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

94 Compare, 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 FAIRplan 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).

95 Compare, 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).

96 Compare, 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).

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

98 See, 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