Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48359 

44. In this NPRM, we seek comment 

on a number of issues raised by the 

commenters that may not have been 

addressed as part of the ESL 

proceedings. Specifically, we seek 

comment on whether to include 

interconnected VoIP service, filtering 

software, dark fiber, and other services 

in future funding years. We tentatively 

conclude that interconnected VoIP 

service should be eligible for discounts 

under the E-rate program. We 

tentatively conclude that it is 

administratively and operationally 

appropriate for interconnected VoIP 

service requests to be processed as a 

Priority 1 service. We seek comment on 

this tentative conclusion. If 

interconnected VoIP service is deemed 

an eligible service, we also seek 

comment on how USAC would 

implement this tentative conclusion. We 

believe that the inclusion of 

interconnected VoIP service will not 

have an adverse impact on small 

entities. We welcome, however, 

comments from parties that have 

opinions different from those reached in 

this analysis. 

45. We also seek comment on whether 

several individual services—filtering 

software, an expanded classification of 

basic telephone service, dark fiber, text 

messaging, firewall service, anti-virus/ 

anti-spam software, scheduling services, 

telephone broadcast messaging, and 

certain wireless Internet access 

applications—should be eligible for Erate program eligibility. We believe that, 

if eligible, the benefits conferred by 

making these services eligible will not 

have an adverse impact on small 

entities. We welcome, however, 

comments from parties that have 

opinions different from those reached in 

this analysis. 

46. We believe our proposals and 

tentative conclusions will have a similar 

impact on both small and large schools 

and libraries, because both small and 

large schools and libraries will benefit 

equally from the possible addition of 

eligible services available under the Erate program. Because this NPRM does 

not propose additional regulation for 

service providers and equipment 

vendors, these small entities will also 

experience no additional burden. We 

believe that small schools and libraries, 

as well as small service providers and 

equipment vendors, will benefit if we 

add more services to the eligible 

services list because it will open up 

more opportunities for small businesses 

to participate in the E-rate program. 

Therefore, we do not discuss any 

alternatives to the proposals contained 

in this NPRM. We invite commenters, in 

responding to the questions posed and 

tentative conclusions in the NPRM, to 

discuss any economic impact that such 

changes may have on small entities. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

47. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

48. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 1 through 4, 201 through 205, 

254, 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended by the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 

201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403, 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

adopted. 

49. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–19178 Filed 8–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R9–IA–2008–0092; 96100–1671–

0000–B6] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Northern 

Snakehead Fish (Channa argus) Under 

the Endangered Species Act 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

northern snakehead fish (Channa argus) 

as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

We find that the petition does not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing this species under the Act may be 

warranted. We will not initiate a status 

review in response to this petition and, 

consequently, will not consider the 

designation of critical habitat as 

petitioned. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on August 19, 

2008. New information concerning this 

species may be submitted for our 

consideration at any time. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Scientific Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax 

Drive, Room 110, Arlington, VA 22203; 

telephone, 703–358–1708; fax, 703–

358–2276. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this finding to the 

above address or via electronic mail (email) at Scientificauthority@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marie T. Maltese, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Scientific 

Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 

110, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone, 

703–358–1708; fax, 703–358–2276; or 

by e-mail, Scientificauthority@fws.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4 (b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. We 

are to base this finding on information 

provided in the petition, supporting 

information submitted with the petition, 

and information otherwise available in 

our files at the time we make the 

determination. To the maximum extent 

practicable, we are to make this finding 

within 90 days of our receipt of the 

petition, and publish our notice of this 

finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. Our standard for substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

with regard to a 90-day petition finding 

is ‘‘that amount of information that 

would lead a reasonable person to 

believe that the measure proposed in the 

petition may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 

424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 

information was presented, we are 

required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species. 

We base this finding on information 

provided by the petitioners that we 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
48360 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

determined to be reliable after reviewing 

sources referenced in the petition and 

information available in our files at the 

time of the petition review. We 

evaluated that information in 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our 

process of making this 90-day finding 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 

section 424.14(b) of our regulations is 

limited to a determination of whether 

the information in the petition meets the 

‘‘substantial scientific or commercial 

information’’ threshold. 

Petition History 

On January 4, 2005, the Service 

received a petition dated December 30, 

2004, from Alan D. Gardner, a member 

of the Washington County Commission 

in Utah, on behalf of 14 additional 

county officials representing 13 western 

States (petitioners), to list the northern 

snakehead fish (Channa argus) as an 

endangered species and to designate the 

entire Chesapeake Bay watershed as 

critical habitat. The petition clearly 

identified itself as a petition and 

included the requisite identification 

information as required in 50 CFR 

424.14(a). 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Service published a final rule on 

October 4, 2002 (67 FR 62193) that 

added all snakehead fishes of the family 

Channidae, including the northern 

snakehead fish, to the list of injurious 

wildlife species under the Lacey Act (18 

U.S.C. 42). In taking this action, the 

Service found that all snakehead fishes 

are injurious to the wildlife and wildlife 

resources of the United States. As an 

injurious species, the interstate 

transportation and importation of any 

live animal or viable egg of snakeheads 

into the United States without an 

injurious wildlife permit is prohibited. 

Species Information 

The native range of the northern 

snakehead includes the middle and 

lower Amur River basin of China; 

Songhua (Sungari) River, Manchuria; 

Tunguska River at Khabarovsk, Russia; 

Ussuri River basin, Russia; Lake 

Khanka, Korea, except the northeastern 

region; and rivers of China south and 

southwest to the upper tributaries of the 

Chang Jian (Yangtze) River basin in 

northeast Yunnan Province. The species 

has been reported in Guangdong 

Province, China, either as an 

introduction or perhaps because of 

misidentification of the species. 

Snakehead fishes are widely distributed 

in Chinese reservoirs (Courtenay and 

Williams 2004, p. 33). Northern 

snakehead fishes prefer stagnant 

shallow ponds or swamps with mud 

substrates and aquatic vegetation. This 

species also occupies slow-moving 

muddy streams, canals, reservoirs, 

lakes, and rivers (Courtenay and 

Williams 2004, p. 38). The northern 

snakehead tolerates a wide range of 

water temperatures, from 0 °C (32 °F) to 

more than 30 °C (86 °F) (Courtenay and 

Williams 2004, p. 38). 

The northern snakehead reaches 

sexual maturity at about 3 years of age 

in the Amur region of China and the Syr 

Dar’ya region of Uzbekistan; however, 

there have been reports that snakehead 

fishes in Japanese waters have spawned 

at 2 years of age (Courtenay and 

Williams 2004, p. 38). Annual spawning 

rates vary by location and temperature, 

from two to three times per year in the 

Syr Dar’ya basin, to as many as five 

times per year in the Amur basin 

(Courtenay and Williams 2004, pp. 38–

39). 

Several species of snakehead fishes 

are capable of overland migration by 

wriggling motions of their elongated, 

flattened bodies; indeed, observations 

indicate that Channa species which are 

ventrally flattened are the most capable 

of overland migrations (Courtenay and 

Williams 2004, p. 10). Those species 

with more rounded bodies, such as C. 

argus, are less likely to migrate because 

they have an extremely limited ability to 

move on land except during floods. 

The northern snakehead does not 

naturally occur in the Chesapeake Bay 

or anywhere within the United States; it 

is considered an invasive, non-native 

species within United States waters. 

The species’ occurrence within the 

United States is believed to be the result 

of accidental or intentional releases of 

live fish purchased at fish markets for 

human consumption, or pet fish which 

were previously available through the 

aquarium trade, and have since grown 

too large for their tanks, or are simply 

no longer wanted. 

The petitioners did not make it clear 

whether they were petitioning to list the 

entire species or the specific non-native 

population of the northern snakehead 

that currently inhabits several areas 

within the Chesapeake Bay region. We 

determined that the petitioners intended 

to petition the Service to list the 

Chesapeake Bay population of the 

northern snakehead fish because 

information submitted with the petition 

focuses on the species in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. Therefore, 

we have evaluated the petition, and the 

supporting documentation that was 

included with the petition, to determine 

if substantial scientific or commercial 

information has been presented to 

indicate that listing the northern 

snakehead fish within the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed may be warranted. 

To support the petition, the 

petitioners submitted a three-page 

report, ‘‘Northern Snakehead Channa 

argus’’ written by John Franklin 

Heppler, Professor of Biology associated 

with Dixie State College of Utah, and a 

double-sided fact sheet, ‘‘Do You Know 

the Difference?’’—published by the 

Virginia Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries. 

The petition stated that there are 

extremely low numbers of the species in 

the Potomac River and the Pohick Bay 

in Virginia, and that the few snakehead 

fish that have been located have been 

destroyed. It further states that because 

the number of fish is low, the species 

could easily go extinct in the United 

States, and therefore, it must be listed 

immediately before additional take can 

occur. The petitioners did not provide 

any supporting documentation to 

support these statements about 

snakehead population numbers. 

Furthermore, according to the 

petitioners, ‘‘if the snakehead fish lived 

in the West, no expense, or no expanse 

of land, would be too great to protect a 

fish of this caliber if it were threatened 

by extinction.’’

The report that was compiled by Dr. 

John Franklin Heppler, ‘‘Northern 

Snakehead Channa argus’’, is a threepage document that describes the 

natural history of the species. It did not 

address specific threats to the species 

that might warrant the petitioned action. 

The document begins with a brief 

description of the species’ taxonomy, a 

physical description of the fish, and a 

discussion of the snakeheads’ unique 

capability of breathing atmospheric 

oxygen, which allows it to move across 

land in some instances. Information 

regarding the species’ trophic level (the 

level in the food chain defined by the 

method of obtaining food), habitat 

preferences, and reproductive 

requirements were also addressed 

within the report. The author suggested 

that the species was introduced into 

non-native habitats through: (1) 

Intentional releases by pet owners and, 

(2) released live fish from live fish 

markets. The petition states that 

snakehead fish have been found in 

seven States: California, Florida, 

Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, 

Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and are 

assumed to be breeding in Florida, 

Maryland, and Virginia, although there 

was no documentation to support this 

assumption. The author also noted that 

several States are conducting 

investigations of people who are rearing 

the species or who have released 

snakehead fish. Confiscations of live 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 48361 

fish have occurred, according to Dr. 

Heppler; but again, documentation was 

not presented to support this statement. 

The author speculates that the northern 

snakehead may be able to transfer 

pathogens and that Epizootic Ulcerative 

Syndrome (EUS) has been ‘‘fairly well 

documented’’ as being a transmittable 

pathogen to native aquatic species. In 

spite of these statements, there is no 

discussion regarding the cause of EUS, 

or any other pathogens, in snakehead 

fishes, nor is there any data presented 

in this report regarding the suggested 

pathogenicity of EUS in fishes native to 

the United States. 

Dr. Heppler mentions the Service’s 

listing of all snakehead species as 

injurious wildlife in the report, and 

notes that about 20 States had banned 

possession of live specimens of 

snakehead fishes by 2004. He further 

suggests that it will be many years 

before we know the impact the species 

will have on our aquatic waterways, but 

that introduced species are not always 

unwelcome, citing the introduction of 

wolves into Yellowstone [National 

Park]. However, citing the reintroduction of a native species (wolves) 

to its former native habitat (Yellowstone 

National Park) is quite different than 

introducing a non-native predacious 

fish species to an aquatic waterway 

outside of its natural range. The report 

ends with a caution that impacts of the 

species’ introductions should be 

monitored to see if these ‘‘introduced 

species would actually assimilate in 

time and become part of a viable aquatic 

ecosystem.’’

The other supporting documentation 

submitted with the petition is a twopage fact sheet published by the 

Virginia Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries: ‘‘Do you know the 

difference?’’—which targets the sportfishing community. Drawings of the 

northern snakehead fish, bowfin (Amia 

calva), and American eel (Anguilla 

rostrata) are exhibited, and specific 

morphological features that differentiate 

between the species, such as the 

absence or presence of specific fins, and 

fin length and size comparisons, are 

indicated. On the reverse side of the 

page is a map of the Potomac River in 

Maryland, the District of Columbia, and 

northern Virginia, indicating northern 

snakehead fish capture sites in 2004. 

This documentation is merely 

informational, and does not present any 

substantial information, scientific or 

commercial, that indicates that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

Threats Analysis 

Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may 

list a species on the basis of five threat 

factors: (A) Present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) 

Inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, either singly or in 

combination. 

Under the Act, a threatened species is 

defined as a species which is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. An 

endangered species is defined as a 

species which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Therefore, we evaluate the 

petition to determine if it contains 

substantial scientific and commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range 

The petition did not include any 

information on threats to the northern 

snakehead by the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range in the 

Chesapeake Bay region or its native 

habitat and range. Therefore, the 

petition and its supporting 

documentation did not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

northern snakehead as threatened or 

endangered may be warranted, under 

this threat factor. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petition notes that snakehead fish 

are a favored food throughout Southeast 

Asia and that certain cultures believe 

the species may have curative 

properties. Accordingly, the petition 

asserts that they have been in great 

demand in the United States. As of 2004 

when this report was written, the author 

notes that live snakehead fish were still 

being sold at fish markets and in some 

restaurants in Boston and New York. 

Previously, snakehead fish have been 

popular as a curiosity in the pet trade, 

and the author claims that in 2004, they 

could be purchased on eBay. An 

unconfirmed statement in the report 

also noted that some Asian religious 

practices may involve releasing live fish 

into waterways. Therefore, the 

petitioners maintain that snakehead 

fishes are used for commercial and 

recreational purposes; however, they 

did not indicate that overutilization for 

these or any other purposes is a threat 

to the species. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The author of the report indicates, in 

an unconfirmed statement, that the 

northern snakehead may be able to 

transmit pathogens to native fish 

species. However, the standard under 

section 4(a) of the Act is whether 

disease presents a threat to the 

petitioned species, not whether the 

petitioned species presents a disease 

threat to other species. The author 

further notes that Epizootic Ulcerative 

Syndrome (EUS) has been fairly well 

documented as being a transmittable 

pathogen to native species. Therefore, 

while the discussion of disease within 

the petition infers that the northern 

snakehead could be a threat to native 

species through the transmission of 

disease, it does not specifically present 

any information indicating that disease 

is a threat to the northern snakehead. 

Likewise, the northern snakehead 

appears to have no natural predators in 

the United States. Predation by the 

northern snakehead is a threat to native 

species, but predation is not a threat to 

the northern snakehead (Heppler 2004, 

p.1). Once again, the petition indicates 

that the threat is actually reversed (the 

snakehead fish is the threat to the native 

species) and provides no information 

showing that predation is a threat to the 

northern snakehead fishes. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

There are no existing regulatory 

mechanisms to protect the northern 

snakehead within the Chesapeake Bay 

region. We are not aware of any existing 

regulatory mechanisms within the 

species’ native range. The report 

submitted with the petition mentioned 

that all members of the family 

Channidae were added to the Service’s 

list of injurious fish, mollusks, and 

crustaceans on October 4, 2002 (67 FR 

62193). As an injurious species, the 

Service has found that this non-native, 

invasive species is likely to compete 

with native species and may transmit 

parasites to native species. Live 

snakeheads currently in captivity have a 

high likelihood of escape into the wild 

in the United States, and once 

established, are expected to multiply 

rapidly. The injurious wildlife listing 

prohibits the interstate transportation 

and importation of any live snakehead 

fish or viable eggs into the United States 

without an injurious wildlife permit. 

The petition and its supporting 

documentation did not present 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
48362 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that listing the 

northern snakehead as threatened or 

endangered may be warranted under 

this threat factor. 

E. Other Natural or Man-made Factors 

Affecting the Continued Existence of the 

Species 

The petitioners did not present any 

further information describing any other 

natural or man-made factors that are 

considered to be threats which would 

affect the continued existence of the 

species. Therefore, the petition and its 

supporting documentation did not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the northern snakehead as 

threatened or endangered may be 

warranted under this threat factor. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the petition and 

the literature cited in the petition. We 

find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information has not been 

presented by the petitioners to indicate 

that listing the northern snakehead fish 

as a threatened species or an 

endangered species under the Act may 

be warranted. We will not commence a 

status review in response to this petition 

and, consequently, will not consider the 

designation of critical habitat, as 

petitioned. 

References Cited 

Courtenay, Walter R. Jr. and J. D. Williams. 

2002. Snakeheads (Pisces: Channidae): A 

biological synopsis and risk assessment. 

USGS Florida Integrated Science 

Centers, Gainesville, Florida. 162 pp. 

Heppler, John Franklin. 2004. Northern 

Snakehead Channa argus. Report 

compiled for a petition to list the 

northern snakehead under the 

Endangered Species Act. 3pp. 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries. 2004. Do you know the 

difference? Fisheries fact sheet. 2pp. 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

Marie T. Maltese, Division of Scientific 

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: July 28, 2008. 

Kenneth Stansell, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–19155 Filed 8–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS