural resources of the United States. A 

final environmental assessment and a 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 

have been prepared and are available for 

review by written request (see 

ADDRESSES) or at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015. The final 

environmental assessment was based on 

the proposed listing of the reticulated 

python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, 

green anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa 

constrictor as injurious and was revised 

based on comments from peer reviewers 

and the public. By adding reticulated 

python and DeSchauensee’s, green, and 

Beni anacondas to the list of injurious 

wildlife, we intend to prevent their new 

introduction, further introduction, and 

establishment into natural areas of the 

United States to protect native wildlife 

species, the survival and welfare of 

wildlife and wildlife resources, and the 

health and welfare of human beings. If 

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 

as injurious, the species are more likely 

to expand in captivity in States where 

they are not already found in the wild; 

this would increase the risk of their 

escape or intentional release and 

subsequent establishment in new areas, 

which would likely negatively affect 

native fish and wildlife, and humans. 

Releases of the four constrictor snakes 

into natural areas of the United States 

are likely to occur, and the species are 

likely to become established in 

additional U.S. natural areas such as 

national wildlife refuges and parks, 

negatively affecting native fish and 

wildlife populations and ecosystem 

form, function, and structure. For 

reasons discussed above in the section 

Withdrawal of the Boa Constrictor from 

Consideration as an Injurious Species, 

we are withdrawing our proposal to list 

the boa constrictor as an injurious 

reptile (75 FR 11808; March 12, 2010). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

We have evaluated potential effects on 

federally recognized Indian tribes and 

have determined that there are no 

potential effects. This rule involves the 

importation and interstate movement of 

three live anaconda species and one live 

python species, gametes, viable eggs, or 

hybrids that are not native to the United 

States. We are unaware of trade in these 

species by tribes. 

Effects on Energy 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This rule is 

not expected to affect energy supplies, 

distribution, and use. Therefore, this 

action is a not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references used 

in this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R9–FHC–2008– 

0015. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the South Florida 

Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 16 

Fish, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service amends part 16, subchapter B of 

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 16—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42. 

■ 2. Amend § 16.15 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 16.15 Importation of live reptiles or their 

eggs. 

(a) The importation, transportation, or 

acquisition of any live specimen, 

gamete, viable egg, or hybrid of the 

species listed in this paragraph is 

prohibited except as provided under the 

terms and conditions set forth at § 16.22: 

(1) Boiga irregularis (brown tree 

snake). 

(2) Python molurus (including P. 

molurus molurus (Indian python) and P. 

molurus bivittatus (Burmese python)). 

(3) Python reticulatus, Broghammerus 

reticulatus, or Malayopython reticulatus 

(reticulated python). 

(4) Python sebae (Northern African 

python or African rock python). 

(5) Python natalensis (Southern 

African python or African rock python). 

(6) Eunectes notaeus (yellow 

anaconda). 

(7) Eunectes deschauenseei 

(DeSchauensee’s anaconda). 

(8) Eunectes murinus (green 

anaconda). 

(9) Eunectes beniensis (Beni 

anaconda). 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 25, 2015. 

Michael J. Bean, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05125 Filed 3–6–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2