21358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus bodies. The

NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

In approving or disapproving state

plans under section 129 of the Clean Air

Act, EPA does not have the authority to

revise or rewrite the State’s rule, so the

Agency does not have authority to

require the use of particular voluntary

consensus standards. Accordingly, EPA

has not sought to identify or require the

State to use voluntary consensus

standards. Furthermore, Connecticut’s

Plan incorporates by reference test

methods and sampling procedures for

existing MWC units already established

by the emissions guidelines for MWCs

at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb, and does

not establish new technical standards

for MWCs. Therefore, the requirements

of the NTTAA are not applicable to this

final rule.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by June 20, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review, nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)). EPA

encourages interested parties to

comment in response to the proposed

rule rather than petition for judicial

review, unless the objection arises after

the comment period allowed for in the

proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control,

Environmental protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, sulfur

oxides.

Dated: March 31, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642.

Subpart H—Connecticut

2. Part 62 is amended by adding a

new § 62.1500 and a new undesignated

center heading to subpart H to read as

follows:

Plan for the Control of Designated

Pollutants From Existing Facilities

(Section 111(d) Plan)

§ 62.1500 Identification of Plan.

(a) Identification of Plan. Connecticut

Plan for the Control of Designated

Pollutants from Existing Plants (section

111(d) Plan).

(b) The plan was officially submitted

as follows:

(1) Plan for Implementing the

Municipal Waste Combustor Guidelines

and New Source Performance

Standards, submitted on October 1,

1999.

(c) Designated facilities. The plan

applies to existing sources, constructed

on or before September 20, 1994, in the

following categories of sources:

(1) Existing municipal waste

combustor units greater than 250 tons

per day.

3. Part 62 is amended by adding a

new § 62.1501 and a new undesignated

center heading to subpart H to read as

follows:

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic

Compounds and Nitrogen Oxide

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustor Units With the

Capacity To Combust Greater Than 250

Tons Per Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.1501 Identification of sources.

(a) The plan applies to the following

existing municipal waste combustor

facilities:

(1) Bridgeport RESCO in Bridgeport.

(2) Ogden Martin Systems of Bristol.

(3) Resource Recovery Systems of

Mid-Connecticut in Hartford.

(4) Riley Energy Systems of Lisbon.

(5) American Ref-Fuel Company of

Southeastern Connecticut in Preston.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 00–9652 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket# ID–02–0001; FRL–6580–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators State Plan for Designated

Facilities and Pollutants: Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of

Idaho’s section 111(d) State Plan for

controlling emissions from existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators (HMIWI). The plan was

submitted on December 16, 1999, to

fulfill the requirements of sections

111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The

State Plan adopts and implements the

Emissions Guidelines applicable to

existing HMIWIs, and establishes

emission limits and controls for sources

constructed on or before June 20, 1996.

EPA has determined that Idaho’s State

Plan meets CAA requirements and

hereby approves this State Plan, thus

making it federally enforceable.

DATES: This action will be effective on

June 20, 2000, without further notice,

unless EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by May 22, 2000. If EPA

receives such comments, then it will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that this rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Catherine Woo, US

EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Copies of materials submitted to EPA

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following location:

US EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Woo, US EPA, Region X,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553–1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, whenever

we, us or our is used, this refers to EPA.

Information regarding this action is

presented in the following order:

I. EPA Action

What action is EPA taking today?

Why is EPA taking this action?

Who is affected by Idaho’s State Plan?

How does this approval affect sources

located in Indian Country?

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21359

How does this approval relate to the

Federal Plan?

II. Background

What is a State Plan?

What is a HMIWI State Plan?

Why are we requiring Idaho to submit a

HMIWI State Plan?

What are the requirements for a HMIWI

State Plan?

III. Idaho’s State Plan

What is contained in the Idaho State Plan?

What approval criteria did we use to

evaluate Idaho’s State Plan?

IV. EPA Rulemaking Action

V. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA Action

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

We are approving the State of Idaho’s

section 111(d) State Plan for controlling

emissions from existing Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators

(HMIWI). Idaho submitted its State Plan

on December 16, 1999, to fulfill the

requirements of sections 111(d) and 129

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The State

Plan adopts and implements the

Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to

existing HMIWIs, and establishes

emission limits and controls for sources

constructed on or before June 20, 1996.

This approval, once effective, will make

the Idaho HMIWI rules included in the

plan federally enforceable.

Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

We have evaluated Idaho’s HMIWI

State Plan for consistency with the

CAA, EPA guidelines and policy. We

have determined that Idaho’s State Plan

meets all requirements, and, therefore,

we are approving Idaho’s plan to

implement and enforce the standards

applicable to existing HMIWI.

Who Is Affected by Idaho’s State Plan?

Idaho’s State Plan regulates all the

sources designated by EPA’s EG for

existing HMIWIs which commenced

construction on or before June 20, 1996.

If your facility meets this criteria, then

you are subject to these regulations.

How Does This Approval Affect Sources

Located in Indian Country?

Idaho’s State Plan does not cover

facilities located in Indian Country.

Therefore, any sources located in Indian

Country will be subject to the Federal

plan, once promulgated (see below).

How Does This Approval Relate to the

Federal Plan?

The EPA plans to promulgate a

Federal Plan which will cover sources

located in Indian Country and sources

for which there is no approved State

Plan. Because there is no Federal Plan

yet, existing HMIWI sources are not

currently subject to any federal

requirements. However, upon approval

of Idaho’s State Plan, HMIWI facilities

within Idaho’s jurisdiction will be

subject to Idaho’s State Plan as of the

effective date of this action.

II. Background

What Is a State Plan?

Section 111 of the CAA, ‘‘Standards of

Performance for New Stationary

Sources,’’ authorizes us to set air

emissions standards for certain

categories of sources. These standards

are called New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS). When a NSPS is

promulgated for new sources, section

111(d) also requires that we publish an

EG applicable to the control of the same

pollutant from existing (designated)

facilities. States with designated

facilities must then develop a State Plan

to adopt the EG into the State’s body of

regulations. States must also include in

their State Plan other elements, such as

inventories, legal authority, and public

participation documentation, to

demonstrate their ability to enforce the

State Plans.

What Is a HMIWI State Plan?

An HMIWI State Plan is a State Plan

(as described above) that controls air

pollutant emissions from existing

incinerators which burn hospital waste

or medical/infectious waste.

Why Are We Requiring Idaho To Submit

a HMIWI State Plan?

When we developed NSPS for

HMIWIs, we simultaneously developed

the EG to control air emissions from

existing HMIWIs (see 62 FR 48348–

48391, September 15, 1997). Under

section 129 of the CAA, the EG are not

federally enforceable; therefore, section

129 of the CAA also requires states to

submit to EPA for approval State Plans

that implement and enforce the EG.

These State Plans must be at least as

protective as the EG, and they become

federally enforceable upon approval by

EPA. The procedures for adopting and

submitting State Plans are located in 40

CFR part 60, subpart B. If a State fails

to have an approvable plan in place by

September 15, 1999, the EPA is required

to promulgate a Federal plan to

establish requirements for those sources

not under an EPA-approved State Plan.

Even though EPA has not yet

promulgated such a plan, Idaho’s State

Plan is still approvable since it was

deemed at least as protective as the

standards set in the EG. Idaho has

developed and submitted a State Plan,

as required by section 111(d) of the

CAA, to gain federal approval to

implement and enforce the HMIWI EG.

What Are the Requirements for a HMIWI

State Plan?

A section 111(d) State Plan submittal

must meet the requirements of 40 CFR

part 60, subpart B, sections 60.23

through 60.26, and 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Ce. Subpart B contains the

procedures for adoption and submittal

of State Plans. This subpart addresses

public participation, legal authority,

emission standards and other emission

limitations, compliance schedules,

emission inventories, source

surveillance, and compliance assurance

and enforcement requirements. EPA

promulgated the EG as 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Ce on September 15, 1997.

Subpart Ce contains the technical

requirements for existing HMIWI

sources and applies to sources that

commenced construction on or before

June 20, 1996. A State will generally

address the HMIWI technical

requirements by adopting by reference

subpart Ce. The section 111(d) state

plan is required to be submitted within

one year of the EG promulgation date,

i.e., by September 15, 1998. Prior to

submittal to us, the State must make

available to the public the State Plan

and provide opportunity for public

comment.

III. Idaho’s State Plan

What Is Contained in the Idaho State

Plan?

The State of Idaho submitted its

section 111(d)/129 State Plan on

December 16, 1999, for implementing

EPA’s EG for existing HMIWIs. Idaho

adopted the EG requirements into

IDAPA 16.01.01.862 (effective

November 19, 1999) entitled, ‘‘Emission

Guidelines for HMIWI That Commenced

Construction Before June 20, 1996.’’

Idaho’s section 111(d) Plan contains:

(1) A demonstration of the State’s

legal authority to implement the section

111(d) State Plan;

(2) State Rules adopted into

16.01.01.862 as the mechanism for

implementing and enforcing the State

Plan;

(3) Emission inventories of all Idaho’s

applicable sources, which is

approximately fifteen existing HMIWIs.

In these inventories, all designated

pollutants have been identified and data

have been provided for each;

(4) Emission limits that are as

protective as the EG;

(5) Enforceable compliance schedules

whereby all sources must comply with

all emission standards within one year

from the effective date of the State Plan.

The State Plan was effective December

16, 1999; therefore, final compliance

will be December 16, 2000;

21360 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(6) Testing, monitoring, reporting and

recordkeeping requirements for the

designated facilities;

(7) Records for the public notice and

hearing; and

(8) Provisions for Idaho’s progress

reports to EPA.

What Approval Criteria Did We Use To

Evaluate Idaho’s State Plan?

We reviewed Idaho’s HMIWI State

Plan for approval against the following

criteria: 40 CFR part 60, subpart B,

sections 60.23 through 60.26; and 40

CFR part 60, subpart Ce, sections

60.30(e) through 60.39(e). A detailed

discussion of our evaluation of Idaho’s

State Plan is included in our technical

support document located in the official

file for this action and available from

the EPA contact listed above. We have

determined that Idaho’s HMIWI State

Plan meets all of the applicable

approval criteria.

IV. EPA Rulemaking Action

We are approving, through direct final

rulemaking action, Idaho’s section

111(d) and 129 State Plan for HMIWIs.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial action

and anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to

approve the Idaho State Plan should

relevant adverse comments be filed.

This action will be effective on June 20,

2000, without further notice, unless

EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by May 22, 2000.

If EPA receives such comments, then

it will publish a timely withdrawal in

the Federal Register informing the

public that this direct final rule will not

take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period. Parties

interested in commenting should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective on June 20, 2000,

and no further action will be taken on

the proposed rule.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’

and therefore is not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget.

This action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing State Plan submissions,

EPA’s role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a State Plan submission

for failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a State Plan

submission, to use VCS in place of a

State Plan submission that otherwise

satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air

Act. Thus, the requirements of section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),

in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by June 20, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 4, 2000.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

40 CFR Part 62 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21361

Subpart N—Idaho

2. Subpart N is amended by adding

§ 62.3110 and an undesignated center

heading to read as follows:

* * * * *

Metals, Acid Gases, Organic

Compounds, Particulates and Nitrogen

Oxide Emissions From Existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators

§ 62.3110 Identification of plan.

(a) The Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality submitted to the

Environmental Protection Agency a

State Plan for the control of air

emissions from Hospital/Medical/

Infectious Waste Incinerators on

December 16, 1999.

(b) Identification of Sources: The

Idaho State Plan applies to all existing

HMIWI facilities for which construction

was commenced on or before June 20,

1996, as described in 40 CFR part 60,

subpart Ce. (This plan does not apply to

facilities on tribal lands).

(c) The effective date for the portion

of the plan applicable to existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators is June 20, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–9648 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket No. OR–03–0001; FRL–6580–9]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Oregon; Negative

Declaration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA publishes regulations

under Sections 111(d) and 129 of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) requiring states to

submit plans to EPA. These plans show

how states intend to control the

emissions of the designated pollutants

from designated facilities. Federal

regulations provide that when no such

designated facilities exist within a

state’s boundaries, the affected state

may submit a letter of ‘‘negative

declaration’’ instead of a control plan.

On October 20, 1998, the State of

Oregon submitted a negative declaration

adequately certifying that there are no

hospital/medical/infectious waste

incinerators (HMIWI) located within its

boundaries. On November 6, 1998,

Oregon submitted a clarification to their

negative declaration, indicating one of

their sources to be a co-combustor, and

the rest to be crematories, both

categories which are considered exempt

from this emission guideline (EG.) EPA

is approving Oregon’s negative

declaration.

DATES: This action will be effective on

June 20, 2000 without further notice,

unless EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by May 22, 2000. If EPA

receives such comments, then it will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that this rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Catherine Woo, US

EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Copies of materials submitted to EPA

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following location:

US EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Woo, US EPA, Region X,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553–1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, whenever

we, us or our is used, this refers to EPA.

Information regarding this action is

presented in the following order:

I. What Action is EPA Taking Today?

II. Why is Oregon Required to Submit a

Negative Declaration?

III. When Did the Requirements for Existing

HMIWIs First Become Known?

IV. When Did Oregon Submit Its Negative

Declaration?

V. How Does This Approval Affect Sources

Located in Indian Country?

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action is EPA Taking Today?

We are approving the State of

Oregon’s negative declaration of air

emissions from HMIWIs. This negative

declaration fulfills the requirements of

Sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA for

existing HMIWIs.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial action

and anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to

approve the Oregon negative declaration

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This action will be effective on

June 20, 2000 without further notice,

unless EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by May 22, 2000.

If EPA receives such comments, then

it will publish a timely withdrawal in

the Federal Register informing the

public that this direct final rule will not

take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period. Parties

interested in commenting should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective on June 20, 2000

and no further action will be taken on

the proposed rule.

II. Why is Oregon Required to Submit

a Negative Declaration?

Section 111 of the CAA, ‘‘Standards of

Performance for New Stationary

Sources,’’ authorizes us to set air

emissions standards for certain

categories of sources. These standards

are called New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS). When a NSPS is

promulgated for new sources, Section

111(d) also requires that we publish an

EG applicable to the control of the same

pollutant from existing (designated)

facilities. States with designated

facilities must then develop a State Plan

to adopt the EG into the State’s body of

regulations. If a State does not have a

particular designated facility located

within its boundaries, EPA requires that

a negative declaration be submitted in

lieu of a State Plan for that designated

facility (see 40 CFR 62.06). Oregon does

not have any designated facilities within

its boundaries, so it is required to

submit a negative declaration.

III. When Did the Requirements for

Existing HMIWIs First Become Known?

On June 26, 1996 (see 61 FR 31736),

EPA proposed HMIWIs as designated

facilities. EPA specified particulate

matter, opacity, sulfur dioxide,

hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen,

carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium,

mercury, and dioxins and dibenzofurans

as designated pollutants by proposing

Emission Guidelines (EG) for existing

HMIWIs. These guidelines were

published in final form as 40 CFR Part

60, Subpart Ce, on September 15, 1997

(see 62 FR 48348).

IV. When Did Oregon Submit Its

Negative Declaration?

On October 20, 1998, the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

submitted a letter to us certifying that

there are no existing HMIWIs subject to

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce. On

November 8, 1998, Oregon sent a

clarifying letter to indicate exempt