In the 

Missouri Court of Appeals

Western District

LAKE OZARK-OSAGE BEACH JOINT 

SEWER BOARD, ET AL.,

Appellants,

v.

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES, LAND 

RECLAMATION COMMISSION AND 

MAGRUDER LIMESTONE CO., INC.,

Respondents.





























WD78869

OPINION FILED:

June 14, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Miller County, Missouri

The Honorable Sanford Francis Conley, IV, Judge

Before Division Three:

Gary D. Witt, P.J., James Edward Welsh, and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.

The Lake Ozark-Osage Beach Joint Sewer Board and Larry and Vicky Stockman 

("Appellants") appeal the Missouri Land Reclamation Commission's decision to grant Magruder

Limestone Co., Inc., ("Magruder") a permit to operate a limestone quarry on a site adjacent to a 

wastewater treatment plant owned and operated by the Lake Ozark-Osage Beach Joint Sewer 

Board ("Sewer Board").

1 We affirm.

 

1This case comes before this Court following our remand in Lake Ozark/Osage Beach Joint Sewer Board v. 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 326 S.W.3d 38, 39 (Mo. App. 2010). Portions of the facts and 

procedural history are adopted from that opinion without further attribution. 
2

Statutory Framework

Missouri's Land Reclamation Act ("the Act"), §§ 444.760-.790,2is administered by the 

Director of the Department of Natural Resources ("Department"). § 640.010.6. The stated 

purpose of the Act is to "strike a balance" between the surface mining of minerals and the 

reclamation of land subjected to surface disturbance by that mining. § 444.762. To that end, the 

Act grants the Land Reclamation Commission ("Commission") the power to "[e]xamine and pass 

on all applications and plans and specifications submitted . . . for the method of operation and for 

the reclamation and conservation of the area of land affected by the operation." § 444.767(3).

The Act requires any operator desiring to engage in surface mining to "make written 

application to the director for a permit." § 444.772.1. Once the Director deems the application 

complete, there is a period of public notice and comment. Saxony Lutheran High Sch., Inc. v. 

Mo. Dep't of Nat. Res., 404 S.W.3d 902, 906 (Mo. App. 2013) (citing § 444.772.10). The 

Director must promptly investigate the application and then make a recommendation to the 

Commission as to whether the permit should be issued or denied. § 444.773.1. If the Director's 

recommendation is to issue the permit, the Commission is authorized to grant a formal hearing

"to formally resolve concerns of the public" before passing on the application. § 444.773.3. 

Factual and Procedural Background

Magruder operates several quarries under a permit from the Commission. This case 

originated in April 2007, when Magruder filed an application to expand its permit to operate a 

limestone quarry on a 212-acre site in Miller County. Magruder sought permission from the 

Commission to engage in surface mining on 205 of those acres. The new quarry site is adjacent 

to a wastewater treatment plant operated by the Sewer Board. Magruder's application proposed 

 

2

Statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo) 2000, as updated by the 2013 

Cumulative Supplement, except where otherwise noted. 
3

quarry activity approximately 700 feet from that plant. In addition, two force main sewer lines 

transverse through the center of the proposed quarry site and transmit all the sewage from the 

City of Osage Beach to the sewer treatment plant.3 

Magruder's application was deemed complete, and it published the required notice. Both 

Magruder and opponents of its permit application then made presentations at the Commission’s 

next public meeting. The Sewer Board and several citizens thereafter requested a formal public 

hearing, which the Commission granted. The Commission appointed a hearing officer, who 

conducted seven days of hearings. The hearing officer ultimately recommended that Magruder's 

expansion permit be approved, with special conditions,4for the area west of the sewer line 

easement. The approved mining area was limited to approximately fifty-two acres. On July 29, 

2008, the Commission approved the hearing officer's recommended order and adopted the 

hearing officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law as its final decision. 

The Miller County Circuit Court reversed the Commission's decision to grant the permit. 

On appeal, this Court found that the decision was made upon unlawful procedure because the 

Commission incorrectly imposed the burden of persuasion on the petitioners in contravention of 

§ 444.773 and 10 C.S.R. 40-10.80(3). Lake Ozark/Osage Beach Joint Sewer Bd. v. Mo. Dep't of 

Nat. Res., 326 S.W.3d 38, 45 (Mo. App. 2010). Consequently, we reversed the Commission's 

decision to grant the permit and remanded with instructions to apply the correct burden of proof 

in a new hearing. Id. 

On remand, the Commission designated Commissioner Winn from the Administrative 

Hearing Commission to take evidence and make recommendations. Following a five-day 

 

3The City of Osage Beach owns the sewer lines but is not a party to this litigation. 

4The conditions concerned restricting the days, times, and location of the blasting with regard to the sewer 

line easement; using seismographs to monitor the sewer plant and sewer lines; and restricting the elevation of the 

mine floor to run at or above the grade of the sewer line easement. Lake Ozark/Osage Beach, 326 S.W.3d at 40 n.4. 
4

hearing, the Commissioner issued a Recommended Decision. She found that the Sewer Board 

met its burden of production by "establishing issues of fact regarding the impact, if any, of the 

permitted activity on [its] health, safety, or livelihood" but the individual petitioners (including 

the Stockmans5) did not. See § 444.773. The Commissioner also found, however, that Magruder

met its burden of persuasion that the expanded permit, subject to certain conditions, "will not 

unduly impair the health, safety or livelihood of the petitioners." She recommended, therefore,

that Magruder's application for permit expansion be granted with eight specific conditions. 

The Commission took up the matter at its next public meeting. It voted unanimously to 

adopt the recommendations and findings of Commissioner Winn and to grant Magruder's permit, 

but it incorporated only the first five of the recommended conditions. The Commission also 

modified Condition 4 to make it easier to understand. 

The Appellants filed a petition for judicial review, claiming that the Commission erred in 

failing to accept all of the hearing officer's suggested conditions, and that the Commission lacked 

the authority to impose any conditions that were not in Magruder's application. The circuit court 

rejected those arguments, stating that it had reviewed the Commission's reasons for removing 

Conditions 6, 7, and 8 and found no basis for rejecting the Commission's findings. The court

also found that the "Commission had the authority to impose or reject conditions when issuing a 

permit" and affirmed the Commission's decision to grant the permit with conditions. 

The Sewer Board and the Stockmans appeal.

Standard of Review

On appeal from the circuit court's review of an agency's decision, we review the agency's 

actions and not those of the circuit court. Albanna v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts,

 

5The Stockmans own and operate an RV park that is approximately a mile from the proposed mine site and 

is serviced by the Lake Ozark/Osage Beach sewer system. Their concern is with the impact that the proposed 

mining activity will have on their business. 
5

293 S.W.3d 423, 428 (Mo. banc 2009). Our review is limited to determining whether the 

agency's decision was constitutional; was within the agency's statutory authority and jurisdiction; 

was supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record; was authorized by 

law; was made upon lawful procedure with a fair trial; was not arbitrary, capricious or 

unreasonable; and was a proper exercise of discretion. Lagud v. Kansas City Bd. of Police 

Comm'rs, 136 S.W.3d 786, 791 (Mo. banc 2004); § 536.140.2. In reviewing the agency's 

decision, we must consider the entire record and not simply the evidence that supports the 

agency's decision. Coffer v. Wasson-Hunt, 281 S.W.3d 308, 310 (Mo. banc 2009). "If the 

evidence permits either of two opposing findings, deference is afforded to the administrative 

decision." Id. We review questions of law de novo. Saxony, 404 S.W.3d at 906.

Point I

The Appellants first contend that the Commission erred in granting Magruder's permit 

because the Commissioner's Order is not supported by competent and substantial evidence and is 

arbitrary and capricious, in that the Commission removed Conditions 6, 7, and 8, which 

Commissioner Winn deemed necessary to the grant of the permit.

Section 444.773.3 of the Act provides that, where the Director recommends issuing a 

permit, a formal hearing may be held upon a timely petition from "any person whose health, 

safety or livelihood will be unduly impaired by the issuance of this permit." Lake Ozark/Osage 

Beach, 326 S.W.3d at 43. Following the formal hearing, if the Commission finds, "based on 

competent and substantial scientific evidence on the record, that an interested party's health, 

safety or livelihood will be unduly impaired by the issuance of the permit," then the Commission 

may deny the permit application. § 444.773.4; 10 C.S.R. 40-10.080(3)(D). At least four of the

Commission members must approve any "final action by the commission." § 444.787.4.
6

Pursuant to section 444.789.3, the Commission may designate a hearing officer to hold a 

hearing and make recommendations to the Commission. Here, the Commission designated 

Commissioner Winn to do so. In the course of the hearing, the Commissioner accepted portions 

of the evidence from the 2008 hearing that the parties designated and heard additional testimony. 

As noted, the Commissioner ultimately found that the Sewer Board "met its burden of 

production" but that the individual petitioners did not. The Commissioner also found, however,

"that Magruder met its burden of persuasion."

6

 She recommended that Magruder's application 

for permit expansion be granted subject to these Conditions: 

1) Magruder must adhere to its blast plan. . . . Any significant alterations to the blast 

plan should be filed with the LRC and a copy provided to the Sewer Board. If 

smaller blast, smaller holes or lesser bench height is warranted because of concerns 

about safety or proximity to the sewer system, such "downward departures" should 

be allowed without notice. 

2) The conditions set forth in the blast plan shall apply to the entire 205-acre mine 

plan. 

3) Blasting shall be confined to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Magruder 

shall notify sewer plant staff prior to each blast. The Sewer Board shall provide the 

name of the appropriate contact person to [Magruder]. 

4) The elevation of the mine floor at the quarry shall be maintained above the sewer 

lines to reduce the possibility of ground shifting or block movement in the pipeline 

area from blasting. 

5) Magruder shall not stockpile rock on or within 150 feet of the sewer line easement.

6) Trucks or other heavy equipment shall not travel over the sewer line easement. If 

that necessity arises, Magruder shall consult with the Sewer Board and the City of 

Osage Beach to engineer and build a safe crossing over the sewer lines.

7) Magruder shall employ the best available technology for dust suppression and 

control. 

 

6As explained in Lake Ozark/Osage Beach, 326 S.W.3d at 43, the burden of proof for parties before the 

Commission is set forth in 10 C.S.R. 40-10.080(3)(B), which provides that "[t]he burden of establishing an issue of 

fact regarding the impact, if any, of the permitted activity on a hearing petitioner's health, safety or livelihood shall 

be on that petitioner by competent and substantial scientific evidence on the record," and "[o]nce such issues of fact 

have been established, the burden of proof for those issues is upon the applicant for the permit." (Emphasis added.) 
7

8) If the Sewer Board documents a correlation between blasting at the quarry site and 

disruption to [its] UV [ultraviolet treatment] system, Magruder shall pay the cost of 

repairs and shall adjust its blasts to eliminate or minimize any such disruption.

At the Commission's next public meeting, a member of the Land Reclamation Program

Staff presented the Staff's recommendations for modifications to the conditions recommended by 

Commissioner Winn. The Staff's recommendations pertinent to this appeal are as follows:

4. Condition 4 was modified slightly from the original recommendation staff had 

prepared and placed in the packets for the meeting, and was altered to match the 

original recommendation of Hearing Officer Tichenor, from the first hearing. The 

condition deals with the elevation of the mine floor. The elevation of the floor of 

the mine (quarry) shall run at or above the grade of the City of Osage Beach's 

sewer line easement as it crosses the Magruder property, so that no blasting holes 

will be drilled to a depth that would be below the elevation of that grade. 

Permittee shall submit an annual report prepared by a Missouri registered 

Professional Engineer to verify compliance with this requirement. 

Justification for the above modification is that the proposed language is easier 

to understand for all parties and meets the intent of the Administrative Hearing 

Commission's recommendation.

. . . .

6. Trucks or other heavy equipment shall not travel over the sewer easement line. 

If that necessity arises, Magruder shall consult with the Sewer Board and the City 

of Osage Beach to engineer and build a safe crossing over the sewer line.

Staff recommendation is not to include this as a condition of the permit because 

this condition is between the company and the Sewer Board.

7. Magruder shall employ the best available technology for dust suppression and 

control.

Staff recommendation is not to include this as a condition of the permit because 

this activity will be regulated and enforceable under the Missouri Clean Air 

Conservation Law.

8. If the Sewer Board documents a correlation between blasting at the quarry site 

and disruption to the UV system, Magruder shall pay the cost of repairs and shall 

adjust its blasts to eliminate or minimize such disruption.

Staff recommendation is not to include this as a condition of the permit because 

it's not feasible for Land Reclamation Program staff to make a determination 

as to a cause of UV system disruption and nearly impossible to enforce.
8

Following the Staff recommendations, each side was allowed five minutes to address the 

Commission. One of the Commissioners then moved "to adopt the findings of the hearing 

officer with the changes presented by staff and the further change for Condition 4 to include the 

words 'at the surface' following 'the Magruder property.'" Another Commissioner seconded the 

motion, and a third Commissioner commented "that these conditions narrowed the aspects to the 

things that are under the jurisdiction of the Land Reclamation Program while other issues are 

enforced in different ways but they are addressed."

The Commission voted unanimously to adopt the recommendations and findings of 

Commissioner Winn and to grant Magruder's permit. Pursuant to Staff recommendations, the

Commission rejected Conditions 6, 7, and 8. The Commission also modified Condition 4 to 

make it easier to understand. In a letter dated January 13, 2014, the Commission issued "formal 

notice" of its decision, stating that it had adopted the Commissioner's recommended decision, 

including the permit conditions as modified by the Commission. 

The evidence supported the Commission's decision to incorporate these modifications. 

As to Condition 6, Magruder's representative testified at the formal hearing that Magruder would 

use a conveyor system to transport material at the mine and would engineer and build a proper 

crossing if it needs to use trucks to convey the material over the sewer lines. The Commission, 

as the finder of fact, was free to believe this testimony, Dierks v. Kraft Foods, 471 S.W.3d 726, 

737 (Mo. App. 2015), and to conclude from it that Condition 6 was unnecessary and that 

engineering a crossing, if needed, is "between [Magruder] and the Sewer Board." 

As to Condition 7, requiring Magruder to "employ the best available technology for dust 

suppression," the Staff pointed out that it was unnecessary because Magruder is subject to 

Missouri's Clean Air Conservation Law dust emission limits. §§ 643.010-.620. 
9

In rejecting Condition 8, requiring Magruder to pay for repairs if Magruder's blasting 

causes a disruption of the UV system, the Staff noted that it would be "nearly impossible to 

enforce," in that it would not be "feasible" for the Staff to determine the cause of a UV system 

disruption. Moreover, the evidence showed that the treatment plant's alert system recently had 

been upgraded so that personnel are notified within 90 seconds of any failure in the UV system; 

that resetting the system takes about five minutes; that if the UV system is offline only for a few 

minutes, the quality of the plant's effluent will not be impaired; and that Condition 3 requires 

Magruder to provide advance notice of blasting, after which plant personnel can inspect the UV 

system. In light of all this, it is not surprising that the Commission determined that Condition 8 

was not needed. 

Finally, the decision to modify Condition 4 was based on the Staff's advice that the new 

language would make the provision more understandable.

7

 

The Appellants contend that the Commission's decision to accept Commissioner Winn's 

recommendation to grant the permit while modifying her suggested conditions was "outside the 

Commission's authority" and thus "arbitrary and capricious." This argument, which suggests that 

the Commission was bound by the Commissioner's recommendations, is without merit.

As noted, the Commission may designate a hearing officer to conduct a hearing and make 

recommendations to the Commission. § 444.789.3. Those recommendations have no binding 

effect, however, because the Commission "shall make the final decision" on a permit application,

and all Commission members participating in the decision must "review the record before 

making the decision." See id. The Act clearly leaves the decision to grant or deny the permit 

 

7As modified, Condition 4 stated:

The elevation of the floor of the mine (quarry) shall run at or above the grade of the City of Osage 

Beach's sewer line easement as it crosses the Magruder property at the surface, so that no blasting 

holes will be drilled to a depth that would be below the elevation of that grade. 
10

"solely to the discretion of the Commission," which "retains the ultimate authority" to make the

decision following the public hearing. Saxony, 404 S.W.3d at 908, 911 (citing § 444.773.1-2 & 

§ 444.789.3). 

The Appellants' suggestion that the Commission must either accept or reject the 

Recommended Decision in its entirety is simply incorrect. The legislature gave the Commission, 

not the hearing officer, the power to "examine and pass on" mining-permit applications. See § 

444.767(3). Accordingly, the Commission acted within its statutory authority in determining 

whether or not to adopt any of the hearing officer's conditions.

The Appellants clarify in their reply brief that they are not claiming that the Commission 

does not have the authority to make its own decision on the merits or modify recommendations. 

Rather, they are arguing that if the Commission does modify the recommendations, it must issue 

its own findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically, they contend that Magruder

eliminates the requirement that the [Commission] make "findings" to support its 

decision. See RSMo. 444.773 (If the commission changes or modifies the decision 

recommended by the administrative hearing officer, it shall issue its own decision, 

which shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law).

The Appellants assert, in other words, that the Commission may not grant the permit and then 

reject some of the required conditions, but must reject some or all of the factual findings and then 

make its own findings. Absent new findings, they argue, "the decision to grant a permit was 

arbitrary and capricious." 

This claim, however, also is without merit. The portion of section 444.773 on which the 

Appellants rely was not in effect at the time of the Commission's decision here. That provision 

was first added to section 444.773 in 2014. Here, the Commission issued its final decision letter 
11

on January 13, 2014 (seven months prior to the new provision's effective date).

8 At that time, the 

Commission was not statutorily required to issue its own decision with findings of fact and 

conclusions of law if it changed or modified the recommended decision. See § 444.773, RSMo, 

Cum. Supp. 2013.

In addition, the Appellants fail to show how they were prejudiced by the Commission's 

failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. "Only prejudicial error is reversible 

error." Saxony, 404 S.W.3d at 912. Here, the Commission's formal notice of its decision, with 

attached minutes from the hearing on the Recommended Decision, explained the Staff's 

reasoning for its recommended modifications, which the Commission adopted. 

We also disagree with the Appellants' (rather convoluted) claim that the Commission's 

decision to eliminate some of the recommended conditions somehow rendered the entire decision 

unsupported by competent and substantial evidence. Our review of the record reveals that the 

Commission's decision was "supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole 

record." See § 536.140.2; Coffer, 281 S.W.3d at 310. 

Finally, to the extent that the Appellants argue that the Commission was required to adopt 

all eight of the suggested conditions in order for Magruder to satisfy its burden of proof, we 

again disagree.9 As discussed above, the hearing officer is not the ultimate decision maker on 

mining permits; that role is the Commission's alone. Saxony, 404 S.W.3d at 908-09; § 444.767. 

 

8

See L.2014, H.B. No. 1201, § A, eff. Aug. 28, 2014; L.2014, S.B. No. 642, § A, eff. Aug. 28, 2014. As 

amended, § 444.773.2, RSMo, Cum. Supp. 2015, now provides:

The commission shall issue its own decision, based on the appeal, for permit issuance, denial, 

suspension, or revocation. If the commission changes a finding of fact or conclusion of law 

made by the administrative hearing commission, or modifies or vacates the decision 

recommended by the administrative hearing commission, it shall issue its own decision, which 

shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law. [Emphasis added.]

9We also reject the Appellants' complaint that the language added to Condition 4 came directly from the 

2008 decision which incorrectly applied the burden of proof. They do not show that this specific language was in 

any way defective, and the evidence shows that the language was employed solely to make Condition 4 easier to 

understand. The Commission did not err in employing the clearest, most effective language, regardless of its origin. 
12

Here, the Commission ultimately decided, based on the evidence, that Magruder met its burden

of proof even without three of the conditions proposed by the hearing officer. We find no error 

in that decision. Point I is denied. 

Point II

The Appellants next argue that the Commission erred in granting Magruder's permit 

because its Order is made "upon unlawful procedure and without a fair trial," in that 

Commissioner Winn's act of sua sponte adding conditions to the permit carried the burden of 

proof for Magruder. As the Commission appoints a hearing officer only for the limited purpose 

of conducting a hearing and making recommendations, the issue is whether the Commission has 

authority to attach conditions to a permit. §§ 444.767(3) & .765(4); see also § 536.140.2 

(allowing judicial inquiry into whether the agency's action was in excess of its authority).

We find that the Commission does have such authority. We note, first, that section 

444.773 was amended in 2014 to include language explicitly permitting the Director to impose 

conditions. The revised version of the statute now states: "In issuing a permit, the director may 

impose reasonable conditions consistent with the provisions of sections 444.760 to 444.790." 

§ 444.773.1, RSMo, Cum. Supp. 2015. The Commission decided this case prior to the addition 

of that sentence, however; thus, we look to the case law to assist with the interpretation of the 

Act as it existed at the time. 

In Saxony, the Southern District of this Court determined that the Commission had the 

authority to impose a condition on a permit to operate a limestone mine before it approved the 

application. 404 S.W.3d at 906-11. While the quarry's application was pending in that case, a 

newly enacted law took effect requiring a 1,000-foot buffer between a mining area and a school. 

Id. at 905. The quarry's application had specified a 55-foot buffer. Id. The school tried to stop 
13

the public hearing and to strike the application after the law passed. Id. The applicant responded 

by offering to revise the plan to reflect a boundary at least 1,000 feet from the school. Id. As in 

this case, the school argued that the Commission lacked the authority to impose conditions on the 

approval of a permit, but, rather, had authority only to approve or deny the application as filed. 

Id. The hearing officer recommended granting the permit subject to the revision, however, and 

the Commission adopted the recommendation. Id. Following review in the circuit court, which 

vacated the decision, the appeals court upheld the Commission's decision. Id. at 905, 911. 

In examining section 444.767(3), which grants the Commission the power to "[e]xamine 

and pass on all applications," the Saxony Court reasoned that the plain meaning of pass "suggests 

the Commission is empowered to consider the evidence in front of it and render its decision." Id. 

at 909. It further noted that, by stating that the Act's purpose is to "strike a balance" between the 

various interests, the legislature intended for "the Commission [to] exercise [its] judgment and 

craft a decision that would balance those interests." Id. To read the Act to "suggest [that] the 

Commission's role is limited essentially to just checking one of two boxes on a form," the Court

stated, "would limit the Commission's ability to balance and resolve [the relevant] concerns" and 

would disregard the plain meaning of "pass on" in the Act. Id. 

Citing other Department of Natural Resources agencies which have provisions for issuing 

conditional permits, the Saxony Court stated, "we have no reason to believe [that] the legislature 

intended [the Commission] to be the only permit-granting entity without power to impose 

conditions on such permits during the process." Id. at 910. The Court held that "the only logical 

conclusion is that the Commission's power to 'pass on' applications under the Act includes the 

ability to conditionally approve permit applications in ways that align with the Act and fulfill the 

Commission's purpose to balance interests" of operators and the public. Id. at 911. 
14

The Court also noted that section 444.787.2 of the Act empowers the Director to 

eliminate "violation[s] of any provision of [the Act] or any rule or regulation . . . or any condition 

imposed on the permit." Id. at 909-10. The Court also opined that the Act must be read in 

conjunction with the Surface Coal Mining Law, which expressly allows the Director and the 

Commission to modify a permit application as an alternative to outright denial. Id. at 910. 

The Saxony Court concluded, in light of the foregoing, "that the Commission had the 

authority to approve [the] permit subject to the condition that [the applicant] relocate its mine 

plan boundary." Id. at 912. Although the Saxony Court at times framed the issue more narrowly,

nothing in its reasoning is limited to the specific circumstances of that case; rather, its reasoning 

necessarily decides the broader question of whether the Commission has the authority to attach 

conditions generally.

10

In light of the compelling reasoning in Saxony, we conclude that the Commission had the 

authority to impose conditions on Magruder's permit at that time. We also believe that the 2014 

revision of the statute to now specifically authorize the Director to impose conditions on a permit 

supports this. Consequently, Point II also is denied. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's judgment which upheld the 

Commission's decision to grant Magruder its permit subject to the conditions cited.

/s/ JAMES EDWARD WELSH

James Edward Welsh, Judge

All concur.

 

10The Appellants' claim that adding conditions deprived them of the opportunity to present evidence 

regarding their impact is refuted by the fact that most of the conditions appear in Magruder's blasting plan, and they 

were, in fact, discussed at the hearing.