107156 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Notices 

I. Section 207(c)(3)(A) (12 U.S.C. 

1713(c)(3)(A)); 

II. Section 213(b)(2)(A) (12 U.S.C. 

1715e(b)(2)(A)); 

III. Section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(I) (12 U.S.C. 

1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(I)); 

IV. Section 221(d)(3)(ii)(I) (12 U.S.C. 

1715l(d)(3)(ii)(I)); 

V. Section 221(d)(4)(ii)(I) (12 U.S.C. 

1715l(d)(4)(ii)(I)); 

VI. Section 231(c)(2)(A) (12 U.S.C. 

1715v(c)(2)(A)); and 

VII. Section 234(e)(3)(A) (12 U.S.C. 

1715y(e)(3)(A)). 

Section 206A goes on to state that the 

preceding 

(a) ‘‘Dollar Amounts’’ shall be 

adjusted annually (commencing in 

2004) on the effective date of the 

Federal Reserve Board’s adjustment of 

the $400 figure in the Home Ownership 

and Equity Protection Act of 1994 

(HOEPA). The adjustment of the Dollar 

Amounts shall be calculated using the 

percentage change in the Consumer 

Price Index for All Urban Consumers 

(CPI–U) as applied by the Federal 

Reserve Board for purposes of the 

above-described HOEPA adjustment. 

(b) Notification. The Federal Reserve 

Board on a timely basis shall notify the 

Secretary, or his designee, in writing of 

the adjustment described in subsection 

(a) and of the effective date of such 

adjustment in order to permit the 

Secretary to undertake publication in 

the Federal Register of corresponding 

adjustments to the Dollar Amounts. The 

dollar amount of any adjustment shall 

be rounded to the next lower dollar. 

Note that 206A has not been updated 

to reflect the fact that HOEPA has been 

revised to use $1,000 as the basis for the 

adjustment rather than $400, and the 

Consumer Finance Protection Bureau 

has replaced the Federal Reserve Board 

in administering the adjustment. These 

changes were made by the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act’s amendments to the 

Truth in Lending Act, as further 

explained in the regulatory 

implementation of said changes found 

in 78 FR 6856, 6879 (Jan. 31, 2013). 

The percentage change in the CPI–U 

used for the HOEPA adjustment is a 3.4 

percent increase and the effective date 

of the HOEPA adjustment is January 1, 

2025. The Dollar Amounts under 

Section 206A have been adjusted 

correspondingly and have an effective 

date of January 1, 2025. (see 89 FR 

95080, Dec. 2, 2024). 

These revised statutory limits may be 

applied to FHA multifamily mortgage 

insurance applications submitted or 

amended on or after January 1, 2025, so 

long as the loan has not been initially 

endorsed. 

The adjusted Dollar Amounts for 

Calendar Year 2025 are shown below. 

Basic Statutory Mortgage Limits for 

Calendar Year 2025 Multifamily Loan 

Program 

Section 207—Multifamily Housing; 

Section 207 pursuant to Section 223(f)— 

Purchase or Refinance Housing; and, 

Section 220—Housing in Urban 

Renewal Areas 

Bedrooms Non-elevator Elevator 

0 ................ $67,188 $78,368 

1 ................ 74,427 86,835 

2 ................ 88,903 106,477 

3 ................ 109,580 133,357 

4+ .............. 124,056 150,791 

Section 213—Cooperatives 

Bedrooms Non-elevator Elevator 

0 ................ $72,813 $77,531 

1 ................ 83,956 87,840 

2 ................ 101,254 106,814 

3 ................ 129,607 138,184 

4+ .............. 144,391 151,687 

Section 234—Condominium Housing 

Bedrooms Non-elevator Elevator 

0 ................ $74,299 $78,191 

1 ................ 85,670 89,634 

2 ................ 103,320 108,998 

3 ................ 132,254 141,008 

4+ .............. 147,337 154,782 

Section 221(d)(4)—Moderate Income 

Housing 

Bedrooms Non-elevator Elevator 

0 ................ $66,864 $72,228 

1 ................ 75,904 82,802 

2 ................ 91,749 100,689 

3 ................ 115,160 130,257 

4+ .............. 130,129 142,986 

Section 231—Housing for the Elderly 

Bedrooms Non-elevator Elevator 

0 ................ $63,570 $72,228 

1 ................ 71,068 82,802 

2 ................ 84,867 100,689 

3 ................ 102,134 130,257 

4+ .............. 120,077 142,986 

Section 207—Manufactured Home Parks 

per Space—$30,844 

Environmental Impact 

This issuance establishes mortgage 

and cost limits that do not constitute a 

development decision affecting the 

physical condition of specific project 

areas or building sites. Accordingly, 

under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6), this notice is 

categorically excluded from 

environmental review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321). 

Jeffrey D. Little, 

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Housing. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31184 Filed 12–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[PO# 4820000251] 

BLM Director’s Response to the 

Montana Governor’s Appeal of the 

BLM Montana/Dakotas State Director’s 

Governor’s Consistency Review 

Determination for the Miles City Field 

Office Proposed Resource 

Management Plan Amendment and 

Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of response. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is publishing this 

notice of the reasons for the BLM 

Director’s determination to reject the 

Governor of Montana’s 

recommendations regarding the Miles 

City Field Office Proposed Resource 

Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) 

and Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (Final SEIS). 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Record of 

Decision and Approved RMPA for the 

Miles City Field Office RMPA/Final 

SEIS is available on the BLM website at: 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ 

project/2021155/570. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Bernier, Division Chief for 

Decision Support, Planning, and 

National Environmental Policy Act; 

telephone 303–239–3635; address P.O. 

Box 151029, Lakewood, CO 80215; 

email hbernier@blm.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 for 

contacting Ms. Bernier. Individuals 

outside the United States should use the 

relay services offered within their 

country to make international calls to 

the point-of-contact in the United 

States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

17, 2024, the BLM released the 

Proposed RMPA/Final SEIS for the 

Miles City Field Office planning effort 

(89 FR 43432). In accordance with the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Notices 107157 

regulations at 43 CFR 1610.3–2(e), the 

BLM submitted the Proposed RMPA/ 

Final SEIS for the Miles City Field 

Office planning effort to the Governor of 

Montana for a 60-day Governor’s 

Consistency Review in order for the 

Governor to review the Proposed RMPA 

and identify any inconsistencies with 

State plans, policies, or programs. On 

July 16, 2024, the Governor of Montana 

submitted a response for the Miles City 

Field Office RMPA/Final SEIS to the 

BLM Montana/Dakotas State Director. 

The State Director reviewed the 

Governor’s response and the alleged 

consistency issues and did not accept 

the Governor’s recommendations. The 

BLM sent a written response to the 

Governor on August 12, 2024. 

On September 18, 2024, the Governor 

of Montana appealed the State Director’s 

decision to the BLM Director. In 

reviewing these appeals, the regulations 

at 43 CFR 1610.3–2(e) state that ‘‘[t]he 

Director shall accept the (consistency) 

recommendations of the Governor(s) if 

he/she determines they provide for a 

reasonable balance between the state’s 

interest and the national interest.’’ On 

November 6, 2024, the BLM Director 

issued a response to the Governor 

detailing the reasons that the 

recommendations did not meet this 

standard. Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.3– 

2(e), the basis for the BLM’s 

determination on the Governor’s appeal 

is presented below. The appeal response 

is being published verbatim. 

‘‘I am in receipt of your letter dated 

September 18, 2024, which contains the 

State of Montana’s appeal to the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) Montana/ 

Dakotas State Director’s response to the 

Governor’s consistency review of the 

Miles City Field Office Proposed 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

(RMPA) and Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). 

The Governor’s consistency review is an 

important part of the BLM land use 

planning process, and we appreciate the 

significant time and attention that you 

and your staff have committed to this 

effort. 

The applicable regulations at 43 CFR 

1610.3–2(e) provide you with the 

opportunity to appeal the State 

Director’s decision to not accept the 

recommendations you made in your 

consistency review letter. These 

regulations also guide my review of the 

appeal, in which I must consider 

whether you have raised inconsistencies 

with State or local plans, policies, and 

or programs. If inconsistencies are 

raised, I consider whether your 

recommendations address the 

inconsistencies and provide for a 

reasonable balance between the national 

interest and the State of Montana’s 

interest. 

I have completed my review of your 

appeal and determined that the 

recommendation you have provided 

does not meet this standard for the 

reasons detailed in the following 

paragraphs. 

In your appeal, you allege the three 

consistency issues below: 

• ‘‘Alternative D is inconsistent with 

Montana’s Constitutional Mandate to 

utilize State Trust Lands to fund schools 

and other public institutions.’’ 

• ‘‘Alternative D is inconsistent with 

Montana’s ‘All-Of-The-Above’ Energy 

Strategy, and the SEIS fails to consider 

critical local energy plan.’’ 

• ‘‘Alternative D conflicts with 

Montana’s Coal Revenue Trust Fund 

Policy.’’ 

It is your recommendation that ‘the 

BLM withdraw the Miles City Field 

Office RMPA/SEIS and work 

collaboratively with the State to form 

alternatives that honor State plans, 

policies, and programs.’ 

Upon review, I find that your 

recommendation does not present a 

reasonable balance between the national 

and the State’s interest. The Proposed 

RMPA/Final SEIS is a land use level 

review specific to the Miles City Field 

Office and is in response to the Federal 

district court’s order in Western 

Organization of Resource Councils, et al. 

v. Bureau of Land Management, Civil 

Action No. CV–00076–GF–BMM (D. 

Mont. 2022). The BLM developed a 

range of alternatives to meet the purpose 

and need of the Proposed RMPA/Final 

SEIS and the court’s order, such as to 

complete new coal screens in 

accordance with 43 CFR 3420.1–4; 

provide additional land use planning 

level analysis that considers no-leasing 

and limited coal leasing alternatives; 

and disclose the public health impacts, 

both climate and non-climate, of 

burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) 

from the planning area. 

While there are State and Federal 

policies that may encourage coal mining 

and facilitate the orderly development 

of coal resources, they do not mandate 

that coal mining would be authorized 

wherever coal reserves may be present. 

The Proposed RMPA/Final SEIS also 

only applies to federally administered 

coal in the Miles City Field Office 

planning area and does not make 

decisions on State lands or privately 

owned coal resources. Similarly, the 

BLM’s regulatory process does not apply 

to State lands and does not preclude the 

State from making management 

decisions for State trust lands, nor 

preclude the State’s authority to 

manage[ ], permit, and bill other uses of 

State lands accordingly to meet the 

State’s fiduciary responsibility. 

Additionally, under Alternative D, the 

State’s mineral estate was determined to 

not have development potential or not 

expected to be leased or mined within 

the life of the plan. This is due to: (1) 

no new mines projected, (2) the 

Rosebud Mine having sufficient coal 

reserves from existing leases, and (3) the 

Spring Creek Mine projecting needs 

from pending Federal leases and 

subsequent 1,300 acres of Federal coal 

leases. The BLM also carefully 

considered current and future coal 

demand with national and international 

trends as they relate to coal 

development in the Miles City planning 

area. The BLM recognizes a potential 

future decrease, but that is expected as 

the national coal market is in decline 

and trending to continue that decline 

throughout the life of the plan. 

Finally, the BLM has prepared the 

Miles City Proposed RMPA/Final SEIS 

in accordance with all applicable 

Federal laws, regulations, and policies. 

The BLM did carefully review and 

consider applicable State, local, and 

other Federal agency plans, policies, 

and programs in the development of the 

Miles City Proposed RMPA/Final SEIS. 

The BLM is consistent, to the extent 

practicable, with these plans as per the 

provisions of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act and the planning 

regulations at 43 CFR 1610–3–2.’’ 

(Authority: 43 CFR 1610.3–2(e)) 

Nada Wolff Culver, 

Principal Deputy Director. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31413 Filed 12–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–20–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[NVNV106695370] 

Withdrawal Application and Public 

Meeting for the Ruby Mountains; 

Nevada 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal 

application. 

SUMMARY: The United States Forest 

Service (USFS) has filed an application 

requesting that the Secretary of the 

Interior withdraw approximately 

264,441.79 acres of Federal lands in the 

Ruby Mountains from leasing under the 

mineral and geothermal laws, for 20 

years, subject to valid existing rights. 

The application also includes 

approximately 44,670.87 acres of nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:31 Dec 30, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM 31DEN1

khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES