[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 46 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12702-12745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05125]



[[Page 12701]]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 46

March 10, 2015

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Fish and Wildlife





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 16





 Injurious Wildlife Species; Listing Three Anaconda Species and One 
Python Species as Injurious Reptiles; Final Rule

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

[[Page 12702]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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,

[[Page 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 
self-evident.
    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.

[[Page 12704]]

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 cost-effective 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.

[[Page 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, industry-wide 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.

[[Page 12706]]

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 [deg]F 
(Fahrenheit; 7.2 [deg]C (Celsius)) in West Palm Beach and Naples. Other 
minimum temperatures for that period were broken in Moorehaven, tied in 
Fort

[[Page 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' climate-matching 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 worm-sized 
Brahminy blindsnake (Ramphotyphlops braminus)) to have successfully 
colonized a large area (greater than 1,000 square kilometers (km\2\) 
(386 square miles (mi\2\))) 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

[[Page 12708]]

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 life-history 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, white-tailed 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

[[Page 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 wild-caught 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 long-term 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

[[Page 12710]]

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

[[Page 12711]]

consume humans in remote hunter-gatherer 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 Maraj[oacute], 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 [deg]C (77 [deg]F) and 30 [deg]C 
(86 [deg]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 warm-blooded 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

[[Page 12712]]

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 
olive-brownish 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Reported in the wild in  Reproducing in the wild   Imported into U.S. for
               Species                          U.S.?                   in U.S.?                 trade? *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reticulated python...................  Yes....................  No.....................  Yes.
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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Consequences of      Organism Risk
  Probability of establishment       establishment      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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 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 climate-matched 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

[[Page 12714]]

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

[[Page 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 well-camouflaged 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

[[Page 12716]]

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 ``wide-foraging'' 
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 out-islands, 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 12718]]

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 [deg]C (72 to 77 [deg]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

[[Page 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-to-date 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 climate-matching 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.

[[Page 12720]]

    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.

[[Page 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 free-ranging 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

[[Page 12722]]

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-by-case 
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

[[Page 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 Habitattitude\TM\ 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 State-listed 
endangered or threatened species at risk from pythons or other large 
constrictors in Florida alone. This

[[Page 12724]]

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 State-Federal 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 State-based 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

[[Page 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-escape-proof 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

[[Page 12726]]

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

[[Page 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[hyphen]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

[[Page 12728]]

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

[[Page 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'').

[[Page 12730]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 12732]]

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, semi-aquatic 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 captive-
bred 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

[[Page 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-of-State 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-of-State 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 snake-breeder, 
demand for ``pet-grade'' snakes, which cost under $50, has sunk even 
more than demand for ``investment-grade'' 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

[[Page 12734]]

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 fully-identified 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 snake-related 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

[[Page 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 sub-sectors 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

[[Page 12736]]

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 State-listed 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 mid-1990s, 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

[[Page 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 
na[iuml]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

[[Page 12738]]

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) Peer-review 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 12740]]

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 peer-reviewed. 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,

[[Page 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 Habitattitude\TM\--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 
Habitattitude\TM\ 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

[[Page 12742]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 12744]]

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 foreign-based 
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

[[Page 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]

0
1. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 18 U.S.C. 42.

0
2. Amend Sec.  16.15 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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