## Mr

. Karl Brooks Page Two

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Wendy Vit, with the Department's Air Pollution Control Program at P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102 or by phone at (573) 751-7840.

Sincerely,

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM 

# -<:C<- 7fJJ**~** Kyra L. Moore Director

KLM:abc

Enclosures:

Copy of rule published in CSR Copy of commission signature page certifying Missouri Air Conservation Commission adoption Copy of technical support documentation for rule (if applicable) Copies of public hearing notices Copy of public hearing transcript introductory statement Copy ofMO Reg proposed rulemaking Copy ofMO Reg order of rule making with comments/responses Mark-Up of Existing Federally-Approved State Regulation(s)

- not applicable

c: Missouri Air Conservation Commissionany subsequent amendments or additions. (B) Definitions of certain terms specified in this rule, other than those defined in this rule section, may be found in 10 CSR 10- 6.020.
(3) General Provisions. Unless otherwise noted in this section, 40 CFR 96.206, 96.207, and 96.208 as well as all of the sec tions of 40 CFR 96 subparts BBB, CCC, DDD, FFF, GGG, and III promulgated as of April 28, 2006 are hereby incorporated by reference in this rule, as published by the Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20408. This rule does not incorporate any subsequent amendments or additions.
(4) Reporting and Record Keeping. Unlessotherwise noted in this section, all of the sections of 40 CFR 96 subpart HHH promulgated as of April 28, 2006 are hereby incorporated by reference in this rule, as published by the Office of the Federal Register, U.S.National Archives and Records, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20408.This rule does not incorporate any subsequent amendments or additions.
(5) Test Methods. (Not Applicable)

AUTHORITY: section 643.050, RSMo 2000. Original rule filed Oct. 2, 2006, effective May 30, 2007. Amended: Filed June 25, 2009, effective Feb. 28, 2010.

*Original authority: 643.050, RSMo 1965, amended 1972, 1992, 1993, 1995.

10 CSR 10-6.368 Control of Mercury Emissions From Electric Generating Unit s (Rescinded May 30, 2013)

AUTHORITY: section 643.050, RSMo 2000. Original rule filed Oct. 2, 2006, effective May 30, 2007. Rescinded: Filed Aug. 20, 2012, effective May 30, 2013.

10 CSR 10-6.380 Control of NO x Emissions From Portland Cement Kilns
PURPOSE: This rule reduces emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO x) to ensure compliance with the federal NO x control plan to reduce the transport of air pollutants. The rule establishes NO x control equipment and NO x emission levels for cement kilns. The evidence supporting the need for this proposed rulemaking per section 536.016, RSMo, is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NO x State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call dated April 21, 2004.
(1) Applicability. This rule applies to any cement kiln located in the counties of Bollinger
, Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Clark, Crawford, Dent, Dunklin, Franklin, Gasconade, Iron, Jefferson, Lewis, Lincoln, Madison, Marion, Mississippi, Montgomery, New Madrid, Oregon, Pemiscot, Perry, Pike, Ralls, Reynolds, Ripley, St. Charles, St. Francois, St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Scott, Shannon, Stoddard, Warren, Washington and Wayne counties and the City of St. Louis that—

(A) Is a long dry kiln with an actual process rate of at least twelve tons of clinker produced per hour (12 TPH);

(B) Is a long wet kiln with an actual process rate of at least ten (10) TPH;

(C) Is a preheater kiln with an actual process rate of at least sixteen (16) TPH; or

(D) Is a precalciner or preheater/precalciner kiln with an actual process rate of at least twenty-two (22) TPH.
(2) Definitions.

(A) Clinker—The product of a Portland cement kiln from which finished cement is manufactured by milling and grinding.

(B) Long-dry kiln—A kiln fourteen feet (14') or larger in diameter, four hundred feet (400') or greater in length, which employs no preheating of the feed and the inlet feed to the kiln is dry.

(C) Long-wet kiln—A kiln fourteen feet (14') or larger in diameter, four hundred feet (400') or greater in length, which employs no preheating of the feed and the inlet feed to the kiln is a slurry.

(D) Low-NO x burners—A type of cement kiln burner (a device that functions as an injector of fuel and combustion air into kilnto produce a flame that burns as close as possible to the center line of the kiln) that has a series of channels or orifices that 1) allow forthe adjustment of the volume, velocity, pressure, and/or direction of the air carrying the fuel, known as primary air, into the kiln, and 2) impart high momentum and turbulence to the fuel stream to facilitate mixing of the fuel and secondary air.

(E) Mid-kiln firing—Secondary firing inkiln systems by injecting fuel at an intermediate point in the kiln system using a specially designed fuel injection mechanism for the purpose of decreasing NO x emissions through— 1. The burning of part of the fuel at a lower temperature; and 2. The creation of reducing conditions at the point of initial combustion.

(F) Portland cement—A hydraulic cement produced by pulverizing clinker consistingessentially of hydraulic calcium silicates, usually containing one (1) or more of the forms of calcium sulfate as an interground addition.

(G) Portland cement kiln—A system, including any solid, gaseous or liquid fuel combustion equipment, used to calcine and fuse raw materials, including limestone and clay, to produce Portland cement clinker.

(H) Preheater/precalciner kiln—A kilnwhere the feed to the kiln system is preheated in cyclone chambers and that utilizes a second burner to provide heat for calcination of material prior to the material entering the rotary kiln which forms clinker.

(I) Preheater kiln—A kiln where the feed to the kiln system is preheated in cyclone chambers prior to the final fusion, which forms clinker.

(J) Recoverable fuel—Fuels that have been permitted for use for energy recovery under 10 CSR 10-6.065.

(K) Renewable fuel—Renewable energy resources that include but are not limited to solar (photovoltaic), wind, and biomass.Biomass includes but is not limited to: agricultural crops and crop waste, untreated woodand wood wastes, livestock waste, wastepaper, and organic municipal solid waste.

(L) Definitions of certain terms specified in this rule, other than those defined in this rule section, may be found in 10 CSR 10- 6.020.
(3) General Provisions.

(A) Beginning May 1, 2007 an owner or operator of any Portland cement kiln subject to this rule shall not operate the kiln duringthe period starting May 1 and ending September 30 of each year, unless the kiln installs and operates with one (1) of the following: 1. Low-NO x burners; 2. Mid-kiln firing; 3. An alternative control technology thatis approved by the staff director, and incorporated in the federally approved SIP, and isproven to achieve emission reductions of thirty percent (30%) or greater; 4. An emission rate of:

A. For long-wet kilns—6.8 pounds of NO x per ton of clinker produced, averagedover the period from May 1 through September 30 of each year. B. For long-dry kilns—6.0 pounds of NO x per ton of clinker produced, averagedover the period from May 1 through September 30 of each year.

200 CODE OF STATE REGULATIONS (4/30/13) J ASON K ANDER Secretary of State 

## 10 CSR 10-6—DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division 10—Air Conservation Commission

# - - --- - -- -- - - --- - -- - -- Order of Rulemaking


## Compliant with 643

. 055 RSMo
, the Missouri Air Conservation Commission has determined that this action is needed to have a U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency approved State Implementation Plan.

10 CSR 10-6

. 368 (rescission) Control of Mercury Emissions From Electric Generating Units is hereby , RESCINDED 

## by the Missouri A i r Conservation Commission this 5 th 

## day of February, 2013

.

# ;6u**// b0~** **-,** Cha i rman

# .-+**,"" >-=-f'** **o......-..>. C-c** **~-= =---o.** **-->oc.-=- --~--,** **, Q3**  Vice Chairman 

# o**---r-J-~c....:o............,~)-+-8-** --

_ ---

__ , Member



# ..... _-_- - ____

'Member 

# __

__ _ _ _ ___ _ _________ , Member

_______ _ ___ _ __ __ __ , Member

, Member

## Jay Nixon, Governor Sara Parker Pauley, Director 

# Air Pollution Control Program

Rulemakings on Public Notice

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources filed the following proposed rulemakings with the secretary of state's office and comments are being accepted as noted at th e end of the proposed rulemaking under the Notice of Public Hearing an d Notice to Submit Comments heading. To submit comments electronically, use the links below the rule or to submit written comments see the address below.

10 CSR 10-6.191 ( new rule ) Sewage Sludge Incinerators
This proposed rule will incorporat e by reference the regulatory re quirements of 40 CFR 60, Subpart MMMM—Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Ex isting Sewage Sludge In cineration Units which was promulgated by the U.S. Environmenta l Agency (EPA) in March 2011 (76 FR 15372). Incorporation of this federal regulation into a st ate rule will shift enforcement auth ority for existing sewage sludge incineration units from EPA to the state of Missouri.
Proposed Rulemaking - Published in October 1, 2012 Missouri Register.

Additional Information on this rulemaking.

Submit comments now Submit written comments
Comments about this rulemaking will be accept ed through close of business Dec. 12, 2012.
10 CSR 10-6.368 (rescission) Contro l of Mercury Emissions From Electric Generating Units
This rule is being proposed for rescission because th e federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) that is the basis for this rule has been vacated and removed from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Proposed Rulemaking - Published in October 1, 2012 Missouri Register.

Submit comments now Submit written comments
Comments about this rulemaking will be accept ed through close of business Dec. 12, 2012.

Submit written comments abou t any rule development to: Chief, Air Quality Planning Section Missouri Department of Natural Resources Air Pollution Control Program P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176

Back to top Pa g e 1 of 1 Rulemakin g s on Public Notice - DNR

10/30/2012 htt p ://www.dnr.mo. g ov/env/a p c p /rulemakin g .htm1 

## Bechtel, Cheri

From: Missouri DNR <MODNR@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 4:22 PM To: Bechtel, Cheri Subject: Courtesy Copy: Missouri Air Conservati on Commission to hold public hearing on 12/6/2012



## This is a courtesy copy of an em ail bulletin sent by Cheri Bechtel.
This bulletin was sent to the following groups of people:

Subscribers of Air Public Notices (394 recipients)

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page

.

Below is a notice for items being presented for public hearing at the December 6, 2012 Missouri Air Conservation Commission meeting. If you have any questions, pleas e contact Wendy Vit with the Air Pollution Control Program at (573) 526-3167 or wendy.vit@dnr.mo.gov

.
MISSOURI AIR CONSER VATION COMMISSION WILL HOLD PUBLIC HEARING
JEFFERSON CITY, MO -- The Missouri Air Conser vation Commission will hol d a public hearing on Thursday, December 6, 2012 beginning at 9 a.m. at the Elm Street Conference Cent er, 1730 East Elm Street, Lower Level, Bennett Springs Conference Room, Jefferson City, Missouri. The commission will hear testimony related to the fo llowing proposed action(s): * 10 CSR 10-6.368 (rescission) Control of Mercury Emissions From Electric Generating Units

* 10 CSR 10-6.191 (new rule) Sewage Sludge Incinerators

* Clean Air Act Section 111(d)/129 Stat e Plan Revision — Section 111(d)/129 State Plan for Implementation of the Sewage Sludge Inci nerator Emission Guidelines for Missouri

Documents for the above item(s) will be available for review at the Missour i Department of Natural Resources, Air Pollution Control Pr ogram, 1659 Elm Street, Jefferson Cit y, (573) 751-4817 and in the Public N otices section of the program web site http://dnr.mo.gov/env/ap cp/public-notices.htm . This information will be available at least 30 days pr ior to the public hearing date.
The Department will accept written or email comme nts for the record until 5 p.m. on December 13, 2012. Please send written comments to Chief, Air Quality Planning Section, Air Polluti on Control Program, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176. Email comments ma y be submitted via the program web site noted above. All written and email comments and public hearing testimony will be equally considered.2 

## Citizens wishing to speak at the public hearing should notify the secretary to th e Missouri Air Conservation Commission, Missouri Department of Natural Resour ces, Air Pollution Control Program, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0176, or telephone ( 573) 526-3420. The Department requests persons intending to give verbal presenta tions also provide a wr itten copy of their testimony to the commission secretary at the time of the public hearing.
Persons with disabilities requiring special services or accommodations to attend the meeting can make arrangements by calling the Program di rectly at (573) 751-4817, the Divisi on of Environmental Quality's toll free number at (800) 361-4827, or by writing two weeks in advance of the meeting to: Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Air Conservation Commissi on Secretary, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102. Hearing impaired persons may contact the program through Relay Missouri, (800) 735-2966.

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or st op subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page . You will need to use your email addre ss to log in. If you have questions or p roblems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com

. This service is provide d to you at no charge by Missouri DNR

.

### PUBLIC HEARING 12/6/2012

www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.DEPO(3376) Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 1


### 1 STATE OF MISSOURI
MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION 2 Elm Street Conference Center
1730 East Elm Street 3 Bennett Springs Conference Room Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
4
5
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
6
PUBLIC HEARING
7
BEFORE 8 Ron Boyer, Vice Chairman Mark Garnett, Commissioner 9 Gary Pendergrass, Commissioner Jack Baker, Commissioner
10 DECEMBER 6, 2012
11 (Commencing at 9:30 a.m.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
REPORTED BY: 22 Patsy A. Hertweck, C. R. Midwest Litigation Service 23 3432 West Truman Boulevard, Suite 207 Jefferson City, Missouri 65109
24 573-636-7551
800-280-3376
25

### PUBLIC HEARING 12/6/2012

www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.DEPO(3376) Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 6



### 1 Program distributed the public hearing notice to



### 2 approximately 300 citizens, organizations, corporations,



### 3 associations, and elected officials. We also notified the



### 4 Kansas City, St. Louis County, and Springfield local air



### 5 pollution control agencies, the states of Illinois and



### 6 Kansas and other surrounding states and the U. S.



### 7 Environmental Protection Agency of this public hearing.



### 8 This concludes my testimony.



### 9 VICE CHAIRMAN BOYER: Our first staff



### 10 presentation is by Aaron Basham.



### 11 (Thereupon, the witness was sworn on



### 12 his oath by the court reporter, and testified as



### 13 follows:)



### 14 MR. BASHAM: Mr. Chairman, members of



### 15 the Commission, my name is Aaron Basham.



### 16 I am employed with the Missouri Department



### 17 of National Resources' Air Pollution Control Program. I



### 18 work at 1659 East Elm Street in Jefferson City, Missouri.



### 19 I'm here to present testimony for the



### 20 proposed rescission to 10 CSR 10-6.368, Control of Mercury



### 21 Emissions from Electric Generating Units. The rule



### 22 information begins on page 95 of the briefing document.



### 23 The Clean Air Mercury Rule restricted the



### 24 emission of mercury from electric generating units at power



### 25 plants through a regional mercury trading program. The

### PUBLIC HEARING 12/6/2012

www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.DEPO(3376) Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 7



### 1 proposed rule-making will rescind this rule because the



### 2 federal Clean Air Mercury Rule, which is the basis for this



### 3 rule, has been vacated and removed from the Code of Federal



### 4 Regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency replaced



### 5 the Clean Air Mercury Rule with the new Mercury and Air



### 6 Toxics Standards, or MATS rule, published in the "Federal



### 7 Register" February 16th of 2012.



### 8 If the Commission adopts this rule action,



### 9 it will be the Department's intention to submit this rule



### 10 rescission which represents the 111(d) plan for electric



### 11 generating unit mercury emissions to the U. S.



### 12 Environmental Protection Agency for removal from the



### 13 Missouri State Plan for Designated Facilities and



### 14 Pollutants.



### 15 Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.



### 16 I will be happy to answer any questions you might have



### 17 specific to this rule rescission.



### 18 VICE CHAIRMAN BOYER: Are there



### 19 questions? (None voiced.) We have no questions. Thank



### 20 you.



### 21 Our next staff presentation will be by Stan



### 22 Payne.



### 23 (Thereupon, the witness was sworn on



### 24 his oath by the court reporter, and testified as



### 25 follows:)

### Title 10—DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division 10—Air Conservation Commission Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Entire State of Missouri

PROPOSED RULE
10 CSR 10-6.191 Sewage Sludge Incinerators . If the commissionadopts this rule action, it will be the department’s intention to submit this new rule to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for inclusion in the Missouri State Implementation Plan. The evidence supporting the need for this proposed rulemaking is available for viewing at the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Air Pollution Control Program at the address listed in the Notice of Public Hearing at the end of this rule. More information concerning this rulemaking can be found at the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Environmental Regulatory Agenda website, www.dnr.mo.gov/regs/index.html.
PURPOSE: This rule incorporates by reference the federal regulatory requirements for existing se wage sludge incineration units inMissouri. The evidence supporting the need for this proposed rulemaking, per 536.016, RSMo, is Federal Register Notice 76 FR 15372, dated March 21, 2011.
PUBLISHER’S NOTE: The secretary of state has determined thatthe publication of the entire text of the material which is incorporated by reference as a portion of this rule would be unduly cumbersome or expensive. This material as incorporated by reference in this rule shall be maintained by the agency at its headquarters and shall be made available to the public for inspection and copying at no morethan the actual cost of reproduction. This note applies only to the reference material. The entire text of the rule is printed here.
(1) Applicability.

(A) This rule applies to each sewage sludge incineration (SSI) unit,as defined in section (2) of this rule, for which construction was commenced on or before October 14, 2010, except as provided in subsection (1)(C) of this rule.

(B) If the owner or operator of an SSI unit makes physical or operational changes to an SSI unit for which construction commenced on or before September 21, 2011, primarily to comply with this rule, 10 CSR 10-6.070 New Source Performance Regulations does not apply to that unit.

(C) Exemptions to this rule are as follows:

1. Combustion units that incinerate sewage sludge and are not located at a wastewater treatment facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. Owners or operators of combustion units claiming exemption under this paragraph must notify the director; and 2. Any SSI unit that becomes subject to 10 CSR 10-6.070 New Source Performance Regulations because the owner or operator made changes after September 21, 2011, that meet the definition of modification, as defined in section (2) of this rule.
(2) Definitions.

(A) The provisions of 40 CFR 60.5250, promulgated as of July 1, 2011, shall apply and are hereby incorporated by reference in this rule, as published by the Office of Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington,DC 20408. This rule does not incorporate any subsequent amendments or additions.

(B) Definitions of certain terms specified in this rule, other than those defined in subsection (2)(A) of this rule, may be found in 10 CSR 10-6.020.
(3) General Provisions. The following references to 40 CFR 60.5085 through 60.5225, 40 CFR 60.5240 through 60.5245, and 40 CFR 60, Subpart MMMM Tables 1 through 6, promulgated as of July 1, 2011, shall apply and are hereby incorporated by reference in this rule, as published by the Office of the Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,Washington, DC 20408. This rule does not incorporate any subsequent amendments or additions.

(A) Increments of Progress—40 CFR 60.5085 through 60.5125; (B) Operator Training and Qualifications—40 CFR 60.5130 through 60.5160;

(C) Emission Limits, Emission Standards, and Operating Limits and Requirements—40 CFR 60.5165 through 60.5181;

(D) Initial Compliance Requirements—40 CFR 60.5185 through 60.5200;

(E) Continuous Compliance Requirements—40 CFR 60.5205 through 60.5215;

(F) Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Calibration Requirements—40 CFR 60.5220 through 60.5225;

(G) Title V Operating Permit—40 CFR 60.5240 through 60.5245; and

(H) Table 1 though Table 6. The compliance dates for the increments of progress are— 1. For Increment 1, submit final control plan within one (1) year of the effective date of this rule; and 2. For Increment 2, final compliance by March 21, 2016.
(4) Reporting and Record Keeping. The provisions of 40 CFR 60.5230 through 40 CFR 60.5235, promulgated as of July 1, 2011, shall apply and are hereby incorporated by reference in this rule, as published by the Office of Federal Register, U.S. National Archives and Records, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20408.This rule does not incorporate any subsequent amendments or additions.
(5) Test Methods. (Not applicable)
AUTHORITY: section 643.050, RSMo Supp. 2011. Original rule filed Aug. 27, 2012

. PUBLIC COST: This proposed rule will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500) in the aggregate.
PRIVATE COST: This proposed rule will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500) in the aggregate.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: A public hearing on this proposed rule will begin at 9:00 a.m., December 6, 2012. The public hearing will be held at the Elm Street Conference Center, 1730 East Elm Street, Lower Level, Bennett Springs Conference Room, Jefferson City, Missouri.Opportunity to be heard at the hearing shall be afforded any interested person. Interested persons, whether or not heard, may submit a written or email statement of their views until 5:00 p.m., December 13, 2012. Written comments shall be sent to Chief, Air Quality Planning Section, Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Air Pollution Control Program, PO Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102- 0176. Email comments shall be sent to apcprulespn@dnr.mo.gov.



### Title 10—DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division 10—Air Conservation Commission Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Entire State of Missouri

PROPOSED RESCISSION
10 CSR 10-6.368 Control of Mercury Emissions From Electric Generating Units . This rule restricted the emission of mercury from electric generating units at power plants through a regional mercury trading program. This rulemaking will remove this rule because the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) regulations 

## Page 1460 Proposed Rules October 1, 2012 Vol. 37, No. 19are being replaced with the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). If the commission adopts this rule action, it will be the department’s intention to submit this rule rescission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for removal from the Missouri State Implementation Plan. The evidence supporting the need for this pro posed rulemaking is available for viewing at the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Air Pollution Control Program at the address listed in the Notice of Public Hearing at the end of this rule. More information concerning this rulemaking can be found at the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Environmental Regulatory Agenda website, www.dnr.mo.gov/regs/index.html.
PURPOSE: This rule restricted the emission of mercury from electric generating units at power plants through a regional mercury trading program. This rulemaking will remove this rule because the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) regulations are being replaced withthe new non-trading Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulations. The evidence supporting the need for this proposed rulemaking, per 536.016, RSMo, is a Federal Register Notice dated February 16, 2012, that removes the CAMR regulation.
AUTHORITY: section 643.050, RSMo 2000. Original rule filed Oct. 2, 2006, effective May 30, 2007. Rescinded: Filed Aug. 20, 2012.
PUBLIC COST: This proposed rescission will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500) in the aggregate.PRIVATE COST: This proposed rescission will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500) in the aggregate.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: A public hearing on this proposed rescission will begin at 9:00 a.m., December 6, 2012. The public hearing will be held at the Elm Street Conference Center, 1730 East Elm Street, Lower Level, Bennett Springs Conference Room, Jefferson City, Missouri.Opportunity to be heard at the hearing shall be afforded any interested person. Interested persons, whether or not heard, may submit a written or email statement of their views until 5:00 p.m., December 13, 2012. Written comments shall be sent to Chief, Air Quality Planning Section, Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ Air Pollution Control Program, PO Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102- 0176. Email comments shall be sent to apcprulespn@dnr.mo.gov.



### Title 11—DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Division 45—Missouri Gaming Commission Chapter 4—Licenses

PROPOSED RESCISSION
11 CSR 45-4.050 Application Period and Fees for Class A License

. This rule established an application period and fees.
PURPOSE: This rule is being rescinded because the commission is no longer taking applications for Class A licenses.
AUTHORITY: sections 313.004 and 313.812, RSMo 2000. Emergency rule filed Sept. 1, 1993, effective Sept. 20, 1993, expired Jan. 17, 1994. Emergency rule filed Jan. 5, 1994, effective Jan. 18, 1994, expired Jan. 30, 1994. Original rule filed Sept. 1, 1993, effective Jan. 31, 1994. Amended: Filed Dec. 7, 1995, effective June 30, 1996. Amended: Filed Aug. 30, 1996, effective April 30, 1997. Amended: Filed May 13, 1998, effective Oct. 30, 1998. Rescinded: Filed Dec. 3, 2007, changed to amended April 25, 2008, effective July 30, 2008. Rescinded: Filed Aug. 30, 2012.
PUBLIC COST: This proposed rescission will not cost state agencies or political subdivisions more than five hundred dollars ($500) in the aggregate. PRIVATE COST: This proposed rescission will not cost private entities more than five hundred dollars ($500) in the aggregate.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Anyone may file a statement in support of or in opposition to this proposed rescission with the Missouri Gaming Commission,PO Box 1847, Jefferson City, MO 65102. To be considered, comments must be received within thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Missouri Register . A public hearing is scheduled for November 7, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in the Missouri Gaming Commission’s Hearing Room, 3417 Knipp Drive, Jefferson City, Missouri.



### Title 11—DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Division 45—Missouri Gaming Commission Chapter 4—Licenses

PROPOSED AMENDMENT
11 CSR 45-4.055 Application Period and Fees for Class A and Class B Licenses . The commission is amending sections (2) and (4), deleting section (5), and renumbering sections (6) and (7).
PURPOSE: This amendment changes time for application period and fees for Class A and Class B licenses.
(2) The one (1)-time nonrefundable application fee for a Class B license shall be fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)

. [, except that any applicant for a Class A license shall be entitled to one (1) Class B license with no additional fees other than fees required to cover any additional costs of the investigation, if the Class B application is submitted simultaneously with the Class A application.] The applicant or licensee shall be assessed fees, if any, to cover the additional costs of the investigation.
(4) The annual fee for a Class A license and a Class B license shall be twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) each [, except each Class A licensee shall be entitled to one (1) Class B license at no additional fee,] and is due upon issuance of the initial license and thereafter is due [upon the application for renewal of the license. When licenses are renewed for multiple years, fees for all licensed years shall be paid with the application] annually . The Class A and all Class B licenses owned by the same Class A license shall renew all licenses within the same month, after the second year. The commission may adjust renewal dates of the Class A and Class B licenses so as not to consume commission resources in any particular month. Any such adjustments shall result in a prorata adjustment of fees. This fee is nonrefundable and is due regardless of whether the renewal applicant obtains a renewed license. Theapplicant or licensee shall be assessed fees, if any, to cover the additional costs of the investigation.
[(5) Any holder of a Class A license, at the time these rules become effective, shall without further investigation or fees be granted a Class A and Class B license consistent with these rules. The renewal dates for Class A and Class B licenses issued under this rule shall remain the original anniversary dates as existed prior to the adoption of this rule.]

[(6)] (5) A Class A license is not transferable except by change of control as provided in Chapter 11 CSR 45-10.

[(7)] (6) A Class B license is transferable to a Class A licensee with prior approval of the commission as provided in Chapter 11 CSR 45- 10.

AUTHORITY: sections 313.004 and 313.812, RSMo 2000 [.]

, and section 313.807, HCS for HB 1644, Second Regular Session, 

## Page 1461 October 1, 2012 Vol. 37, No. 19 

### Missouri Registerthan March 21, 2013. There is no provision in the federal rule for deferral of the state plan pending the outcome of any known or future legal proceedings. Therefore, the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 60, subpart MMMM remain in effect even though legal action has been initiated, and these provisions are enforceable until such time as the court orders a stay, vacatur, or other similar action. As stated in the response to comment #2, the department’s Air Pollution Control Program will not enforce provisions of 10 CSR 10-6.191 that are stayed at the federal level. No changes have been made to the rule text as a result of this comment.
COMMENT #6: The Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies; the City of Kansas City, Missouri, Water Services Department; and the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District requested that, if the department proceeds with the rulemaking, language be added to the rule to automatically stay its requirements if a court vacates or remands the incorporated federal rule, or if parties to litigation agree to a settlement agreement that invalidates all or part of the federal rule.RESPONSE: Similar language to exempt provisions of an incorporated federal rule that are stayed was proposed in amendments to 10 CSR 10-6.070, 6.075, and 6.080 in June 2012 (37 MoReg 966-971). EPA objected to this language (37 MoReg 1610-1611) on the basis it may create confusion and cause additional concerns or issues. In addition, EPA noted that this language may function as a delegation of state authority to EPA or federal courts in litigation to which the department is not a party. Due to EPA’s objection, the language exempting provisions of the incorporated federal rule was deleted from the amendments to 10 CSR 10-6.070, 6.075, and 6.080 as adopted and similar language will not be added to the SSI rule. Regulated sources are assured they will not be expected to comply with provisions of incorporated federal regulations that are stayed, as stated in the response to comment #2. No changes have been made to the rule text as a result of this comment.
Due to the similarity in the following three (3) comments, one (1) response that addresses these comments is presented after the three (3) comments. COMMENT #7: The Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agenciescommented that it is important that Missouri’s publicly-owned treatment works are not asked to spend significant sums to address the new emissions limits ahead of the court’s review of the validity of the EPA final rule. They disagree with the contention in the proposed rule that the public cost will be not more than five hundred dollars ($500) in the aggregate. If this is based on the department’s adoption of the federal rule, then it should be qualified to require a revisedfinancial analysis for any aspects of EPA’s final rule which are adopted by the department but later invalidated through ongoing litigation. COMMENT #8: The City of Kansas City, Missouri, Water Services Department suggested that the lack of fiscal note is problematic despite the department’s articulation that one is not necessary due to the existence of the federal rule. Real costs of Missouri adoption and permit implementation is not less than five hundred dollars ($500), as stated in the proposed rule. They reference 536.200.1, RSMo, which mandates the issuance of a fiscal note, and Attorney GeneralOpinion 21-92, which illustrates that fiscal notes are required for regulation that is imposed, mandated, or otherwise necessitated by thirdparties. A natural and logical extension can be made for a purported federal mandate or the state’s election to adopt a federal model rule.COMMENT #9: The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District commented that the proposed rule will have real and costly impact on thefacilities impacted by the proposed rule. Early estimates of the district’s cost of compliance with this proposed rule include an initial cost of twenty-five to forty million dollars ($25M–40M) in addition to an ongoing annual cost of about one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per year. These costs have not been accounted for with the proposed rulemaking. RESPONSE: The proposed state rule adopts by reference the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 60, subpart MMMM and imposes noadditional requirements. Compliance costs such as training, permitting, testing, record keeping, retrofitting controls, etc., were imposed on the owners and operators of regulated SSI units with the federal rule promulgated on March 21, 2011. The federal rule requires Missouri to submit a state plan for regulation of existing SSI units that is at least as protective as the federal rule, and the proposed state rule is the legal mechanism for enforcement of the state plan. In the absence of a state plan, EPA will develop a federal plan to implement the provisions of 40 CFR 60, subpart MMMM, and owners and operators of existing SSI units not covered under an approved stateplan would have to comply with the federal plan. Therefore, the proposed state rule does not contribute to the cost of compliance for the owners and operators of the regulated SSI units and a fiscal note is not required pursuant to 536.200.1, RSMo. Attorney General Opinion (AGO) 21-92 addresses fiscal notes that are required by536.200, RSMo, and is not relevant to this rulemaking since no fiscal note is required. However, this opinion does reconfirm that536.200 fiscal notes only include estimated costs attributable to proposed state rulemakings and not costs associated with the mandate requirements (in this case, the federal rule) which was subject to its own cost analysis. The department rulemaking information on theweb clearly stated that public agency costs were included in the federal rulemaking and that the state rulemaking will not impose any additional costs. No changes have been made to the rule text as a result of this comment.
COMMENT #10: The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District commented the state’s approach for complying with the rule should propose economically-feasible methods for compliance with the federal rule in order to make it consistent with the general intent of the MACL. The proposed rule should be more narrowly tailored to meet the federal rule’s requirement of issuing a state plan outlining how the state will comply with the federal rule.RESPONSE: The federal rule implementing requirements for prevention, abatement, and control of SSI emissions is already promulgated, and incorporating its provisions into a state rule is the mostpractical and economically-feasible method of regulating SSI emissions in Missouri. The federal rule requires any deviation from thefederal rule to be as protective as the federal rule, while MACL prevents the state from being sooner or stricter than federal regulations. Therefore, the proposed state rule must implement the federal requirements without being stricter or more lax. No changes have been made to the rule text as a result of this comment.



### Title 10—DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division 10—Air Conservation Commission Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Entire State of Missouri

ORDER OF RULEMAKING
By the authority vested in the Missouri Air ConservationCommission under section 643.050, RSMo Supp. 2012, the commission rescinds a rule as follows:

10 CSR 10-6.368 Control of Mercury Emissions From Electric Generating Units is rescinded

. A notice of proposed rulemaking containing the proposed rescission was published in the Missouri Register on October 1, 2012 (37 MoReg 1460–1461). No changes have been made in the proposed rescission, so it is not reprinted here. This proposed rescission becomes effective thirty (30) days after publication in the Code of State Regulations

. 

## Page 659 April 15, 2013 Vol. 38, No. 8 

### Missouri RegisterApril 15, 2013 Vol. 38, No. 8

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The Missouri Department ofNatural Resources’ Air Pollution Control Program received no comments on the proposed rescission.



### Title 11—DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Division 45—Missouri Gaming Commission Chapter 5—Conduct of Gaming

ORDER OF RULEMAKING
By the authority vested in the Missouri Gaming Commission (MGC) under section 313.805, RSMo Supp. 2012, the commission adopts a rule as follows:
11 CSR 45-5.193 is adopted.
A notice of proposed rulemaking containing the text of the proposed rule was published in the Missouri Register on November 1, 2012 (37 MoReg 1583). Changes have been made to the text of the proposed rule, so it is reprinted here. This proposed rule becomes effective thirty (30) days after publication in the Code of State Regulations

. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: A public hearing was held on this proposed rule on December 12, 2012. Written comments were received from Thompson Coburn LLP on behalf of Bally Technologies, and International Gaming Technology (IGT). The MGC staff also commented on the rule.
COMMENT #1: A staff member requested adding “the bet with thelowest amount of the non-linear pay table” to the last sentence in subsection (1)(A). RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: The staff agreed to a modified version of the suggested language and the change was made to subsection (1)(A).
Comments from Thompson Coburn LLP on behalf of Bally Technologies: COMMENT #2: For the sake of clarity, additional parenthesesshould be added in subsection (1)(A), in the standard deviation calculation as follows:
((Net Pay i − E.V. ) 2 × probability i )
We suggest this so that it is clear the summation operation applies to the full term under the radical and not just the first portion. It is alsoworth noting that there are alternate methods of calculating the standard deviation of a game which are mathematically equivalent to the one indicated.

The more customary calculation is as shown, but with Net Pay idefined as “the amount of each individual pay divided by the number of coins wagered” (note that the “1 minus” is not included here) and with E.V. defined as “the game’s payback percentage.”

We suggest that these alternate (but mathematically equivalent) methods, including the more customary calculation detailed above, should also be considered acceptable under this standard. RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: This rule has been changed to add the parentheses to the equation, and to reword the key.
COMMENT #3: Subsection (1)(B)—Regarding Probability Accounting Report (PAR) sheets—“Calculate PAR sheets to a ninety-nine percent (99%) confidence value utilizing theoretical analysis” is nota mathematically correct statement. If the game is calculated theoretically, then it is one hundred percent (100%) correct, and there is no “confidence value” involved. For fully theoretical calculations,either the calculation is correct or it is not. Please see the final comment on subsection (1)(B) for Bally’s suggested language. RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: MGC agreed to incorporate the changes to make it mathematically correct.
COMMENT #4: Subsection (1)(B)—The ninety-nine percent (99%) confidence requirement for games is especially stringent. Many industry standards utilize a similar policy that applies a ninety-five percent (95%) confidence interval; Bally recommends that for thisstandard, Missouri also adopt the ninety-five percent (95%) confidence value. This will provide a clear requirement, consistent with industry, which manufacturers are prepared to work toward. Pleasesee the final comment on subsection (1)(B) for Bally’s suggested language. RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: MGC agrees to change the confidence value to ninety-five percent (95%).
COMMENT #5: Subsection (1)(B)—We request clarification be added within the standard for the following: By “tolerance of 0.01%”, is the intent that the half-width of the confidence interval must be ≤ 0.01% (so a 90.00% game would be 90.00% ± 0.01%) or that the full width of the confidence interval must be ≤ 0.01%(so a 90.00% game would be 90.00% ± 0.005%)? Again, by comparison, the independent test lab Bally employs applies a policy which uses the latter ± 0.005%, but at ninety-five percent (95%) confidence). Please see Bally’s suggested language for subsection (1)(B) in the next comment section.

Taking all the comments on subsection (1)(B) together, Bally suggests the following change: “(B) Calculate PAR sheets utilizing theoretical analysis where feasible. When the Return to Player (RTP) percentage cannot be feasibly computed using theoretical analysis, the RTP percentage shall be computed such that the half-width of the ninety-five percent (95%) confidence interval is not more than 0.005%.” COMMENT #6: Subsection (1)(B)—We assert that the “at least one hundred (100) million simulations” requirement is unnecessaryand recommend that it not be included in the rule. Proper calculation of the confidence interval already includes consideration for the sample size:

where:

κ is the z-value for the confidence level

σ is the standard deviation

n is the number of samplesCOMMENT # 7: If a game meets the confidence interval requirements with fewer than one hundred (100) million games, it still meets the confidence interval requirements. And although experience shows that more than one hundred (100) million games are required foreven the ninety-five percent (95%) confidence interval (Bally’s internal baseline is greater), we would recommend that the one hundred (100) million simulations requirement not be included, if for no other reason that it is an unnecessary requirement in the context of the math.

It is also worth noting that as currently written, the requirement of “one hundred (100) million simulations” is unclear. We understand the intent to be some number of simulation runs totaling one hundred(100) million games played. If this requirement is kept in the standard, it should be reworded to read “. . . using at least one hundred (100) million simulated games.”RESPONSE AND EXPLANATION OF CHANGE: Taking the comments into consideration, the staff made changes to clarify the intent of the rule. The staff agrees with the last comment and the phrase “at least one hundred (100) million simulations” has been removed from subsection (1)(B).
COMMENT #8: Subsection (1)(C)—This requirement is very unclear. Bally requests clarification and example(s) regarding “fea tures which 

## Page 660 Orders of Rulemaking

= al er v t n ce I en d f i n o C