26762 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

33. In this Second Report and Order,

the Commission defines emergency

information and adopts a requirement

that video programming distributors

must make emergency information

accessible to persons with hearing

disabilities either through closed

captioning or by using a method of

visual presentation. Such methods

include, but are not limited to, open

captioning, crawls or scrolls. We

concluded that a rule requiring closed

captioning or a method of visual

presentations achieves the goal of

ensuring that the same critical

information about an emergency is

accessible to persons with hearing

disabilities as is available to other

viewers. The rule also provides

significant flexibility to the video

programming distributor by allowing it

to determine the most feasible and

affordable method for making such

information accessible. Therefore, the

rule will not impose an economic

burden on video programming

distributors, including small entities.

F. Report to Congress

34. The Commission will send a copy

of this Second Report and Order,

including this FRFA, in a report to

Congress pursuant to the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of

this Second Report and Order and FRFA

(or summary thereof) will also be

published in the Federal Register,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. 604(b), and will

be sent to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration.

Ordering Clauses

35. Pursuant to the authority

contained in sections 4(i), 303(r), and

713 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r),

and 613, the Commission’s rules are

amended by adding a new § 79.2 as

shown in the rule changes. The

amendments set forth in the rule

changes shall become effective upon

approval from the Office of Management

and Budget.

36. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Second Report and Order,

including the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 79

Closed captioning of video

programming.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission amends 47 CFR part 79 as

follows:

PART 79—CLOSED CAPTIONING OF

VIDEO PROGRAMMING

1. The authority citation for Part 79

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 613.

2. Add § 79.2 to read as follows:

§ 79.2 Accessibility of programming

providing emergency information.

(a) Definitions. (1) For purposes of

this section, the definitions in § 79.1

apply.

(2) Emergency information.

Information, about a current emergency,

that is intended to further the protection

of life, health, safety, and property, i.e.,

critical details regarding the emergency

and how to respond to the emergency.

Examples of the types of emergencies

covered include tornadoes, hurricanes,

floods, tidal waves, earthquakes, icing

conditions, heavy snows, widespread

fires, discharge of toxic gases,

widespread power failures, industrial

explosions, civil disorders, school

closings and changes in school bus

schedules resulting from such

conditions, and warnings and watches

of impending changes in weather.

Note to paragraph (a)(2): Critical details

include, but are not limited to, specific

details regarding the areas that will be

affected by the emergency, evacuation orders,

detailed descriptions of areas to be

evacuated, specific evacuation routes,

approved shelters or the way to take shelter

in one’s home, instructions on how to secure

personal property, road closures, and how to

obtain relief assistance.

(b) Requirements for accessibility of

programming providing emergency

information. (1) Video programming

distributors must make emergency

information, as defined in paragraph (a)

of this section, that is provided in the

audio portion of the programming

accessible to persons with hearing

disabilities, either through closed

captioning or by using a method of

visual presentation.

(2) This rule applies to emergency

information primarily intended for

distribution to an audience in the

geographic area in which the emergency

is occurring.

(3) Emergency information provided

by means other than closed captioning

should not block any closed captioning

and any closed captioning provided

should not block any emergency

information provided by means other

than closed captioning.

(c) Complaint procedures. A

complaint alleging a violation of this

section may be transmitted to the

Commission by any reasonable means,

such as letter, facsimile transmission,

telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), Internet email, audio-cassette recording, and

Braille, or some other method that

would best accommodate the

complainant’s disability. The complaint

should include the name of the video

programming distributor against whom

the complaint is alleged, the date and

time of the omission of emergency

information, and the type of emergency.

The Commission will notify the video

programming distributor of the

complaint, and the distributor will reply

to the complaint within 30 days.

[FR Doc. 00–11483 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE43

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Final Determination of

Threatened Status for the Koala

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Service determines

threatened status for the Australian

koala under the Endangered Species Act

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

eucalyptus forest and woodland

ecosystems on which this arboreal

marsupial depends have been greatly

reduced. Despite several conservation

actions by the Government of Australia

and State governments, the limited

koala habitat continues to deteriorate.

The species also is threatened by

fragmentation of the habitat that

remains, disease, loss of genetic

variation, and death by dogs and motor

vehicles due to development. Although

differences occur in the health status of

local populations, we are not able to

designate either the current subspecies

or the koalas of particular States as

distinct vertebrate population segments.

Koalas are no longer exploited for their

fur, and it is habitat loss and its

secondary effects that now threaten the

species. This rule extends the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26763

Endangered Species Act’s protection to

koalas throughout Australia.

DATES: Effective June 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence

concerning this rule to Chief, Office of

Scientific Authority, ARLSQ 750; U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service; Washington,

DC 20240; fax number 703–358–2276.

Express and messenger deliveries

should be addressed to Chief, Office of

Scientific Authority, Room 750; U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North

Fairfax Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Lieberman, Chief, Office of

Scientific Authority, phone 703–358–

1708, fax 703–358–2276, E-mail:

r9osa@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) is

an arboreal mammal found only in

Australia. It has a compact body, large

head and nose, large and furry ears,

powerful limbs, and no significant tail.

Mature koalas weigh from 4–15

kilograms (10–35 pounds), with larger

animals in southern Australia. The

koala is a marsupial, more closely

related to kangaroos and possums than

to true bears and other placental

mammals. Koalas carry their young in a

pouch for about 6 months. They occur

in the forests and woodlands of central

and eastern Queensland, eastern New

South Wales, Victoria, and southeastern

South Australia.

In a petition dated May 3, 1994,

which we received on May 5, 1994,

Australians for Animals (AFA) (in

Australia) and the Fund for Animals

(FFA) (in the United States) requested

that the koala be classified as

endangered in New South Wales and

Victoria, and as threatened in

Queensland. About 40 organizations in

the United States and Australia were

named as supporting the petition. The

document included extensive data

indicating that the koala has declined

dramatically since European settlement

of Australia began about 200 years ago

and has lost more than half of its natural

habitat because of human activity. Once

numbering in the millions, the koala

was intensively hunted for its fur up

through the 1920s. It is totally

dependent for food and shelter on

certain types of trees within forests and

woodlands. The destruction or

degradation of this habitat would reduce

the viability of populations, even if the

animals were otherwise protected.

On October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50557), we

announced a 90-day finding that the

petition presented substantial

information indicating that the

requested action may be warranted.

That notice also initiated a status review

of the koala. On February 15, 1995 (60

FR 8620), we reopened the comment

period on the status review until April

1, 1995. We sent a telegram to the U.S.

embassy in Australia, asking that

appropriate authorities be notified and

asked to comment. We also presented

the review directly to numerous

concerned organizations and

authorities. Of the approximately 400

responses received, the great majority

were brief messages in support of

listing, but several responses were from

persons or organizations providing

substantive comments based on

firsthand knowledge of the situation.

On September 22, 1998 (63 FR 50547),

we proposed the koala as threatened

throughout its range, and we sought

public comments. We received over

3,000 responses: The vast majority were

cards with a printed message endorsing

the comments of the International

Wildlife Coalition and supporting

threatened status for the koala, but

personal letters also expressed support

for listing the species. We also received

letters with substantive comments on

the proposal from persons with direct

knowledge of koala biology; many of

those comments came from persons or

groups who had offered opinions and

information on earlier notices. We also

sought information from scientists on a

number of outstanding issues.

What Were the Comments of Those

Who Opposed the Proposed Listing?

All of the Australian Federal and

State authorities that commented on the

proposal opposed it. They were joined

by three other respondents, including

two who represented zoological

associations in Australia and the United

States.

Dr. Colin Griffiths, Director of

National Parks and Wildlife, submitted

comments for Environment Australia,

the agency responsible for koala policy

on the national level. He stated that the

Australian Government continues to

object to our proposal to list the koala

as a threatened species under U.S. law.

Noting that, under the Endangered

Species Protection Act 1992 (ESPA) no

trade in koalas or koala products is

permitted, Dr. Griffiths said ‘‘we have

yet to see any explanation of how the

listing of the koala in the United States

would contribute to koala

conservation.’’ The submission also

stated that the Endangered Species

Scientific Subcommittee established

under the ESPA has evaluated

nominations of the koala both under

‘‘species that are endangered’’ and

‘‘species that are vulnerable.’’ In each

instance, the subcommittee concluded

that the koala did not meet the criteria

for listing at a national level.

We fully understand the view of the

Australian Government on the status of

a species that is native only within its

boundaries, particularly where only an

occasional zoo acquisition leaves the

country. However, our Endangered

Species Act (ESA) is international in

scope, and we are compelled by law to

evaluate petitions of species beyond

U.S. boundaries.

Dr. Griffiths made the point that the

Australian Government has taken a

number of steps in koala conservation

since the listing proposal came to us in

1994. A scientific advisory board has

reported to the Minister of Environment

that the species is relatively abundant

and widespread nationally and not

likely to become endangered within the

next 25 years. In 1998, the legislation of

the Commonwealth and the States

protecting koalas was integrated into the

National Koala Conservation Strategy.

The Strategy was developed by the

Australian and New Zealand

Environment and Conservation Council

and was included with the comments

submitted by Environment Australia.

Finally, the submission made the

objection raised by several others on the

listing proposal: Australians particularly

object to a rule in which we classify the

species as threatened throughout its

range rather than assess whether the

koala warrants this classification in each

State. While the ESA does not allow us

to differentiate vertebrate populations

solely on state or provincial boundaries

(whereas we can on national

boundaries), it does allow us to make

these distinctions when significant

biological differences exist between the

populations. The issue that

predominates is whether the three

subspecies that have been described for

koalas represent distinct vertebrate

population segments.

Mr. Allan Holmes, Director of

National Parks and Wildlife for the

Department of Environment, Heritage

and Aboriginal Affairs of South

Australia, also made the point that the

status of the koala varies regionally, and

it is not considered nationally

endangered or vulnerable. Koalas in

South Australia are protected under the

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972

and are listed as rare under Schedule 9.

In providing a history of koala

management in the State, Mr. Holmes

maintained that the classification as rare

is misleading as the koala population in

South Australia was at the western edge

of its range even prior to European

settlement. By 1930, the koala was

considered extinct in South Australia,

26764 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

and, as a consequence, a population was

established on Kangaroo Island and

subsequently at other sites on the

mainland. Koala habitat is patchy in

South Australia, largely due to forest

fragmentation caused by 150 years of

agricultural development. Koalas

introduced to these patches have

established populations and have

frequently exceeded carrying-capacity

with consequent damage to food trees.

The letter affirmed the commitment of

the Government of South Australia to

ensuring that koalas are conserved in

the State and that they are managed in

such a way that will sustain them and

their habitat. Mr. Holmes concluded

that the current situation in South

Australia with local overpopulation and

genetic founder effects illustrates that

the threats to koalas are different across

Australia and that a single classification

may not best serve conservation efforts

for the species.

Mr. Michael Taylor, Secretary of the

Department of Natural Resources and

Environment for the State of Victoria,

said that the status of the species has

continuously improved from the 1920s

when it was probably endangered, to its

current status as a widespread and

common species. The koala is protected

wildlife under the provisions of

Victoria’s Wildlife Act 1975, which

protects all indigenous terrestrial

vertebrates, and the Flora and Fauna

Guarantee Act 1998, which seeks to

insure that species not only survive but

retain their evolutionary potential in the

wild. Under the provisions of that law,

any person or group can nominate a

species for listing, and it will be

assessed by an independent Scientific

Advisory Committee. Victoria’s

submission noted that, while 359 taxa

have been nominated, the koala has not

been one of them. Moreover, the

government of Victoria has subjected all

of its native vertebrates to the World

Conservation Union criteria (IUCN,

1994), and, while over 200 taxa were

listed as threatened at some level, the

koala did not meet the criteria.

The submission provides a history of

koala management in Victoria,

documenting translocations by decade,

as well as an assessment of the current

distribution of koalas in the State. While

densities of koalas vary widely, those

that exceed three to four animals per

hectare frequently result in

overbrowsing. The results provided for

3 sites indicate a density of 1 koala per

hectare is not uncommon, and

extrapolation to the ‘‘broad vegetation

types utilized by koala in Victoria’’

gives a total population estimate of

52,000 animals in the State of Victoria

alone.

Mr. Taylor presented the specific

actions that Victoria has taken in recent

years to protect koalas and their habitat.

Victoria’s Biodiversity Strategy calls for

a reversal in the decline of native

vegetation with a goal of no net loss by

2001. The Planning and Environment

Act of 1987 includes the objective to

assist the protection of biodiversity, and

the Land for Wildlife Program provides

mechanisms to conserve areas of

environmental significance. The view of

the Department of Natural Resources

and Environment is that Victoria has a

strong viable koala population in the

wild, and thus listing would only divert

attention from the species that are under

threat.

Mr. Brian Gilligan, Director General of

the New South Wales National Parks

and Wildlife Service, wrote that the

population there is intermediate in

physical size between the larger

southern koalas in Victoria and South

Australia and the smaller northern

koalas in Queensland. The population

in New South Wales was decimated by

hunting until it was estimated to

contain only 1,000 koalas by 1920.

Researchers believed the population had

recovered to 5,000–10,000 koalas by the

1970s. The koala was listed as

vulnerable under the New South Wales

Endangered Fauna Act 1991 and more

recently has the protection of threatened

species and the Threatened Species

Conservation (TSC) Act 1995, which

replaced the earlier law. Because the

koala is an ecological specialist, it is

vulnerable to local extinctions. The

letter details several steps that New

South Wales has taken to help koala

recovery in the State. Under the State

Environmental Planning Policy 1995, a

detailed habitat assessment is required

before approving development of greater

than 1 hectare in local government areas

where koalas are known to exist. As

required of any vulnerable species, the

TSC Act requires the National Parks and

Wildlife Service to prepare a recovery

plan within 10 years. Also, the New

South Wales government has begun

creating forest reserves under the

Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs). The

State government has reserved 600,000

hectares so far, and, by their assessment,

a large proportion of this land is koala

habitat.

Mr. Greg Gordon of Queensland

National Parks and Wildlife Service

qualified his earlier comments in the

proposed rule, that koalas could become

vulnerable in the future. ‘‘I would see

this as a long-term possibility only, as

a result of continuing land clearing,

assuming clearing is unchecked. It is

difficult to put a time frame on this but

I would think it would be many decades

away, e.g. 50–100 years.’’ Gordon wrote

that the main problem is that most koala

sites have poor habitat protection as

they occur on privately managed land,

which may be at risk of partial or total

clearing at some time in the future. He

added that in Queensland conservation

measures for private lands are being

developed, and more effective habitat

protection is likely to be available in the

medium term.

Mr. Mark S. Canty submitted a letter

opposing the proposal. He contrasted

the national system of ‘‘Landcare’’

groups that have been forming in

Australia, with the RFAs being set up by

the government with the goal of

preserving 15 percent of forest types

that existed in Australia prior to 1750.

Mr. Canty said that the result of these

preservation targets has been an

increase in areas being cleared by

landholders to avert government

decrees, and he expressed his concern

that listing the koala would have the

same negative impact, with landholders

not reporting koala sightings for fear of

being told how to manage their

property. Mr. Canty expressed the view

that agriculture and housing

developments represent a greater threat

to koalas than forestry practices. We

fully understand this viewpoint, and we

are aware that even the perception of

imposed solutions stimulated by those

living far from the effected land can

have a counterproductive effect.

Nothing in this listing in any way limits

or directs specific measures in Australia

for the benefit of koala conservation, on

either the State or the Federal level.

Ms. Christine Hopkins, Executive

Director of the Australian Regional

Association of Zoological Parks and

Aquaria (ARAZPA), provided valuable

information related to the koala from the

international to the state level. The

summary of status and legislation was

developed by the Monotreme &

Marsupial Taxon Advisory Group.

Convener Gary Stator said that the

Taxon Advisory Group could see no

basis to list the species as endangered,

and Ms. Hopkins said the ARAZPA

could find no evidence in support of

listing the species as threatened.

Senior officials at the American

Zoological Association (AZA) have

modified the position stated in the

previous submission of the AZA. Ms.

Kristin Vehrs, Dr. Michael Hutchins,

and Mr. Robert Howarth maintain that

the data provided fail to meet the listing

criteria under the Act, specifically that

the species is threatened throughout its

entire range. While acknowledging that

certain koala populations in New South

Wales and Queensland continue to be

threatened, studies conducted in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26765

Victoria and South Australia suggest

that the koala has begun to reestablish

itself there. AZA stated that while some

areas may meet the habitat loss criterion

for listing, none currently meet the

overutilization criterion in this instance.

They conclude that no commercial

exploitation occurs, and the few koalas

going to zoos for research and

educational display do so under permits

with conditions that are highly

restrictive. AZA notes that while habitat

loss has been extensive, the

Commonwealth and each State have

their own management plans to reverse

that trend. We concur with the AZA

comments that koalas do not face the

same magnitude of threats throughout

Australia. The criteria for a threatened

species, however, is one that is likely to

become endangered throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

What Were the Substantive Comments

of Those Who Favored Listing the Koala

as Threatened?

Ms. Valerie Thompson, North

American Koala Population Manager for

the AZA, expressed support for listing

the koala as threatened. She based her

view on field expeditions mapping

koala habitat in conjunction with the

Australia Koala Foundation. She also

submitted letters from other AZA

member institutions, responses to a

packet of information on the listing that

she had sent out as an Executive

Committee member of the Marsupial

and Monotreme Taxon Advisory Group.

She concluded the AZA did not have a

consensus on the koala listing and

included letters from institutions and

scientists in which nine favored listing,

four opposed, and two abstained. The

letters included with Ms. Thompson’s

submission reflected divergent views of

the status of koala within the zoo

community in the United States, as was

evident from the submissions of the

scientists in Australia. To list a species,

we must determine it meets the criteria

based on information from scientists

surveying koalas and their habitat.

Mr. Michael Kennedy, Director of

Humane Society International (HSI),

reiterated support for the listing of the

koala as threatened. He stated that

habitat clearance, particularly in the

States of New South Wales and

Queensland, is the greatest threat to

koala survival. HSI reviewed the

legislative actions taken since the

previous comment period. Nominations

were submitted under the national

ESPA 1992 to list the koala as

‘‘vulnerable’’ and ‘‘endangered’’ by

different conservation groups; both of

these nominations were denied, though

some of the scientists evaluating the

proposals favored them. In New South

Wales, where four koala populations

were nominated as ‘‘endangered’’ under

the New South Wales TSC Act, 1995,

HSI noted that only one of the

nominations was successful. In 1996,

the Australian Government published

the first National State of the

Environment Australia. The document

concluded that the ‘‘greatest pressures

on biodiversity come from demands on

natural resources by increasing

populations of humans, their affluence

and their technology.* * * Habitat

modification, has been and remains, the

most significant cause of loss of

biodiversity.’’ The HSI letter stated that

the Endangered Species Scientific

Subcommittee (ESSS) recommended

that vegetation clearance be recognized

as a key threatening process as

nominated by HSI. The Federal Minister

for the Environment rejected the ESSS

recommendation on legal but not

biological grounds.

Ms. Deborah Tarbart, Executive

Director of the Australia Koala

Foundation (AKF), provided additional

information on behalf of the foundation

supporting the listing of the koala. The

AKF has been actively adding areas to

the Koala Habitat Atlas, and three of

those areas were included as appendices

with the submission. They demonstrate

that a small percentage of primary koala

habitat remains in particular areas that

are associated with koalas. The AKF

believes that overpopulation of koalas in

some areas of Victoria and South

Australia misdirects the debate, as they

are atypical populations in isolated

habitats.

The AKF submission also included

papers on population trends and

genetics of koalas presented at the

Society for Conservation Biology

meeting in Sydney, Australia, in 1998,

and submitted for publication in the

journal of that society. ‘‘Population

trends and the conservation debate—

issues affecting the conservation of

koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in

Australia’’ (Phillips 1998) provides

demographic trends over several

decades in three koala populations.

Studies use different assessment

methods; a covariance analysis shows

that any differences in the slope of

decline in the three areas are

statistically not significantly different.

The paper concludes that, because of

the uncertainty inherent in population

estimates and demographic trends,

precautionary principles should be

applied in conferring conservation

status to species such as the koala.

The AKF appendixes also include an

abstract and an unpublished review of

koala genetics that have particular

pertinence in determining whether State

populations can be considered valid

subspecies. They suggest that the view

of koala subspecies is changing with

new molecular data, and that

information was important in the later

discussion of subspecies as significant

vertebrate population segments. The

genetics review also provided a better

understanding of the chlamydia that

affects most koala populations. DNA

analysis showed that the chlamydia

species infecting koalas most commonly

is Chlamydia pecorum, which also

causes infections in domestic livestock

(Glassick et al. 1966).

Ms. Julie Zyzniewski, President of the

Koala Council in Queensland, wrote

that, while the State and local

governments have adopted some

measures to stabilize the population in

southeast Queensland, habitat

destruction in the rest of the State and

elsewhere in Australia had worsened.

The Koala Council therefore strongly

supports listing in the belief that it will

provide moral support for communitybased organizations such as the Koala

Council.

Ms. Donna Hart and Dr. Ron

Orenstein of the International Wildlife

Coalition, based in the United States

and Canada, reiterated their support of

the listing. They maintained that the

decline in eucalyptus-dominated

woodland in southeastern Australia

continues, and the policies of the many

Australian jurisdictions appear to be

aimed at accelerating this decline rather

than halting it. As this is not true of all

areas, IWC would favor a State-by-State

listing.

Dr. Frank N. Carrick of the University

of Queensland makes several points in

support of the listing proposal.

Queensland is the only State where the

koala can be ‘‘considered to approach a

natural condition in terms of number,

distributional range and genetic and

demographic integrity.’’ The State also

has one of the world’s highest rates of

clearing of native vegetation. Moreover,

the riparian or coastal and lower

altitude forests favored by koalas are the

forests most extensively destroyed and

fragmented for agriculture, grazing,

intensive forestry, and residential

development. The high-density koala

population in southeastern

Queensland—which Dr. Carrick sees as

having a vital role in the survival of the

species over evolutionary time—is the

area of fastest human population growth

in Australia. As for the ability of

government regulation to reverse these

trends, Dr. Carrick expressed the view

that the Queensland Nature

Conservation Act has inherent

deficiencies that have resulted in the

26766 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

downgrading of the classification of the

koala from ‘‘permanently protected’’ to

the ‘‘common fauna’’ category.

We concur that the State with the

most robust koala population in

Australia also has the population at

most serious risk. While we recognize

that the Queensland government has

enacted a State Planning Policy (SPP1/

95) to control land allocation processes

that are threatening koala populations, it

will take years of monitoring to

determine whether the Policy has been

effective and the trend has been

reversed in Queensland.

Dr. Tony Norton, Royal Melbourne

Institute of Technology, commented

primarily on the forestry assessments

that have been undertaken since the

proposed listing. These assessments will

serve as a basis for setting new

guidelines for land allocation, forest

management, and forestry sawlog and

woodchip quotas over the next 20 years.

Dr. Norton found that none of the

assessments that have been completed

so far have delivered their intended

goals of a world class forest

conservation reserve system or world

class forest management practices and

concludes that the habitat of the koala

in the wild is endangered. He therefore

reasserted his support for the listing to

force Australian governments to meet

both national and international

commitments from the preservation of

the country’s biodiversity.

Mr. Robert Bertram of the South East

Forests Conservation Council provided

thorough documentation of the demise

of the koala population in one part of

New South Wales. At present 39 percent

of the high-quality koala habitat in the

area is reserved in National Parks, and

resource agreements prevent reducing

the intensity of current logging

operations in the remainder of the

quality habitat. Claiming that the

government has demonstrated disregard

for the known science and the

precautionary principle in making landuse decisions, the Council gave its view

that the situation of the koala in the

region and across New South Wales on

public land is uncertain at best.

Mr. D.J. Schubert writing on behalf of

the original petitioners (AFA and FFA)

expressed frustration with the delay in

publishing the proposed rule from the

petition submitted in May 1994. The

AFA and FFA contend that conditions

have only declined further since their

earlier comments and that the koala

now merits endangered status

throughout its range. They concur with

other comments that most of the habitat

destruction is the result of timber,

agriculture, mining, and development.

Most of the clearing of eucalypt forests

is for the export woodchip markets. The

submission also points out that the

Australian Government has redefined

the forest to include woodlands,

plantations, and other areas not

regarded as native forest. The effect has

been to increase the amount of land

considered forest in Australia from 41 to

157 million hectares (Dovers et al.

1996). The AFA–FFA submission

documents the development of the

RFAs in Victoria, where the process has

proceeded faster than in other States,

and maintains that the new assessment

provides ‘‘virtually no benefit’’ for the

koala and its habitat. Given the

specificity of the food and habitat

requirements of the koala, inclusion of

additional areas as RFAs may give an

artificially high estimate of the land area

that constitutes potential koala habitat.

Why Should We Consider the Koala, a

Species That Is Not Native to the United

States and That Is Only Rarely

Imported To Be Displayed in Zoos, for

Listing Under the ESA?

This question is one that people asked

in letters from the Government of

Australia as well as the States within

the country. As the koala does not

naturally cross national boundaries and

is not in legal international commercial

trade, why should we take the

considerable time to consider the

species as threatened?

The ESA is not restricted to species

native to the United States, or those

subject to international trade. The Act

considers national boundaries, but

makes that consideration secondary to

the concern for the survival of species.

The Act obligates us to make a

determination in response to a petition.

As for the priority of such foreign

species, with so many other important

priorities in international wildlife

conservation, we have proceeded

deliberately with the listing process,

sometimes to the dismay of the

petitioners. We have found that, during

listing consideration, with its

requirements for public comment and

consideration of those comments in

developing a final decision, sometimes

important strides have been made by the

countries in the conservation measures

that have been developed or enforced.

In such cases, the ESA provides an

important conservation benefit.

Given That Koalas Occur Over Most of

Their Historic Range and Are

Overpopulated in Some Areas, How

Can the Species Be Considered

Threatened?

While no agreement exists on an

estimate of the number of koalas in

Australia, most scientists concur that

the species is still widespread. Neither

the petitioners nor the Australian

Nature Conservation Agency (Phillips

1990) attempted to provide a total

estimate of current koala numbers in

Australia. Other parties have suggested

overall numbers ranging from about

40,000 to 400,000, with the Australian

Koala Foundation supporting the lower

figure. In their comments on the

petition, Drs. Martin and Handasyde

indicated that there probably are tens of

thousands of koalas at each of several

study sites in Victoria alone.

As we pointed out in the proposed

rule, the actual number of koalas that

were present at various times in the past

and that may still exist is of much

interest and helps to give some

perspective but, as for many species,

may not be the critical factor in

determining whether the species is

threatened. A low figure may reflect

natural rarity of a population in

marginal habitats. A high figure may be

misleading if the entire habitat of the

involved population faces imminent

destruction.

In this instance, a significant amount

of the remaining koala habitat will be

lost in the near future if the current

trend of land clearance is not reversed.

As koalas still exist in many of these

areas, if land use measures are carried

out to preserve the habitat that supports

koalas and many other species, robust

populations can be maintained. Such

land use policies have been proposed in

some States.

Given the Different Laws Under Which

They Are Managed, Why Don’t We

Consider the Koala for Listing on a

State-by-State Basis?

We recognize the objections of the

Australian Government, Australian

State governments, and others to a

blanket listing of the koala throughout

its range. In the proposed rule, we stated

that, if we received strong biological

arguments, we would consider giving

separate consideration to particular

populations. It should be recognized,

however, that koalas cannot be

considered separate populations solely

because they reside in different State

jurisdictions.

Our February 7, 1996, Policy

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct

Vertebrate Population Segments Under

the Endangered Species Act (61 FR

4722) establishes that, while

international government boundaries

with differences in management do

qualify as discrete populations, political

boundaries within countries do not. We

do not specify significant populations

solely by State in the United States, and

we cannot do this in Australia.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26767

However, three subspecies of koalas

are currently recognized based on

morphological differences in skins and

skulls. The koala in northern

Queensland (Phascolarctos cinereus

adustus) is described as smaller and

having a more reddish fur than the

animals from New South Wales (P.c.

cinereus), while the subspecies native to

Victoria and South Australia (P.c. victor)

is larger than the koalas of New South

Wales, with a more uniformly brown

coat color. The subspecies boundaries

have been equated with the State

borders, although there are no major

geographical barriers separating the

States of Queensland, New South Wales

and Victoria. Scientists suggest that

these differences represent variation

along a cline and reflect adaptation to

climate differences over the extensive

range of the species. (Lee and Martin,

1988). What was necessary in this case

was to determine whether these

subspecies represent evolutionarily

significant units—a geographically

discrete set of historical populations

(Ryder, 1986) that coincided with state

borders.

Do the Three Koala Subspecies Qualify

as Distinct Vertebrate Population

Segments?

Our Policy Regarding the Recognition

of Distinct Vertebrate Population

Segments Under the Endangered

Species Act (61 FR 4722) requires that

a population meet the dual criteria of

discreteness and significance. In

evaluating whether the koala subspecies

meet the discreteness criterion, we

reviewed a recently published study in

which Australian scientists addressed

this question (Houlden et al. 1999). A

recent study of koala mitochondrial

DNA from 200 koalas in 16 populations

across their range showed that, while

there are significant differences between

local populations, those differences are

not reflected in further differentiation

consistent with the current subspecies

designations. The authors conclude:

‘‘There was no support for a delineation

between the P.c. cinereus and the P.c.

victor subspecies. In addition, there is

evidence to the contrary for the

delineation between the P.c. adustus

and P.c. cinereus at the Queensland

/New South Wales border.’’

This conclusion is supported by

recent genetic analyses of captive koalas

as well (Takami, 1998). The current

subspecies, dividing populations at

State borders, do not constitute

evolutionarily significant units nor do

they meet the criteria for discrete

vertebrate population segments.

While using the subspecies taxonomy

may have been expedient, given the

difference in management between

States, we agree with views expressed

by the scientists in Australia that

‘‘clearly the existing subspecific

taxonomic classification of koalas may

not adequately reflect actual levels of

genetic diversity, and conservation

priorities set on the basis of the

currently recognized subspecies may be

deficient’’ (Sherwin et al. 1998).

Therefore, we cannot separate koala

subspecies into distinct vertebrate

population segments for purposes of

listing under the Act.

What Is the Status of the Koala in

Regard to the Five ESA Listing Factors?

Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA and

regulations (50 CFR part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act set forth the

procedures for adding species to the

Federal lists. A species may be

determined to be endangered or

threatened due to one or more of the

following factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the koala (Phascolarctos

cinereus) are as follows.

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

The known historical range of the

koala covered an extensive band of

forest and woodland in eastern and

central Queensland, eastern New South

Wales, most of Victoria, and extreme

southeastern South Australia. The

government, the petitioners, and

independent scientific authorities agree

that the primary cause of the decline of

the koala is destruction of its habitat.

This situation is exacerbated by the

species’ high degree of specialization.

Koalas favor particular species of

eucalyptus, and populations tend to be

concentrated at certain favorable sites.

The reproductive rate is relatively low,

the maturity rate is slow, and many of

the young must disperse.

With human disruption of suitable

eucalyptus forests and woodlands, the

koala has disappeared from much of its

original range. In designating the koala

as ‘‘potentially vulnerable,’’ the IUCN/

SSC Australasian Marsupial and

Monotreme Specialist Group noted that

the geographic range of the species had

declined by 50 to 90 percent (Kennedy

1992).

A publication of the Australian

Nature Conservation Agency (Phillips

1990) contains the following statement:

‘‘The expansive forests where koalas

once lived * * * have largely gone and

those which remain are rapidly

disappearing to make way for the needs

of human society.’’ The publication

cited a 1984 report by the Australian

Commonwealth Scientific and

Industrial Research Organization

(CSIRO) indicating that the total area of

medium-to-tall trees in the four States

inhabited by the koala is estimated to

originally have been just over 1,230,000

square kilometers (km2) [475,000 square

miles (mi2)], but that just over half of

those forests, 670,000 km2 (259,000

mi2), had been removed or severely

modified.

The petitioners and several of those

who commented provided details on the

continued habitat loss and modification.

This problem is caused mainly by

commercial logging, clearing for

agriculture and urbanization, as well as

disease and extensive dieback of the

trees on which the koala depends. The

problem is not only removal of the large

eucalyptus trees used for food and

shelter, but also elimination of vegetated

dispersal routes, erosion, siltation of

water sources, fragmentation through

development of road networks, and

other factors detrimental to maintenance

of viable koala populations. Based on

data compiled in the same 1984 CSIRO

report cited above, the petitioners

calculated the loss of forest during the

past 200 years at 43–52 percent in

Queensland, 60–80 percent in New

South Wales, 59–75 percent in Victoria,

and 79–100 percent in South Australia.

An additional government report in

1992 estimated that 60 percent of the

remaining forests in Australia are

composed of eucalyptus, but that only

18 percent of these areas are unmodified

by logging.

Subsequent to receipt of the petition,

the Australian Department of the

Environment, Sport and Territories

issued two new pertinent reports

(Glanznig 1995; Graetz et al. 1995).

These documents indicate that the

primary habitat utilized by the koala

originally covered as much as 1,400,000

km2 (540,000 mi2), but that about

890,000 km2 (340,000 mi2), or

approximately 63 percent, now has been

cleared or thinned. Those figures may

well be excessive, as the koala was not

uniformly distributed throughout the

involved region and tended to

concentrate in certain favorable areas.

In any case, the new reports support

the percentages of forest loss cited above

for each of the States involved. Perhaps

most significantly, such land clearance

is not a phenomenon of the past but is

continuing and even intensifying. The

estimated annual average amount of

land cleared in Queensland, New South

Wales, and Victoria from 1983 to 1993

was approximately 4,600 km2 (1,800

mi2). Estimates for some recent years are

approximately twice as great. Glanznig

26768 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(1995) pointed out that the amount of

native vegetation cleared in Australia in

1990 was more than half that cleared in

Brazilian Amazonia.

Not all of the clearing in Queensland,

New South Wales, and Victoria is in

koala habitat, and some of the clearing

involves reclearing of secondary growth;

nonetheless, a 1993 estimate cited by

the petitioners indicates that, if the

current rate of deforestation continues,

Australia’s forests would be eliminated

in less than 250 years. Much of the

forest loss is associated with the

production of woodchips, mainly for

exportation to paper mills in Japan.

Therefore, we find that the koala is

threatened in a significant portion of its

range due to the present and threatened

destruction, modification, and

curtailment of its habitat.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Koala populations were devastated by

the commercial fur trade. Populations

may have fluctuated considerably

through the 19th century in association

with such factors as disease and the

intensity of aboriginal hunting. It does

seem evident, however, that in the early

20th century, the number of koalas in

Australia was well into the millions.

Such a figure is based on the number of

koalas killed for the commercial fur

market during that period. In some

years, the number of koalas taken may

have exceeded 2,000,000, and, as late as

1927, 600,000 to 1,000,000 were killed

in Queensland alone. This destruction,

possibly along with a Chlamydia

epidemic (Phillips 1990), may have

reduced koala numbers to just a few

thousand. Subsequent conservation

efforts, termination of the fur trade, and

reintroduction apparently led to a

partial recovery by the mid-20th

century.

Today overutilization is not a

problem. Although some animals

reportedly are illegally hunted, and a

few koalas are exported to zoos for

educational purposes, we conclude that

overutilization is not a factor

threatening the survival of the species.

C. Disease or Predation

Experts have been concerned about

the effects of the bacterium Chlamydia,

which is known to occur in most koala

populations. This disease-causing

organism manifests itself in several

ways, but especially through infections

of the eyes and urinary tract. It

apparently has long been associated

with the koala and may have been

responsible for devastating epidemics in

the late 19th and early 20th centuries

(Phillips 1990). Genetics research has

shown that at least two species of

Chlamydia infect koalas (Glassick et al.

1996). Chlamydia pecorum causes most

of the reproductive tract disease in

koalas, and this species also causes

infections in domestic livestock

(Jackson et al. 1997). The adverse effects

of the disease are intensified through

the stress caused by habitat loss and

fragmentation. Chlamydia is widespread

in mainland koala populations and

evidently was responsible for recent

declines at some localities, but it is not

claimed to be an immediate threat to the

overall survival of the species. In some

areas, introduced koala populations that

are Chlamydia-free show a higher

reproductive rate requiring management

to avoid overbrowsing of critical tree

species. The koala is also subject to

various other diseases and, particularly

in areas of rapid development, is subject

to predation and harassment by

domestic dogs and other introduced

animals. While disease and predation

are exacerbating factors, they would not,

in the absence of other factors, cause

any koala population to be threatened.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

Although State laws generally protect

the koala from direct taking and

commercial utilization, much of the

petitioners’ argument is based on a lack

of regulatory mechanisms that

adequately protect the habitat of the

species. Although a significant portion

of the koala’s remaining habitat is on

government land, such ownership does

not preclude logging and other

modification. Researchers have

particular concern that deforestation for

the woodchip market is proceeding

without proper assessment of

environmental impacts. Even if such

impacts were taken into account, the

petitioners argue the welfare of the

koala would not be given adequate

attention because the species is not

listed pursuant to Australia’s ESPA. We

can look at the situation of the koala in

each State to determine the adequacy of

the current regulations.

Though the koalas of Queensland are

the smallest in size, the State has the

largest koala population, and the most

remaining koala habitat of the States.

Queensland also has one of the highest

rates of clearing of native vegetation.

Under the National Forestry Policy, the

rate of clearfelling continues to be high

on private lands. According to the 1996

assessment of the Australian and New

Zealand Environment and Conservation

Research Council, the koala population

is stable in some areas, thinly scattered

in many others, and in steep decline in

some coastal areas. A consensus exists

that the population overall is declining

at different rates depending largely on

the degree of development. The

situation is particularly critical in

southeast Queensland, where

urbanization threatens the still

substantial koala population. Despite

legislation that includes the Nature

Conservation Act 1992 and the State

Planning Policy 1995, the major threat

is poor habitat protection for most of the

koala population.

In New South Wales, koalas were

once abundant throughout the eastern

half of the State and driven to near

extirpation by the 1920s. The State

government estimates that the

population recovered to 5,000–10,000

by the 1970s, with the largest and most

secure population in the northwest part

of the State. The State government also

is concerned that continued habitat

fragmentation could lead to local

extinctions. For that reason, the koala

was listed as a vulnerable species under

the NSW Endangered Fauna (Interim

Protection) Act, 1991. When that law

was replaced by the Threatened Species

Conservation Act, 1995, the koala

continued to be designated as

vulnerable by the independent

Scientific Committee created with the

new legislation. The New South Wales

Scientific Committee recently decided

that the Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens

koalas meet the criteria of an

endangered population.

Koalas are native to the Australia

Capital Territory, although they were

very rare by 1901. Currently the

population is small and likely the

descendants of several introductions

from Victoria. Almost all of the koalas

in Victoria represent the success of

reintroduction efforts, as the species

was extirpated in the State by the early

1900s, with the exception of three

remnant populations (Lewis, 1934).

Koalas were introduced to Phillip and

French Islands by the 1890s, and it is

from translocations of these

populations, which began to overcrowd

their island habitats, that the present

population largely descends.

As reported in the review of previous

comments, substantial disagreement

exists on the actual numbers of koalas

and their densities in some sites where

they are abundant. In their submission,

the Department of Natural Resources

and Environment reports that

population censuses indicate that

densities of 0.5–1 animal per ha are not

uncommon, and they supported that

contention with recent data from three

sites where over-browsing is occurring.

The Department has recently conducted

statewide vegetation mapping and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26769

concluded that although 60 percent of

koala habitat has been lost since

European settlement, 5.2 million ha

remain. If there is 1 koala per 100 ha in

these habitats, the Department estimates

a total population of at least 52,000

koalas.

There has been criticism of this

extrapolation approach to koala

population estimation, particularly as

they assume habitat homogeneity over

broad geographic areas. (Phillips, 1998).

The AKF submission specifically cites

the Strathbogie Ranges in Victoria to

illustrate the high degree of uncertainty

associated with the koala population

estimation. Using an alternative

estimation method of modeling

population growth, Phillips (1998) gives

an estimate of 5,000 for the area, an

order magnitude lower than earlier

estimates (Martin submitted to USFWS

1995).

We cannot resolve the wide

discrepancy in estimates of the koalas in

Victoria, and the underlying assumption

of the carrying capacity of certain

habitat type in the State. We do

recognize that a continuous

translocation program, while necessary

to avoid ecological degradation of some

plant communities, is not the best

solution. The government of Victoria

recognizes this as well and is taking

further steps in its Biodiversity Strategy

to reverse the decline of native

vegetation by 2001. Victoria has

managed its koala population to relative

stability, albeit through intensive

management.

At the time of European settlement,

koalas occurred only in southeast South

Australia, and by the 1930s they were

considered extinct in the State. South

Australia’s present koala population is

primarily in five localities and is the

result of introductions from other States

in Australia. Because these

introductions come from disparate

provenances and are relatively recent,

the population in South Australia

should not be considered a single

subspecies. The population in the

southeast of the State, the area where

there were koalas at the time of

European settlement, is the least stable,

and additional reintroductions are

planned. In contrast, on Kangaroo Island

high koala density has led to the

sustained overbrowsing on preferred

food species. In 1998, 2,500 koalas on

Kangaroo Island were sterilized and 850

were relocated to the southeast part of

the State.

Land use practices vary enormously

in different States, and they are

currently undergoing evaluation and

change in many jurisdictions. We

conclude that the inadequacy of present

regulations over a significant portion of

the species’ range is a factor in

designating the koala as threatened.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

The petition and other sources

indicate a number of additional

problems confronting the koala. Perhaps

most important from a long-term

perspective is a loss of genetic variation

resulting from fragmentation of habitat.

Koalas show low levels of variation as

measured at the protein and DNA levels.

The genetic differentiation of isolated

koala populations is becoming apparent,

and in combination with high site

philopatry and the species response to

translocation, greatly increases the

likelihood of inbreeding. This problem

is further extenuated in populations that

were founded from koalas that were

maintained in a semi-natural

environment on offshore islands. Lack

of genetic variability could increase

susceptibility to disease and other

problems, particularly those resulting

from rapidly changing Australian

environments. Additional factors such

as the increase in wildfires, attacks by

domestic dogs, and automobile

accidents all pose secondary threats that

are the outcome of koala habitat decline.

What Are the Available Conservation

Measures as a Result of This Listing?

Although habitat loss was a crucial

factor in the determination that the

koala is threatened, specific critical

habitat is not being proposed, as its

designation is not applicable to foreign

species.

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the ESA include

recognition, international cooperation,

recovery actions, requirements for

Federal protection, and prohibitions

against certain activities. Recognition

through listing encourages conservation

measures by Federal, international, and

private agencies, groups, and

individuals.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,

and as implemented by regulations at 50

CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies

to evaluate their actions that are to be

conducted within the United States or

on the high seas with respect to any

species that is proposed or listed as

endangered or threatened and with

respect to its proposed or designated

critical habitat (if any). Section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a listed species

or to destroy or adversely modify its

critical habitat. If a proposed Federal

action may affect a listed species, the

responsible Federal agency must enter

into formal consultation with the

Service. We are not aware of such

actions with respect to the species

covered by this proposal, except as may

apply to importation permit procedures.

Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the

provision of limited financial assistance

for the development and management of

programs that the Secretary of the

Interior determines to be necessary or

useful for the conservation of

endangered and threatened species in

foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c)

of the Act authorize the Secretary to

encourage conservation programs for

foreign endangered and threatened

species and to provide assistance for

such programs in the form of personnel

and the training of personnel.

Section 9 of the Act, and

implementing regulations found at 50

CFR 17.21 and 17.31, set forth a series

of general prohibitions and exceptions

that apply to all threatened wildlife.

These prohibitions, in part, make it

illegal for any person subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States to take,

import or export, ship in interstate

commerce in the course of commercial

activity, or sell or offer for sale in

interstate or foreign commerce any

threatened wildlife. It also is illegal to

possess, sell, deliver, transport, or ship

any such wildlife that has been taken in

violation of the Act. Certain exceptions

apply to agents of the Service and State

conservation agencies.

We may issue permits to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered and threatened

wildlife under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are

codified at 50 CFR 17.22, 17.23, and

17.32. Permits are available for scientific

purposes, to enhance propagation or

survival, or for incidental take in

connection with otherwise lawful

activities. These permits must also be

consistent with the purposes and policy

of the Act as required by Section 10(d).

For threatened species, we may also

issue permits for zoological exhibition,

educational purposes, or special

purposes consistent with the purposes

of the Act.

Our policy, published in the Federal

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272),

is to identify to the maximum extent

practicable at the time a species is listed

those activities that would or would not

constitute a violation of section 9 of the

Act. The intent of this policy is to

increase public awareness of the effects

of this listing on proposed or ongoing

activities involving the species.

Importations into and exportations from

the United States, and interstate and

26770 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

foreign commerce, of koalas (including

tissues, parts, and products) from New

South Wales and Queensland without a

threatened species permit would be

prohibited. Koalas removed from the

wild or born in captivity prior to the

date the species is listed under the Act

would be considered ‘‘pre-Act’’ and

would not require permits unless they

enter commerce. When a specimen is

sold or offered for sale, it loses its preAct status. Currently, 10 zoological

institutions in the United States hold

koalas. You can direct questions

regarding permit requirements for U.S.

activities to the Office of Management

Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room

700, Arlington, Virginia 22203 (1–800–

358–2104).

Listing Priority Guidance

The processing of this final rule

conforms with our Listing Priority

Guidance published in the Federal

Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR

57114). The guidance clarifies the order

in which we will process rulemakings.

Highest priority is processing

emergency listing rules for any species

determined to face a significant and

imminent risk to its well-being (Priority

1). Second priority (Priority 2) is

processing final determinations on

proposed additions to the lists of

endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants. Third priority is processing new

proposals to add species to the lists. The

processing of administrative petition

findings (Petitions filed under section 4

of the Act) is the fourth priority. This

final rule is a Priority 2 action and is

being completed in accordance with the

current Listing Priority Guidance.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that we do not

need to prepare an Environmental

Assessment, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, in connection with

regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as

amended. We published a notice

outlining our reasons for this

determination in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This rule does not require collection

of information that requires approval by

the Office of Management and Budget

under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An

information collection related to the

rule pertaining to permits for

endangered and threatened species has

OMB approval and is assigned clearance

number 1018–0094. 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.

This rule does not alter that information

collection requirement.

References Cited

Dovers, S.R., T.W. Norton and J.W. Handmer.

1996. Uncertainty, ecology,

sustainability and policy. Biodiversity

Conservation. 5:1143–1167.

Glanznig, Andreas. 1995. Native Vegetation

Clearance, Habitat Loss and Biodiversity

Decline. An Overview of Recent Native

Vegetation Clearance in Australia and Its

Implications for Biodiversity. Australian

Department of the Environment, Sport

and Territories, Biodiversity Series,

Paper No. 6, 46 pp.

Glassick, T., P. Giffard, and P. Timms. 1996.

Outer membrane protein 2 gene

sequences indicate that Chlamydia

pecorum and Chlamydia pneumoniae

cause infections in koalas. Systematic

and Applied Microbiology 19:457–464.

Graetz, R.D., M.A. Wilson, and S.K.

Campbell. 1995. Landcover Disturbance

Over the Australian Continent. A

Contemporary Assessment. Australian

Department of the Environment, Sport

and Territories, Biodiversity Series,

Paper No. 7, 86 pp.

Houlden, B.A., B.H. Costello, D. Sharkey,

E.V. Fowler, A. Melzer, W. Ellis, F.

Carrick, P.R. Baverstock, M.S.

Elphinstone. 1999. Phylogeographic

differentiation in the mitochondrial

control region in the koala, Phascolarctos

cinereus (Goldfuss, 1817) Molecular

Ecology 8:999–1011.

IUCN 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN

Gland Switzerland.

Jackson, M.P. Giffard and P. Timms. 1997

Outer Membrane Protein A Gene

Sequencing Demonstrates the

Polyphyletic Nature of Koala Chlamydia

pecorum isolates. Systematic and

Applied Microbiology 20: 187–200.

Kennedy, M. 1992. Australian Marsupials

and Monotremes. An Action Plan for

their Conservation. World Conservation

Union, Species Survival Commission,

Australasian Marsupial and Monotreme

Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland,

103 pp.

Lee, A. and R. Martin, 1988. The koala: a

natural history. Australia Natural History

Series. New South Wales University

Press, Sydney, Australia.

Lewis, F. 1934. The koala in Victoria.

Victorian Naturalist 51:73–76

Melzer, A., F. Carrick and P. Menkorst. 1998.

Koala distribution and abundance: an

overview, critical assessment, and

conservation implications. Presented at

the annual meeting Society for

Conservation Biology, in Sydney,

Australia, July, 1998. Submitted to

Conservation Biology.

Phillips, S. 1998. Population trends and the

conservation debate—issue affecting the

conservation of koalas (Phascolarctos

cinereus) in Australia. Presented meeting

at the Society for Conservation Biology

in Sydney, Australia, July, 1998.

Submitted to Conservation Biology.

Phillips, B. 1990. Koalas—the little

Australians we’d all hate to lose.

Australian National Parks and Wildlife

Service (now Australian Nature

Conservation Agency), Australian

Government Publishing Service,

Canberra, 104 pp.

Ryder, O.A. 1986. Species conservation and

systematic: the dilemma of subspecies.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 1:9–10.

Sherwin, W., P. Timms and B. Houlden.

1998. Genetics of Koalas: an Analysis

and conservation implications. Presented

at the annual meeting of the Society for

Conservation Biology in Sydney,

Australia, July, 1998. Submitted to

Conservation Biology.

Takami, K., M. Yoshida, Y. Yamomoto, M.

Harada, and J. Furuyama. 1998. Genetic

variation of mitochondrial cytochrome b

genes among the subspecies of koala,

Phascolarctos cinereus. Journal of

Veterinary Medical Science, 60:1161–

1163.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding the

following, in alphabetical order under

MAMMALS, to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26771

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

MAMMALS

*******

Koala ........................ Phascolarctos

cinereus.

Australia .................. Australia .................. T 698 NA NA

*******

Dated: April 25, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–11507 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U