Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69019 

94Compare, e.g., Conn. Agencies Regs. 38a–328– 

3(c) (defining ‘‘basic insurance’’ for purposes of the 

Connecticut FAIR plan to include liability coverage 

for any dwelling of up to three families) with Mass. 

Gen. Laws ch. 175c, § 1 (defining ‘‘basic property 

insurance’’ for purposes of the Massachusetts FAIR 

plan to include liability coverage for only nonowner occupied dwellings of up to four families) 

and 98–08 Wash. Reg. 4 (April 15, 1998) (excluding 

liability coverage from the definition of ‘‘essential 

property insurance’’ for purposes of the Washington 

FAIR plan). 

95Compare, e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. 379.825 (limiting 

maximum insurance coverage for a dwelling under 

the Missouri FAIR plan to $200,000) with 98–08 

Wash. Reg. 5 (April 15, 1998) (limiting maximum 

insurance coverage for a dwelling under the 

Washington FAIR plan to $1.5 million). 

96Compare, e.g., Ohio Rev. Cod. Ann. 3929.44(D) 

(requiring applicant to certify that two insurance 

companies declined to provide coverage for 

purposes of FAIR plan eligibility) with 215 Ill. 

Comp. Stat. 5/524(1) (restricting FAIR plan 

eligibility to applicants who have been declined 

insurance coverage by three companies). 

97Toledo, 94 Ohio Misc. 2d at 157. 

98See, e.g., Cal. Ins. Code 10094 (leaving 

discretion to governing committee of participating 

insurers to establish ‘‘reasonable underwriting 

standards’’ for determining whether a property for 

which FAIR plan coverage is sought is insurable); 

215 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/524(1) (same); Ohio Rev. 

Code. Ann. 3929.43(C) (same). 

individuals who are unable to purchase 

insurance in the voluntary market. 

HUD declines to categorically exempt 

FAIR plans from discriminatory effects 

liability under the Act. To do so, 

without any consideration of the 

particular insurance practice or state 

requirements at issue, would be 

inconsistent with the broad remedial 

purpose of the Act and HUD’s obligation 

to affirmatively further fair housing. 

Like state regulation of voluntary market 

insurance practices, state laws 

governing the provision and pricing of 

FAIR plans vary across jurisdictions. 

Variations in state regulation of FAIR 

plans include the types of coverage 

provided by such plans,94 the amount of 

coverage allowed under such plans,95

and the conditions under which an 

individual or property will qualify for 

such plans.96 Additionally, even within 

a given state, FAIR plan regulations are 

subject to revision over time. 

Given such variation and 

changeability, exempting all FAIR plans 

from application of the discriminatory 

effects standard would be overbroad and 

would deprive individuals of the 

protections afforded by the Fair Housing 

Act. Indeed, one state court has held 

‘‘the disparate impact approach does not 

interfere with the Ohio FAIR Plan.’’ 97 In 

light of this demonstrated compatibility, 

and because insurers retain some 

discretion in the operation of FAIR 

plans,98 HUD determines that case-bycase adjudication is preferable to the 

requested exemption of FAIR plans. 

Dated: September 23, 2016. 

Gustavo Velasquez, 

Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and 

Equal Opportunity. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23858 Filed 10–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0489; FRL–9953–63– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Georgia: Volatile 

Organic Compounds 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of two revisions to the Georgia 

State Implementation Plan submitted by 

the Georgia Department of 

Environmental Protection on July 25, 

2014, and November 1, 2015. These 

revisions modify the definition of 

‘‘volatile organic compounds’’ (VOC). 

Specifically, these revisions add two 

compounds to the list of those excluded 

from the VOC definition on the basis 

that these compounds make a negligible 

contribution to tropospheric ozone 

formation. This action is being taken 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2016–0489 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Lakeman can be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9043 or via electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

implementation plan revision as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: September 23, 2016. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23971 Filed 10–4–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 8360 

[LLCO913000.L16300000.NU0000.16X] 

Notice of Proposed Supplementary 

Rules for Public Lands in Colorado 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed supplementary rules. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is proposing 

supplementary rules to protect natural 

resources and provide for public health 

and safety. The proposed 

supplementary rules would apply to all 

public lands and BLM facilities in 

Colorado. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments by December 5, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by the following methods: Mail or hand 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS