[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 183 (Tuesday, September 22, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50547-50552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-25267]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE43


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Determination of Threatened Status for the Koala

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: The Service proposes to determine threatened status for the 
Australian koala. The eucalyptus forest and woodland ecosystem, on 
which this arboreal marsupial depends, has been reduced by more than 
half and is continuing to deteriorate. The species also is threatened 
by habitat fragmentation and consequent potential loss of genetic 
viability, disease, and various other factors. The Service seeks 
relevant data and comments from the public. This proposal incorporates 
a finding that a petition requesting the listing of the koala is 
warranted. This proposal, if made final, would extend the Act's 
protection to this species.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 21, 1998. Public hearing 
requests must be received by November 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments, information, and questions should be submitted to 
the Chief, Office of Scientific Authority; Room 750, 4401 North Fairfax 
Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203 (fax 703-358-2276). Comments and 
materials received will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at 
this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, Chief, Office 
of Scientific Authority, at the above address (phone 703-358-1708).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 50548]]

Background

    The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) is a bearlike arboreal mammal of 
Australia. It has a compact body, large head and nose, large and furry 
ears, powerful limbs, and no significant tail; weight is about 4-15 
kilograms (10-35 pounds). The koala is a marsupial, being more closely 
related to kangaroos and possums than to true bears and other placental 
mammals; its young is carried in a pouch for about 6 months. It occurs 
mainly 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, and received by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service) on May 5, 1994, Australians for Animals (in 
Australia) and the Fund for Animals (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 was accompanied by 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, it 
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.
    In the Federal Register of October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50557-50558), the 
Service announced the 90-day finding that the petition had presented 
substantial information indicating that the requested action may be 
warranted. That notice also initiated a status review of the koala. In 
the Federal Register of February 15, 1995 (60 FR 8620), the comment 
period on the status review was reopened until April 1, 1995. A 
telegram was sent to the U.S. embassy in Australia, asking that 
appropriate authorities be notified and asked to comment. Notice of the 
review also was provided directly to numerous concerned organizations 
and authorities. Of the approximately 400 responses received, the great 
majority were brief messages in support of listing, but there also were 
several from persons or organizations providing substantive comments 
based on first-hand familiarity with the situation.
    Mr. Peter Bridgewater, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian 
Nature Conservation Agency (this government entity, formerly the 
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, is now referred to as 
Biodiverstiy Group within Environment Australia), expressed opposition 
to the addition of the koala to the U.S. List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife. He noted that the species had not been classified 
pursuant to Australia's own Federal Endangered Species Protection Act, 
that it is protected by the legislation of the states in which it 
occurs, that it is not involved in trade and its exportation is 
strictly limited, and that a task force is being established to review 
progress of koala management programs and promote greater national 
coordination of koala conservation. He did not think that a U.S. 
listing would be of any benefit to the species. He did not discuss the 
issue of long-term habitat loss and fragmentation, but did submit a 
document (Phillips 1990) from his agency covering that and other 
problems.
    Mr. Allan Holmes, Director, Natural Resources Group, South 
Australia Department of Environment and Natural Resources, also opposed 
U.S. listing. He indicated that, while there has been some adverse 
habitat modification, introduction programs have actually resulted in a 
greater range for the koala in South Australia now than prior to 
European settlement.
    Ms. Joan M. Dixon, a member of the Australasian Marsupial and 
Monotreme Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union Species 
Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC), stated that while various koala 
populations are experiencing problems, the species in general does not 
warrant U.S. classification.
    Dr. Roger Martin of Monash University, a wildlife biologist with 
extensive field experience on the koala, urged rejection of the 
petition. He considered that strenuous conservation efforts have led to 
a recovery of the species in Victoria, with populations far more 
abundant than suggested by the petition. Large and thriving colonies 
were reported to exist at several closely monitored study sites in 
Victoria. Some observations also suggested much larger populations in 
Queensland than had been previously indicated.
    Dr. Kath Handasyde of the University of Melbourne, another 
biologist with considerable field and writing experience regarding the 
koala, essentially supported the comments of Dr. Martin and opposed 
listing of the species.
    Dr. Greg Gordon, a zoologist who has long been involved in koala 
research and conservation in Queensland, commented that the koala is 
still relatively numerous in some areas and probably would not qualify 
at present for classification as endangered or vulnerable by the World 
Conservation Union (IUCN), but is declining slowly because of habitat 
deterioration and, if suitable conservation measures are not 
undertaken, probably would become vulnerable in the future.
    The original petitioners, Australians for Animals and the U.S. Fund 
for Animals, submitted extensive new comments concentrating on long-
term environmental problems. There was emphasis on the international 
woodchip market, which was said to target the eucalyptus forests that 
are the primary habitat of the koala. Logging for that purpose, 
together with clearance for agriculture and development, evidently is 
proceeding throughout the general range of the koala and is even 
intensifying in some areas.
    Ms. Deborah Tabart, Executive Director of the Australian Koala 
Foundation, which has funded koala research and conservation for the 
past decade, supported the petition and provided some rather low 
population estimates for the species.
    Mr. Michael Kennedy, Director of the Humane Society International 
(Australia) and also Secretary of the IUCN/SSC Australasian Marsupial 
and Monotreme Specialist Group and Compiler of the Groups's Action Plan 
(Kennedy 1992), provided a summary of authoritative assessments of the 
status of the koala over the years suggesting that conditions are 
steadily deteriorating, especially because of habitat loss. He 
considered the requested action to be fully justified on biological 
grounds and that it may contribute significantly to the conservation of 
the species.
    Dr. Carmi G. Penny, Curator of Mammals for the Zoological Society 
of San Diego, which keeps a captive koala colony and maintains the 
North American regional studbook for the species, and which also has 
participated in associated field work in Australia, supported the 
petition, but indicated that listing may not have a strong influence in 
Australia. Dr. Penny noted that the range states must protect suitable 
habitat if the species is to remain viable in the wild.
    Ms. Celia Karp of the Logan City Council, Queensland, supported the 
petition, as based on the perspective of rapid urban growth in her 
area.
    Dr. Miles Roberts and Dr. Michael Hutchins, Co-Chairs of the 
Marsupial and Monotreme Advisory Group of the American Zoo and Aquarium 
Association, supported listing because

[[Page 50549]]

of numerous problems confronting the koala. They expressed the belief 
that koala populations have been decimated and fractionated to the 
point where the long-term survival of the species in the wild would be 
in question even if the problems were removed immediately.
    Section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as 
amended, requires that, within 12 months of receipt of a petition to 
list, delist, or reclassify a species, or to revise a critical habitat 
designation, a finding be made on whether the requested action is 
warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded from immediate 
proposal by other pending listing measures of higher priority. Such 
finding is to be promptly published.
    The Service has examined the data submitted by the petitioners and 
has consulted other authorities and available information. This review 
leads the Service to make the finding, hereby incorporated and 
published in this proposal, that the requested action is warranted, 
though the Service proposes to implement the action in a somewhat 
modified manner. Rather than divide the classification of the koala by 
state, as called for in the petition, the Service is proposing simply 
to classify the entire species as threatened. Other than the likelihood 
that Queensland still has a substantially larger area of koala habitat 
than do New South Wales and Victoria, there seems little substantive 
difference in the kinds of problems confronting the species. The 
Service's proposed approach also would avoid omitting coverage of the 
koala in South Australia, as well as of captive and introduced 
populations. However, it is emphasized that this issue remains open, 
that pertinent new information received during the comment period will 
be carefully reviewed, and that any final rule resulting from this 
proposal may classify the koala, or certain populations thereof, as 
endangered, may exclude certain populations from any classification, or 
may result in withdrawal of the proposal.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) 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 five 
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. Within this zone, the species evidently depended mainly on 
suitable tracts of certain kinds of medium-to-large eucalyptus trees 
for food and shelter. There is a high degree of specialization for 
feeding on particular species of eucalyptus, and populations tend to be 
concentrated at certain favorable sites. The reproductive rate is 
relatively low, not more than one young being produced annually per 
female. Maturity may require several years and many of the young then 
are forced to disperse.
    With human disruption of suitable eucalyptus forests and woodlands, 
there now seems little doubt that 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), submitted both by the petitioners and Mr. Bridgewater, 
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 provided additional details on the extent of 
habitat loss and modification. This problem, as caused mainly by 
commercial logging, clearing for agriculture and urbanization, and 
disease and extensive dieback (of the trees on which the koala depends) 
associated with direct modification, was considered to be the greatest 
threat to the species. The problem involves 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, two new pertinent reports 
were issued by the Australian Department of the Environment, Sport and 
Territories (Glanznig 1995; Graetz, Wilson, and Campbell 1995). These 
documents indicate that the primary kinds of 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, as well as others of original and remaining 
habitat, are probably 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. As an illustration of the intensity of this process in 
Australia, Glanznig (1995) pointed out that, in 1990, the amount of 
native vegetation cleared in the country 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 it 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.
    The actual number of koalas, or of any potentially endangered 
species, that may have been present at various times in the past and 
that may still exist, is of

[[Page 50550]]

much interest and helps to give some perspective, but may not be a 
critical factor in the over-all issue. A low figure may reflect natural 
rarity of a population in marginal habitat. A very high figure may be 
meaningless if the entire habitat of the involved population faces 
imminent destruction. In any event, there is much uncertainty about 
both historical and current koala numbers. Based on the sources cited, 
populations may have fluctuated considerably down 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 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 an 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 
in range and numbers by the mid-20th century.
    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 over-all 
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. Dr. Martin and Ms. Tabart of the Australian Koala Foundation 
were able to review some of the information submitted by each other and 
neither accepts the other's conclusions. In his comments, Dr. Gordon 
developed what he considers to be a very conservative estimate of about 
300,000, though he also noted that a slow decline is in progress.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes.

    As indicated above, koalas were devastated by the commercial fur 
trade in the early 20th century. This problem is no longer of immediate 
concern. Although some koalas reportedly are illegally hunted, 
overutilization is not considered as a factor threatening the survival 
of the species.

C. Disease or Predation.

    There has been much recent concern about the effects of the 
bacterium Chlamydia on the koala. This disease-causing organism may 
manifest 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). Information 
from both the petitioners and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency 
(Phillips 1990) indicates that 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 has been responsible for recent declines at some 
localities, but is not claimed to be an immediate threat to the over-
all survival of the species. The koala is also subject to various other 
diseases and to predation and harassment by domestic dogs and other 
introduced animals.

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. Much of the koala's remaining habitat is on government 
land, but such ownership does not preclude logging and other 
modification. There is 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, as noted in the comment from 
Mr. Bridgewater, is not listed pursuant to Australia's Federal 
Endangered Species Protection Act. The koala, however, is classified as 
a ``vulnerable and rare species'' on ``Schedule 12--Endangered Fauna,'' 
issued pursuant to the National Parks and Wildlife Act of New South 
Wales.

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 importantly from a long-
term perspective is a loss of genetic viability resulting both from 
fragmentation of habitat, which leads to inbreeding of the isolated 
animals remaining therein, and descent of many of the existing 
populations from colonies that were maintained in a semi-natural 
environment on offshore islands. Lack of genetic variability could 
increase susceptibility to disease and other problems. This point also 
was discussed above relative to the comment by Drs. Roberts and 
Hutchins.
    Other reported problems include fires (notably the destruction in 
1994 of 8,000 square kilometers (3,000 square miles) of New South 
Wales, much of which was koala habitat), droughts, harassment by dogs, 
and killing along the roads now penetrating habitat. The petition 
indicated that the largest population remaining in Queensland was 
immediately jeopardized by a major highway project that would bisect 
its habitat (efforts by the petitioners and other conservation 
organizations reportedly have since resulted in reconsideration of this 
project).
    The decision to propose threatened status for the koala is based on 
an assessment of the best available scientific information, and of 
past, present, and probable future threats to the species. The Service 
has examined the petition and supporting data, other available 
literature and information, and the comments received following the 90-
day finding. In now arriving at the required 1-year finding and 
consequent proposed rule, a key factor in consideration is the apparent 
continued, and possibly accelerating, destruction of key koala habitat 
and the likelihood of further reduction and fragmentation of koala 
populations, with no remedy imminent.
    The koala is part of a unique ecosystem that by all accounts has 
been drastically reduced by human activity over the past 200 years and 
that is continuing to be adversely affected to such extent that the 
species that it supports could potentially be confronted with 
extinction. In addition to the substantial information presented by the 
petitioners, the Service is impressed by the authoritative consensus 
regarding the past and continuing extent of this habitat deterioration. 
Telling points include--the IUCN/SSC assessment (Kennedy 1992) that a 
50-90 percent decline in range already has occurred; Dr. Gordon's 
suggestion that continuation of present trends would jeopardize the 
species; the statement by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency 
(Phillips 1990) that the forests once supporting the koala are largely 
gone and those remaining are rapidly disappearing; and the recent 
reports by the Australian Department of the Environment, Sport and 
Territories (Glanznig 1995; Graetz, Wilson, and Campbell 1995) showing

[[Page 50551]]

that nearly two-thirds of koala habitat has been lost and that the 
destructive process is continuing unabated. Of those comments that 
responded negatively to the petition, none included significant 
discussion refuting the case for a long-term threat to the ecosystem of 
the koala.
    Irrespective of other factors that may indicate that certain 
populations are endangered, the above reasoning seems applicable to the 
Act's definition of a threatened species as one ``likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' Nonetheless, the Service will seek 
to obtain and evaluate new information during the comment period. It is 
possible that such review would lead to withdrawal of all or part of 
this proposal or to a final rule classifying the koala, or certain 
populations thereof, as endangered. Critical habitat is not being 
proposed, as its designation is not applicable to foreign species.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. 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. No 
such actions are currently known 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.
    Permits may be issued 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. Such permits are available for scientific 
purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, or for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities. All such permits must also 
be consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act as required by 
Section 10(d). For threatened species, there are also permits for 
zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes 
consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), 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. Should 
the koala be listed as a threatened species, importations into and 
exportations from the United States, and interstate and foreign 
commerce, of koala (including parts and products) without a threatened 
species permit would be prohibited. Koala 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 pre-Act status. Currently 10 zoological institutions in the 
United States hold koalas. Questions regarding permit requirements for 
U.S. activities should be directed to the Office of Management 
Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203 
(1-800-358-2104).
    Processing of this proposed rule conforms with the Service's 
Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, published on 
May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the order in which 
the Service will process rulemakings giving highest priority (Tier 1) 
to processing emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second priority (Tier 2) to 
processing final determinations on proposals to add species to the 
Lists; processing new proposals to add species to the Lists; processing 
administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the Lists, 
delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited 
number of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify species; and 
third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final rules 
designating critical habitat. Processing of this proposed rule is a 
Tier 2 action.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service intends that any final rule adopted will be accurate 
and as effective as possible in the conservation of endangered or 
threatened species. Therefore, comments and suggestions concerning any 
aspect of this proposed rule are hereby solicited from the public, 
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, 
private interests, and other parties. Comments particularly are sought 
concerning the following:
    (1) Biological, commercial, or other relevant data concerning any 
threat (or lack thereof) to the subject species;
    (2) Information concerning the distribution of this species;
    (3) Current or planned activities in the involved areas, and their 
possible effect on the subject species; and
    (4) Details on the laws, regulations, and management programs 
covering each of the affected populations of this species.
    Final promulgation of the regulation on the koala will take into 
consideration the comments and any additional information received by 
the Service, and such communications may lead to adoption of final 
regulations that differ substantially from this proposal. It is 
particularly emphasized that further evaluation could lead to 
withdrawal of all or part of this proposal, or to classification of the 
koala, or any population thereof, as endangered. Interested parties are 
urged to consider

[[Page 50552]]

such alternatives when examining the proposal and preparing their 
comments.
    The Endangered Species Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be filed within 45 days of the 
date of the proposal, must be in writing, and should be directed to the 
party named in the above ``ADDRESSES'' section.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as 
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted 
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended. A 
notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was 
published in the Federal Register of 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.

References Cited

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.
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.
Kennedy, Michael. 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.
Phillips, Bill. 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.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 
below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    l. 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 section 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical 
order under MAMMALS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special  
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules   
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                        
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *               
Koala............................  Phascolarctos         Australia..........  Entire.............  T               ...........           NA           NA
                                    cinereus .                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 9, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director.
[FR Doc. 98-25267 Filed 9-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P