Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3763 

There are no known significant alternative 

approaches to the proposed rule that would 

accomplish the stated objectives of the rule 

and further minimize any significant 

economic impact of this proposed rule on 

small entities, as the economic impact is not 

anticipated to be significant. 

The Regulatory Secretariat Division 

has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. A copy of the 

IRFA may be obtained from the 

Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, 

GSA, and NASA invite comments from 

small business concerns and other 

interested parties on the expected 

impact of this proposed rule on small 

entities. 

DoD, GSA, and NASA will also 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the existing regulations in 

subparts affected by the rule in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested 

parties must submit such comments 

separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 

(FAR Case 2024–007), in 

correspondence. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501–3521). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 16 

Government procurement. 

William F. Clark, 

Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR part 16 as set 

forth below: 

PART 16—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 16 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy 

provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51 

U.S.C. 20113. 

■ 2. Amend section 16.505 by adding 

paragraph (a)(10)(iv) to read as follows: 

16.505 Ordering. 

(a) * * * 

(10) * * * 

(iv) In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 

644(r), a contracting officer’s decision to 

set aside or not set aside an order for 

small business concerns is an exercise 

of discretion granted to agencies and not 

a basis for protest. However, this does 

not preclude the filing of a protest of 

such an order if such a protest would 

otherwise be authorized on a separate 

basis recognized in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(10)(i) of this section. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2025–00616 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150; 

FF09E21000–256–FXES11130900000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of the 

Grizzly Bear in the Lower-48 States 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to 

establish and delist a Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) distinct 

population segment (DPS) of the grizzly 

bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the 

lower-48 States. After a thorough review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available, we find that grizzly bears 

in the petitioned DPS do not, on their 

own, represent a valid DPS. Thus, we 

find that the petitioned action to 

establish and delist a GYE DPS is not 

warranted at this time. 

DATES: The finding in this document 

was made on January 15, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The finding and the 

supporting information that we 

developed for this finding, including the 

species status assessment report and 

species assessment form, are available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150. Please submit 

any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the appropriate person, as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Office, telephone: 406–243–4903, email: 

hilary_cooley@fws.gov. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

Under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.; hereafter, ‘‘Act’’), the grizzly bear 

(Ursus arctos horribilis) is currently 

listed as threatened species in the 

lower-48 States (40 FR 31734, July 28, 

1975). We detail the original rulemaking 

and our subsequent actions for the 

species in our species status assessment 

(SSA) report (Service 2024, pp. 74–76) 

and summarize the relevant actions for 

this finding below. 

On June 30, 2017, we finalized a rule 

to establish the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem (GYE) distinct population 

segment (DPS) of the grizzly bear and 

remove it from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(List) due to recovery (82 FR 30502). 

However, in 2018, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Montana 

vacated and remanded the 2017 

delisting rule, putting the GYE grizzly 

bear population back on the List (as 

threatened) as part of the lower-48 

States listed entity. As a result, the List 

does not currently include an entry for 

a GYE DPS. On March 30, 2021, we 

completed a 5-year status review for the 

grizzly bear in the lower-48 States in 

which we concluded that the listed 

entity should retain its status as a 

threatened species under the Act 

(Service 2021, entire). 

On January 21, 2022, we received a 

petition from the State of Wyoming 

(petitioner) to revise the listed entity of 

grizzly bear under the Act. The petition 

requested that we: (1) establish a GYE 

DPS; and (2) remove it from the List 

(‘‘delist’’), asserting that the GYE DPS 

did not meet the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. On 

February 6, 2023, we published a 90-day 

finding (88 FR 7658) that the petition 

contained substantial information 

indicating that establishing and 

delisting a GYE DPS may be warranted. 

This document and our supporting 

species assessment form constitutes our 

12-month finding on the January 21, 

2022, petition to establish and delist a 

GYE DPS of grizzly bear under the Act. 

Background 

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to 

make a finding, within 12 months after 

receiving any petition that we have 

determined contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, as to whether the 

petitioned action is warranted, not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3764 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

warranted, or warranted but precluded 

by other pending proposals (known as a 

‘‘12-month finding’’). We must publish 

a notification of this 12-month finding 

in the Federal Register. 

This document announces the notwarranted finding on the petition for the 

GYE grizzly bear population in 

accordance with the regulations at 50 

CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i). In this document, 

we have also elected to include a 

summary of the analysis on which this 

finding is based. This supporting 

information can be found on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022– 

0150 (see ADDRESSES, above). We 

provide the full analysis, including our 

rationale and the data on which the 

finding is based, in the decisional file 

for the petition and our subsequent 

findings. The species assessment form 

contains an explanation of why we 

determined that grizzly bears in the 

petitioned DPS do not, on their own, 

represent a valid listable entity such 

that the petitioned actions are not 

warranted at this time. The following is 

a summary of the documents containing 

this full analysis. 

Listable Entity Requirements 

Under the Act, the term ‘‘species’’ 

includes any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any vertebrate 

fish or wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). To 

interpret and implement the distinct 

population segment (DPS) provisions of 

the Act, the Service and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration published in the 

Federal Register the Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act on February 7, 

1996 (61 FR 4722) (DPS Policy). Under 

the DPS Policy, we consider three 

elements to determine whether to 

classify a population of a vertebrate 

species as a DPS: (1) the discreteness of 

the population segment in relation to 

the remainder of the species to which it 

belongs; (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the species to 

which it belongs; and (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation 

to the Act’s standard for listing, 

delisting, or reclassification. The Policy 

requires that a population segment meet 

both the discreteness and significance 

elements to be considered a valid DPS 

(i.e., a valid listable entity) and only 

then may we consider whether the DPS 

warrants listing under the Act. 

Summary of Biological Information 

The grizzly bear is a large, long-lived 

mammal that occurs in a variety of 

habitat types in portions of Idaho, 

Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. 

Grizzly bears are light brown to nearly 

black and are so named for their 

‘‘grizzled’’ coats with silver or golden 

tips. Grizzly bears in the GYE 

population and the lower-48 States need 

access to large, intact blocks of land 

with limited human influence that 

provide cover, high-caloric foods, dens, 

and areas for dispersal. The specific 

quality and quantity of these resources 

influence the ability of individual 

grizzly bears to reproduce, grow, and 

survive at different life stages and for 

the GYE population to be resilient or to 

withstand stochastic events (Service 

2024, pp. 99–101). Our SSA report 

provides our full account of the life 

history, ecology, range, and historical 

and current distribution for the grizzly 

bear in the GYE population and the 

lower-48 States (Service 2024, pp. 39– 

73). 

Summary of Information From the 

Petition 

The petitioner requests that we 

establish a DPS for the GYE grizzly bear 

population (GYE DPS). Specifically, the 

petitioner requests that we establish a 

GYE DPS within the same geographic 

boundary that we established as a DPS 

in our June 30, 2017, final rule (82 FR 

30502), which was subsequently 

vacated. The petitioner did not provide 

a new geographic delineation for the 

petitioned GYE DPS and instead 

referenced the boundary for the GYE 

DPS that we described in 2017 

(hereafter, 2017 GYE DPS). In their 

arguments to support delisting, the 

petitioner indicates that the GYE grizzly 

bear population’s range has expanded, 

including a four-fold increase in the 

occupied range since the time of listing 

in 1975. The species assessment form 

provides additional summary of the 

information presented in the petition, 

including a map of the petitioned 2017 

GYE DPS. 

Summary of Finding 

In determining whether to recognize 

the petitioned DPS as a valid listable 

entity under the Act, we must base our 

decision on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. Since 2017, 

the abundance, distribution, and 

dispersal of grizzly bears within and 

surrounding the GYE has increased. 

New information supports the 

petitioner’s claim that the GYE 

population has increased in size and 

distribution, so much so that grizzly 

bears have dispersed and expanded 

beyond the western boundary of the 

2017 GYE DPS. The occupied range of 

the grizzly bear in both the GYE and the 

Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem 

(NCDE) located to the north of the GYE, 

has steadily expanded over time. From 

2016 to 2022, occupied range in the 

GYE increased by 4 percent (Dellinger et 

al. 2023, pp. 22–23) and the NCDE 

increased by 19 percent (Costello et al. 

2023, p. 13). As a result, the distance 

between these occupied ranges has 

decreased and continues to shrink. 

Models indicate that the GYE and NCDE 

are currently only 98 kilometers (61 

miles) apart, within grizzly bear 

dispersal distance (Service 2024, p. 54). 

In the June 30, 2017, final rule, we 

stated that the DPS Policy does not 

require absolute separation of one 

population from another and that 

occasional interchange does not 

undermine the discreteness of potential 

DPSs (82 FR 30502 at 30518). While we 

still agree with this statement, the 2022 

estimated occupied range of the GYE 

population now extends beyond the 

2017 GYE DPS western boundary. We 

expect this trend to increase over time. 

Additionally, as the populations 

expand, individual grizzly bears are 

dispersing into new areas outside the 

estimated occupied range. Since 2017, 

there have been 190 verified 

observations of grizzly bears outside of 

the current estimated occupied range of 

grizzly bear populations in the lower-48 

States. Currently, genetic studies have 

confirmed that at least two grizzly bears 

originating from the GYE population 

have dispersed beyond the 2017 GYE 

DPS border (IGBST, unpublished data). 

We have also verified 86 observations of 

grizzly bears outside of the 2017 GYE 

DPS boundaries and within potential 

connectivity pathways to the NCDE 

(NCDE Management Zone 2 (NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, entire)) and to the 

Bitterroot Ecosystem (Sells et al. 2023, 

p. 6). 

These occurrences outside of areas 

considered occupied range are 

becoming increasingly common, 

particularly in areas immediately to the 

north and west of the 2017 GYE DPS. 

While in most cases the source 

population of such grizzly bears is 

unknown, a number of them likely 

originated from the GYE population, 

given their close proximity to the GYE. 

The locations of these verified 

observations reveal the leading edges of 

grizzly bear expansion within and 

between ecosystems (see Service 2024, 

Fig. 1) (Dellinger et al. 2023, pp. 22–23). 

With the increasing trends of population 

growth and expansion over the last 7 

years, we anticipate range expansion 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3765 

and dispersal events to continue under 

current management, including the 

protections of the Act, such that natural 

connectivity between the NCDE 

population and GYE population will 

likely occur in the near future (Service 

2024, p. 54). 

To summarize, information provided 

by the petitioner and the best scientific 

and commercial data available indicate 

that grizzly bear abundance, 

distribution, and dispersal have 

increased, and grizzly bears have 

expanded beyond the 2017 GYE DPS 

boundary. As a result, the petitioned 

DPS identified in 2017 is no longer 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and is 

obsolete. As populations have grown 

and expanded, grizzly bears have 

dispersed beyond the 2017 GYE DPS 

boundary, often into areas considered to 

be previously unoccupied. 

Under our DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

of the following two conditions: (1) it is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

significant differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist that are significant in 

light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. In 

determining whether the test for 

discreteness has been met under the 

DPS policy, we allow but do not require 

genetic evidence to be used. 

Although the DPS Policy does not 

require absolute separation of one 

population from another, (82 FR 30502, 

June 30, 2017, p. 30518), the standard 

for discreteness must allow us to 

distinguish between the DPS and other 

members of the species for purposes of 

administering and enforcing the Act (61 

FR 4722, February 7, 1996, p. 4724). As 

summarized above, the best scientific 

and commercial data available indicate 

that the estimated occupied range of the 

grizzly bear population in the GYE has 

expanded since 2017. The NCDE 

population has also expanded its range, 

and the two populations are 

increasingly closer in proximity. Due to 

this expansion, which is expected to 

continue in the future under current 

management, including the protections 

of the Act, we no longer consider the 

2017 GYE DPS to be discrete, as grizzly 

bears have dispersed and expanded to 

such an extent that it is not markedly 

separate from other members of the 

taxon. Because grizzly bears within the 

boundaries of the 2017 GYE DPS 

described by the petitioner are not 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the taxon, it does not 

meet the discreteness element in the 

DPS Policy as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, ecological, or 

behavioral factors (61 FR 4722, February 

7, 1996). Therefore, we find that grizzly 

bears in the 2017 GYE DPS do not, on 

their own, represent a valid DPS and we 

therefore do not consider the status of 

grizzly bears in this petitioned entity as 

a separately listable entity under the 

Act. Accordingly, we find that the 

petitioned action to establish and delist 

the GYE DPS is not warranted. 

We are in the process of fully 

evaluating the latest information 

regarding the status of the grizzly bear 

in the lower-48 States in a rulemaking 

expected by January 31, 2026. This 

rulemaking is pursuant to a settlement 

agreement associated with the State of 

Idaho’s petition to delist the grizzly bear 

in the lower-48 States. That rulemaking, 

to either remove or revise the currently 

listed entity of the grizzly bear in the 

lower-48 States, will fully evaluate the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, which could include potential 

DPSs, while considering potential 

population segment’s conservation 

status and Congress’s direction to 

exercise DPSs sparingly and only when 

the biological evidence indicates that 

such action is warranted. The trends of 

increasing distribution and dispersal 

point to the need for a broader, holistic 

evaluation at the rangewide level, which 

will be completed as part of the 

rulemaking already underway. 

Consistent with the DPS Policy, that 

analysis will require careful 

consideration of the extent to which 

formerly isolated populations are 

connected, or likely to be connected, 

and the need for connectivity to small 

or isolated populations and unoccupied 

recovery zones, given the best and most 

recent biological data available that 

support a durable recovered grizzly bear 

in the lower-48 States. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the SSA report for the 

grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov. We incorporated 

the results of these reviews, as 

appropriate, into the SSA report, which 

is the scientific foundation for this 

finding. 

References Cited 

A list of the references cited in this 

petition finding is available in the 

species assessment form, which is 

available on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150 (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Office, Ecological Services 

Program. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00325 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0131; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BH71 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the San Francisco BayDelta Distinct Population Segment of 

the Longfin Smelt 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for the San 

Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population 

segment (DPS) of the longfin smelt 

(Spirinchus thaleichthys), a fish species 

from the San Francisco Bay estuary in 

California, under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

In total, approximately 91,630 acres 

(37,082 hectares) in California fall 

within the boundaries of the proposed 

critical habitat designation. We also 

announce the availability of an 

economic analysis of the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

March 17, 2025. Comments submitted 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1