This webcast is a service of SDPB. Good, useful, and full of wonder.

SDPB.

The Interim Rules Review Committee will now come to order. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

DeGroot? Here.

Larson?

Here.

Mehlhaff?

Here.

Muckey?

Here. Howard?

Here, Hansen.

Here, Mr.

Chair.

You have a quorum.

Thank you. We have a quorum. This time, the chair will entertain a motion to approve the minutes of our last meeting. So moved by Senator Melhoff. Seconded by Representative DeGroot. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of approval of the minutes will say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay. The motion carries. Minutes are approved.

Okay.

Good morning, everybody.

Welcome to the. Interim Rules Review Committee. We will take the rules proposals as they appear on the revised agenda. And so that means we'll begin with the South Dakota Plumbing Commission with a proposal to amend a rule to clarify floor drain sloping and acceptable use of CPVC Schedule 80 pipe and fittings and provide guidance for horizontal wet venting. The committee will now hear proponent testimony. Good morning. Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members, and LRC staff. My name is Mandy Nielsen. I'm the program director for the South Dakota Plumbing Commission. On behalf of the commission, I ask you to deem the administrative rulemaking process complete for the rule changes in this packet. As background, last year the commission adopted the 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code with amendments consistent with Senate Bill 2025 Senate Bill 25. Since then, the commission has received requests for additional clarification from licensees. The changes in today's packet address those licensee concerns by clarifying, clarifying floor drain sloping, clarifying acceptable use of PCVC Schedule 80 and 40 pipe and fittings, and providing additional guidance for horizontal wet bedding. The amendments also correct minor errors in the amendments due to language changes between the 2015 and the 2024 Uniform Plumbing Code. The commission received no written public comment on this packet and only one oral comment during the public hearing, which resulted in the commission making a small change to one rule. This is addressed in more detail on Form 10. The commission unanimously adopted these rules at the public hearing on April 28th. Thank you for your time and consideration. I would also like to thank the LRC staff for their assistance with this process. And I will stand by for questions.

Thank you, Ms. Nielsen. Any further proponents? Any further proponent testimony? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Any opponents? Seeing no opponents, are there any committee questions? Any questions from the members of the committee? Okay, seeing none, we'll move to committee discussion. Or— oh, we do have a hand raised. Is that Senator Howard?

It is.

Go ahead, Senator.

Um, so I just had a question. I guess the comment and the changes that you made related— relating to the comment, um, seemed to indicate that it was going to save some, some costs, but that wasn't indicated in your original— you know, there was no cost indicated in the original packet. So I'm just wondering why that wasn't, if the change that you subsequently made did result in some cost savings.

Ms. Nielsen.

Mr.

Chair, um, committee members, Mandy Nielsen, program director for the Plumbing Commission. Um, one of the reasons that we don't have that there— what I've been told is there is no cost savings, because also part of this is It's not a requirement. It's something that somebody may do. So you're not required. They can use multiple things. So it would depend on them. But there really is no cost savings. It should be pretty much the same.

Follow-up, Senator Howard?

Yeah, thank you. But if they did things according to the initial way that you had it written, would that lead to an increase in cost for them?

Ms. Nielsen.

I think I'm going to defer to a plumber on this, so I'll bring up one of my inspectors.

Okay.

Good morning, sir. Please introduce yourself and then you can proceed with answering the question.

My name is Ronald Healy, Southeast Area, South Dakota plumbing inspector. I guess I need clarification from Ms. Hansen. What, what are we looking at? All of them or just Because, uh, as for the, the floor drain definition clarification, basically that's just— there's no extra cost there. We just want to make sure that the contractor is aware that we do require slope to drains in houses, commercial, etc. That's no cost whatsoever. The CPVC is an alternative to cast iron in high-temp discharges on like commercial dishwashers and stuff. It has a very much higher rating.

Okay.

To be honest, that pipe is— being it's an alternative and what it's specifically limited use for, there probably is a slight increase in price in the pipe, but it's, it's a necessity. Otherwise, we have a failure of pipe underground for these commercial dishwashers that discharge at 160, 180 degrees, and CPV— our PVC pipe's rated for 140 degrees.

Okay.

It can't handle it. It will fail. And cast iron, depending upon the area you're in, it will— the soil will deteriorate the pipe on its own without water going through it. And with chemicals, the cast iron will also fall apart, whereas the CPVC will hold up to it. It's an alternative. We're just putting it in as an alternative. As for The venting, it's going on right now. It's just clarification. There's no extra cost whatsoever in the process, process of, uh, um, over what we're doing now. It's just clarification.

Thank you. Senator Howard, any follow-up?

No, I'm good. Thanks.

Thank you. Any further questions? Representative DeGroot.

Just clarification, um, I heard you say it's cost neutral. Then I hear you say that is a slight increase. What is in front of us today, what is— is it neutral or, or does it increase the cost? But it's— and did I hear you right, it's not required?

It's an alternative. Uh, you have, uh, we require a cast iron pipe, um, for commercial, uh, within 10 to 15 feet Downstream of a high-temperature dishwasher. Because, like I stated, the PVC will melt and deform.

Oh.

And because it only has a temperature rating of 140, whereas the CPVC has a rating of 200. And cast iron is cast iron. It's rated for I don't know how many hundreds degrees. But this is an alternative to cast for the— For the— for this application. Uh, tell you the truth, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it's— it's— we're just— we were approached by a contractor and then a representative on this. We researched it and we found that it was a reputable alternative to this application.

Mr. Chair, could I offer some clarification too? I'd also note that, um, With the estimates we got from the 3 contractors, that was part of it, and they all stated that there would be no additional cost. So I'm— I don't know if that's just dependent on them, but no additional cost then to homeowners from their perspective. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Senator Mehlhaff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There was a reference in some of the notes about Schedule 80 and Schedule 40 and the requirement for special special fittings, I think, for the 80, and they wanted to add Schedule 40. Did I read that, and am I remembering that correctly? And what is the difference between those 2 types of PVC?

Mr. Healy.

The difference between Schedule 80 and 40 is the wall thickness. Uh, the outside diameter remains the same. The inside diameter is like twice as thick on Schedule 80. Schedule 80 is usually For a pressure application.

The—

in this case, Schedule 80 was— would be like an overkill for it, and Schedule 40 would be the best alternative for these high-temperature discharges from, like I said, commercial kitchens and schools, you name it, wherever high temperatures are, manufacturing. Steam boilers dumping. It's just a— it seems like a really good fit for commercial applications. And Schedule 80, I really don't believe that they'll be using that as much as Schedule 40. And yes, Schedule 80 fittings are a lot thicker to coincide with the diameter, the thickness of the Schedule 80 pipe. And like I said, Schedule 80 was is mainly for pressure.

Follow-up, Senator Melhoff?

Thank you. No, my questions are answered. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Representative DeGroot.

Are we ready for action, Mr. Chair?

Yeah.

I move that the rules process is complete.

Is there a second?

Second.

Motion made by Representative DeGroot, seconded by Senator Melhoff, that the rules process is complete. Any discussion on that motion?

None.

Any discussion from the members on the motion? Seeing none, the question before the committee is the DeGroot motion that the rules process is complete. All those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed, nay. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

DeGroot.

Aye.

Larson. Aye.

Mehlhaff.

Aye.

Muckey.

Aye. Howard.

Hansen.

Aye.

Mr. Chair, unanimous.

Madam Secretary, that motion carries. The rules process is complete. Chair will pass the gavel to Representative DeGroot.

Thank you.

We will move on to our next package, and it's by the Game, Fish and Parks. Do we have proponents? Good morning, Mr. Kirschman. Would you introduce yourself, please?

I sure will, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, good morning, committee members. Tom Kirschman, Director of the Wildlife Division, Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, here before you today with our next rules package that you see in front of you.

Could I, could I interrupt you for a second? I, I forgot part of my, my job here, and what we have in front of us today is a number of items, a lot of us just clerical cleanup work. It looks like there's a dozen of them, and what Mr. Kirschman is going to do today is just going to summarize these, and then we'll move forward on those. And if there's any questions in particular on any one of those items, he's ready to answer those as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Continue.

All right.

Quickly, as the Chairman said, I'm going to kind of give you the Cliff Notes version of the laundry list of bulleted points in front of you. First and foremost, some of the adjustments and changes that you will see in this rule package is a result of style and format recommendations from LRC staff. Thank you, Mr. Goetz, for your assistance in those efforts. And those have been incorporated into the rules package. And then we actually go into the multiple adjustments that we have within some of our hunting seasons and drawing structures for multiple hunting seasons in your rules package here. So first, some of the rule adjustments that you'll see in respect to some big game seasons are some clarifications and small adjustments in just how the drawing process works for a couple of species in particular, for antelope and turkey. And then we have some rule adjustments related to Canada goose hunting seasons. That result is Those adjustments and results in the rule adjustments follow our resident Canada goose management plan that has gone through a public process. Our commission has approved that, and within our resident Canada goose hunting season action plan, it talks about we use information that we collect from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when they do surveys of Canada geese. In estimated populations. And by those estimated populations, we basically have 3 approaches that we take. One would be more considered a conservative or restricted management approach. One is more of a maintain status. And then one is more of a liberal, or when our populations are really high. And right now, based on the population objectives and where the status is, we fall in that middle ground, which is more of that maintained status. And hence, you'll see some of the rule package adjustments here, in particular for the daily harvest limit for the August management take and the early fall September seasons. We had a daily limit of 15 because the population was above the population objective. It's now within our population range, and so we're moving down from 15 daily limit to an 8 daily limit for those 2 seasons. And then also in the AMT, there are 5 counties or hunting units in the north-central part of the state that we're pulling out of the August management take hunting opportunities as well, just because of numbers. Then in your package are rule adjustments related to the elk hunting seasons, primarily the prairie elk hunting seasons, and related to lander-owned land licenses. Where we are now opening that opportunity to landowners for all of our prairie units, not the Black Hills elk hunting season, but just the prairie units. So anything out of the Black Hills area. Again, this is more from the standpoint of this was an item that the legislature passed here recently to give the commission the opportunity to utilize landowner-owned land licenses. So those are antlerless only. That are used on their ranch or on their ranch unit, one per ranch unit on an annual basis. And it's an opportunity to harvest an antlerless elk, and it's primarily for the purposes of population control opportunities. Those licenses are different than the limited draw licenses where you can put in for a bull tag or a cow tag also as a non-landowner or as landowners. But so now we're opening that up to all of the prairie units. We're also creating a prairie unit for eastern South Dakota, and that includes the entire eastern half of the state east of the Missouri River, excluding the Crow Creek tribal reservation boundary there. We are seeing more and more elk appearing on the prairie in eastern South Dakota as well. When we have elk interfacing with high-intensive agriculture areas, in particular where you have a lot of corn, soybeans, even sunflowers. They can create a lot of damage, and it's a very, very challenging management activity. And so we are opening up an eastern South Dakota prairie unit. Unlimited licenses can be sold. So as any one of us that's eligible to purchase a license can do so, you'd still have to fall within the parameters of the dates of the season, having landowner permission on private land. But it would be unlimited just simply from the standpoint, as an agency in the state, we have no intention of managing elk in eastern South Dakota just with that interface of agricultural land. And then the main changes that we have for an additional elk hunting opportunities elk season has to do with Custer State Park. Right now our population objective is about Our ranges from 500 to 600 elk that we'd like to manage for within the park. Right now, that estimate is more closer to that 750 to 775 area. So we're above our population objective. Now we do have the elk hunting season, the firearm. We do have archery elk hunting. What the rule package here in front of you has is to reimplement a former season that was held there a long time ago. We haven't had it for quite some time. And it's a special antlerless season. And so it really goes again towards the harvest of cow elk to help with population management in Custer State Park. You'll see some of the rules that establishes the 2 units where we're splitting up 50 licenses available for antlerless in Custer State Park by separating by 2 segments, 25 and 25, in different time periods. Unit 1 will be from October 16th through the end of October for basically a 2-week period, and then the next 25 would be the first 2 weeks of the month of December. Minimize the congestion of the hunters on each other, that pressure, provide more opportunity. And then you're going to see 3 rules that actually repeal some existing rules. I would offer to you that's more of a former approach or system of allocating licenses in Custer State Park with the implementation of the antlerless season, again, we will use our regular draw approach where you put in an application. We have the licenses available. Folks can put in their application if they're interested in those cow tags and do a limited draw for them. So that's a Cliff Notes version of our overall rules packages. Again, style format, some small changes in there, some season adjustments. And then of some of those new opportunities for those hunting seasons. And I will stand by for any questions that you may have on this rules package. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any other proponents? Any online? Any opponents? Any online? Then we'll move on to committee questions.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes, yes, Senator.

Thank you, Tom. I just had a question about the East River elk licenses. So those will be completely unlimited? Do you, do you have any protection— I'm sure you do— but protections in place that would prevent people from getting East River and maybe taking a West River?

Elk.

Through the chair, Senator. So it would be no different than our overall approach where somebody has an East River deer tag or a West River deer tag and them using it— excuse me— in a different season or going across that river. It would be through our law enforcement, our officers. The protection would lie in place with them. Doing their patrols, visiting with hunters out there. Sometimes we get tips or somebody approaches our staff, our agency, and says, hey, I'm pretty sure this individual has an East River tag and they're going West River. Those are the types of things that would happen. But the primary protection is, number one, we would inform and educate that if you have this tag, it is for the prairie units in western South Dakota. The or the units in eastern South Dakota, or the unit in eastern South Dakota, and that's where you're limited to. And then it does come down to law enforcement and them doing their work.

Thank you.

Senator Mehlhaugh, follow-up?

Nope, I'm good.

We have one on line. Senator Larson. Go ahead, Senator Larson.

Sorry, thank you. It takes me a minute to find my mute button. Just on the same— along the same lines, I'm just going to ask, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, could I just ask a few questions at once?

I think that'll be okay.

Okay, um, here's just, just along the same lines that, uh, Senator Mehlhoff was asking. How many elk are we talking about in East River? What are the boundaries of the unit? Do we have documented cases of, or even You know, I know that elk, you know, can, can do a lot of damage to row crops, especially in those prairie units. Do we have cases of that actually happening in East River as well? And then also, why unlimited? That's my first round. Thank you.

Mr. Kirschman, you wish to answer? I think there's 4 questions there. Number of elk, boundaries of the units, and, and why Yes.

So thank you, Mr. Chair, and, uh, thank you, Senator. So, uh, the East River number, um, so first of all, it is an unlimited number of licenses that we would offer in eastern South Dakota. Excuse me, East River number, what was that again? Sorry, I'm mixing two of them up, Senator. The East River number of Senator, could you just clarify?

Sure, sure.

How many elk live East River? What are the boundaries? What are the cases of damage from farmers? And why unlimited?

Thank you, Senator, for that follow-up. So the number of elk East River, the number is certainly smaller than what we are seeing in western South Dakota. One of our challenges with elk management is to get a very strong population estimate out on the prairies, both in western South Dakota and eastern South Dakota, compared to what we're able to estimate in the Black Hills. Even in the western part of the state, our numbers are pretty wide open in terms of what our overall estimated populations are. We know of some herds in areas of 200 to 300 elk in a couple of different locations up in Harding County. We're probably looking more at closer to 400. So our numbers out in the prairie collectively in western South Dakota We feel pretty comfortable that anywhere ranges from right now 1,000 to 2,000 elk pretty easily. Now in eastern South Dakota, it's nowhere near those numbers. We do not have an actual estimate of the number of elk that are roaming around on eastern part of the state. We do see an individual elk here and there that we get reports on. Where we do see the elk in a little bit bigger numbers on the eastern part of South Dakota is down along from south of Pierre down towards the Chamberlain area, in particular in that Crow Creek area. And we are in communications and visiting with the wildlife department of Crow Creek there as well. So don't have an exact number or an estimate for eastern South Dakota. The unit boundary for eastern South Dakota is just that. All land east of the Missouri River, excluding the Crow Creek tribal boundary. So anything within the Crow Creek Reservation boundary would be excluded from this unit. Again, we did that in concert of our consultations and communication with the folks down there at Crow Creek and working on their elk management approach and numbers and some management activities. Do we have documented cases of depredation in eastern South Dakota? The answer is yes. In particular, those elk down in that area, they will— elk will move significant distances. They will move outside of that particular area. We've had instances where our wildlife damage specialists, our staff that work on depredation issues, have been contacted by private landowners down in that general area where we've had instances of 40 to 50 elk on cornfields, soybean fields, causing depredation and damage, asking for assistance from us. We do have some documented depredation occurring. And then why unlimited? Simple answer is we have no intentions for managing elk on the prairie in the eastern half of the state. And so there was no sense in putting in a limited number of licenses available. Don't anticipate a lot of folks are going to take advantage of that because the elk numbers are at a lower level. But again, we have no intentions of managing in eastern South Dakota. And so this gives the opportunity for a hunter, a landowner, whoever it might be, if they know they have elk or they see elk periodically on their property and they would like to harvest one. If you're the landowner, obviously you can do so then with that tag. If you're a non-landowner, if you have that license, you would have to obtain permission on private land to do so. And that's why we have those licenses unlimited for the eastern part of the state.

Follow-up, Senator?

Sure. So just one follow-up. A landowner, if they found 50 elk on their corn in eastern South Dakota, could harvest that entire population of 50 elk?

Through the chair.

Go ahead.

Senator Larson, so a landowner would be eligible to obtain a license. Other people, whether it's friends, local people, someone from other part of the state, could obtain one of those licenses as well. And if they had permission from that landowner, they could go in and harvest an elk as well. But again, it would be no different. You're still limited to one elk license per year. And so not one person could get multiple licenses to go harvest multiple elk. You would still be limited to one license per person.

Clarifying question.

Follow-up?

So one person could only ever harvest maximum one elk per year?

Through the chair, yes, Senator Larson, that is a correct statement. Every one of us were only allowed one elk license per year.

Okay, thank you.

Any further questions from the Senator Howard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So along those same lines, same issue, why would you not want to manage the Elk East River? I mean, I'm just curious because you manage Deer East River. It sounds to me like you would be okay if every single Elk East River was eliminated. Is that the case, and if so, why? Um, and then another question, but I'll wait.

Through the chair.

Certainly.

Yeah, thank you, Senator Howard. So from a perspective of eastern South Dakota, just with the high level of agricultural production, agricultural fields, and the damage that can be caused and created by elk, especially if they are in a group herded up And they will find a field, for example, if you have a small herd and they are very, very difficult to get out of there, they will not move on from it. And just the level of depredation that is caused will be very, very difficult and challenging to deal with. You have a single elk roaming around, you know, that landowner tolerance will be fine, but when you do have even a small herd that will stay very localized in an area once they do find an area where they feel that they're safe, they find the food sources, the depredation that causes is just extremely challenging. And just knowing the interface of those elk herds and the agricultural production eastern part of South Dakota just makes it very, very challenging. And they do move around very, very significantly, and they can make big moves. So it's just very challenging to manage them. And what the depredation that we deal with in some locations, even west of the Missouri River in western South Dakota, is challenging enough. We do believe that it would be even more difficult and harder, and more damage would occur in the eastern part of the state.

Follow-up, Senator Howard?

Thank you. Yes, thank you. Well, not a follow-up to that, but a different question, and thank you for that. Um, so the antlerless elk in Custer, you're looking to increase that from 20 to 100. Is that a temporary increase, or do you see that being ongoing?

Go ahead.

Through the chair, Senator Howard. So in the rule that you'll see there, it says what you just mentioned, going from 20 to 100. That would be the cap that would be set. It would be a maximum of 100 licenses that could be used for that season. Right now, the commission is allocating a total of 50 licenses for that season for this coming fall. Again, I mentioned earlier about setting up those 2 units where they will then divide those 50 licenses into 25 and 25 so that those hunters that are successful in drawing one of those tags would not be on top of each other or congregating in the in the same areas and provide some better opportunities for harvest. And yes, it would most likely be at a temporary level, but that's something that we would monitor on an annual basis and then adjust the number, total number of licenses on an annual basis for every 2 years based on the population and what direction it's going. The, the point of issuing 50 licenses right now again goes back to that population objective and bring it to It's above the objective right now. Want to bring it down into that objection or objective area, and that's why we're allocating this level of antlerless licenses. Again, that will be reviewed on an annual basis. We depends on hunter success, how many animals are harvested, and then where that population objective continues to move in the future as our managers in Custer State Park manage the. The forage resources based on the bison herd and the number of elk within the park.

Senator Howard, follow-up?

No, thank you.

Any further questions from the committee? Hearing none, we'll move on to discussion and/or action.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

I would move that the rulemaking process be deemed complete.

It's been moved by Senator Melhoff that the rules process is complete, and it was seconded by Representative Hansen. Are there comments? Madam Secretary, take the roll.

Larson. Sorry, I did not get to my, my mic in time. I do have comments.

Mr.

Chair, do you want to proceed?

Make your comments.

Is it—

um, I, I would like to actually propose a substitute motion. I'm sorry, it really has to do with me not getting to touching the mic button in time. May I propose a substitute motion?

Certainly.

Okay, the substitute motion was that— would be that these— the rule package would be deemed correct with the exception of East River, um, The East River elk section and also the Custer State Park increase. And the reason why I would propose that— I'm just kind of putting my comments and my motion in the same bucket here— is that, at least for the East River part, I don't see— I don't see enough evidence that we know how this would affect the elk populations. I agree with the idea that I don't feel like we should be, you know, we don't know enough about the issue. I certainly don't question that there is significant depredation that can occur on row crops by, you know, a good number of elk. But I feel like this is a very new area that they're going into, and I just don't feel comfortable with that myself. So, and then regarding the increase in numbers in, in Custer State Park either. I'm just not seeing the, the evidence to show that that increase should be that, um, I guess I don't want to call it extreme, but that, that number, I'm just not seeing the evidence that that number should be the one that's pursued. But, but, um, so that would be my comment and my substitute motion.

Thank you, Senator. There's been a substitute motion that the package be complete, excluding East River part of it, as well as the 50 elk tags in Custer State Park. Is there a second? Seeing no second, it dies for lack of a second. Moving on to the original motion, go ahead and call the roll.

Okay, just to remind everyone, then the, the motion you're voting on is that the rules packet is complete. Senator Larson.

No. Melhoff.

Aye.

Mucky.

Mucky.

Pass.

Howard.

Aye.

Hanson.

Aye.

Mucky.

No. DeGroot?

Aye.

4 yeas, 2 nays.

The motion having received a favorable vote, the rules process is complete. Moving right along, we'll move on to the next agency, and that is South Dakota Transportation. They want to amend a rule to reduce the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit on South Dakota Highway 115 around its intersection with South Veteran Parkway in Lincoln County. Opponents, introduce yourself, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Carla Engel, and I'm Chief Legal Counsel for the South Dakota Department of Transportation. The South Dakota Transportation Commission, at the request of the department, adopted amendments to Administrative Rule 70.010.244, which is the Lincoln County speed zone rule. The procedural steps that have been taken so far regarding the proposed rule are as follows. Approval to proceed was received from Secretary Junt on March 24th. The public hearing was held on April 23rd. The proposed rules and supporting documents were submitted to LRC and BFM on March 26th.

Thank you.

A notice of public hearing was published on April 2nd, 2026, in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, the Sioux Valley News, and the Pierre Capital Journal, and on April 3rd in the Dakota Scout. On March 26th, copies of the hearing notice and proposed rules were sent to individuals or entities who've requested notification of rulemaking. The hearing notice and proposed rules were also mailed on that date to the mayor and finance officer of Sioux Falls and the sheriff of Lincoln County.

Thank you.

The department also posted information about this rulemaking on its website on March 26th and on OpenSD. On March 30th, April 14th, and April 20th, information about the hearing was posted on DOT's social media platforms, namely Facebook, X, LinkedIn, and Instagram. The final rules and supporting documents were submitted to LRC and the committee on April 23rd. I'd like to now discuss the substantive changes to the rule. The department— or the commission adopted rule amendments to reduce the speed limit on South Dakota Highway 115 around its intersection with South Veterans Parkway in Lincoln County. The current speed limit in that area is 55 miles per hour, but the commission voted to reduce the speed limit On Highway 115 to 40 miles per hour from a point 0.1 mile south of the intersection with Veterans Parkway to 85th Street in Sioux Falls. The rule also changes distance measurements to the nearest 1/10 of a mile. The purpose of the rule changes is to enhance safety. Currently, the speed limit on Highway 115 is 55 miles per hour from 0.5 mile south of Lincoln County Road 110 Also known as the Harrisburg Corner, to 85th Street. But with the construction of Veterans Parkway and development south of 85th Street, the department and the City of Sioux Falls believed a speed limit reduction was appropriate from 85th Street to just south of Veterans Parkway. The department did conduct a speed study on Highway 115 on January 14th, 2026. The study was between Veterans Parkway and 85th Street. The 85th percentile speed was 47 miles per hour. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at which or below which 85% of the vehicles are traveling. The 50th percentile speed was 42 miles per hour. The 10-mile pace was 37 to 46 miles per hour. The 10-mile pace refers to the 10-mile-per-hour range in which most vehicles— the most vehicles are traveling.

Okay.

And actually, 80% of the vehicles were in that range, which tells us that the speed limit should be set somewhere within that range. We always are striving for consistent speeds among the vehicles traveling on a highway. Due to the proximity of the traffic signal at the 85th Street intersection, the department's speed-setting software suggested a 40-mile-per-hour speed limit. And because of the surrounding urban context, the department's traffic engineer and the Speed Management Advisory Committee concurred with that 40-mile-per-hour speed limit. Additionally, immediately north of 85th Street, the city of Sioux Falls has set the speed limit on that city street at 40 miles per hour. So that's consistency. Highway Patrol and Sioux Falls Police Department officials concurred with the speed zone change. The department received one timely written comment on the Proposed change. This comment was from the mayor of the City of Harrisburg, who supported the rule change. He made particular note of the department's consideration of the 50th percentile speed in recommending a 40-mile-per-hour speed limit, and he proposes using similar methodology on other segments of Highway 115. Legislative Research Council's changes to the proposed rules have been incorporated into the rule before you, and I would ask you to determine the rule process is complete and I will stand by for other testimony or questions.

Thank you, Ms. Engels. Any, any more proponent testimony? None online. Is there any opponent testimony? None online. We'll move to— seeing none, we'll move on to committee questions. Any questions of Mrs. Ingalls? Seeing no questions, we'll move on to discussion and/or action.

Mr. Chair?

Yes, Senator?

I would move that the rules packet and process be deemed complete.

Second.

It's been moved by Senator Melhoff and seconded by Representative Hansen that the rule process is complete. Any discussion? No discussion. Madam Secretary, we take roll.

Larson.

Aye.

Melhoff.

Aye.

Muckey.

Aye.

Howard.

Aye. Hansen.

Aye.

DeGroot. Aye.

Mr. Chair, unanimous.

It was unanimous. The rule process is complete, and thank you.

Thank you.

Now we will move— we'll close that section and we'll move the gavel on to Senator Mehlhaff. There you go.

Thank you, Representative DeGroot. At this time, we'll move on to our final packet of the day. We have the Department of Revenue to adopt rules to require vehicles to be registered and titled in an individual's legal name. To establish the Electronic Title and Registration Program, also known as ERT. Set forth ERT application requirements. Require ERT provider annual fees. Clarify responsibility for technical costs and document retention requirements. And to establish penalties for failure to remit state taxes and fees as required. Do we have any opponent test— or proponent testimony for this packet?

Mr.

Chair, members of the committee, my name is Rosa Yeager. I'm the director of the Motor Vehicle Division, and I am here in support of this rule package. Mr. Chair, since you have Form 15 and the related documentation in front of you, I'll skip going through those unless you have specific questions as we go through. Just to give some background on this bill package, back in 2000 In 2025, there was Senate Bill 131. That bill created this system but had some holes in it that we needed to go in and fill, and we had rulemaking authority to do that. Essentially what that bill did was create what we are calling an electronic title and registration system. So essentially, there is a way for providers— they're third-party companies that will contract with us and then contract with dealers, for example, to use their system. And they go through— the dealer goes through an API connected to our system through their provider, and all the title information goes through that, and then the title is issued at the end with the registration right there at the dealer's office through that system. So going through some of these rules, you mentioned 6428-0103. That is the legal name required. As we move forward towards e-title transactions, this is something we're going to need. We need to know that we have the person working with us that is on the driver's license. That's the one we're going to connect with the most. So we need that title name on our title and registration so that they match when we verify them online. So that'll be a change as we go forward. Then we have the next 7 rules are all related to this ERT program, the Title and Reg— or Registration and Title program. There's a number of different areas. I won't go through them specifically until we have questions, but you have things like definitions, the application requirements for those third-party providers, the annual fees for those third-party providers, their reimbursement cap to us for their technology costs, guidance on the excise tax and registration and how it's remitted to the department, how long the paper documentation needs to be kept by the provider or the dealer essentially, and the technical requirements that they have to meet. During this process, the other thing I want to point out is that the So, we did—

Yes.

We did open our comment period for longer than we usually would, and then we had our public hearing on March 31st. We didn't have any public comments at all. We did send it out to all the South Dakota dealers and to the providers that could potentially be using this program. With that, I will stand by for questions.

Thank you, Ms. Yeager. Is there any further proponent testimony on this packet? Seeing none in the room, none online, I believe, so we will move to opponent testimony. Is there any opponent testimony to the packet? Seeing none on— in the room or online, we will close presentation and move to questions from the committee. Does anybody have any questions of Ms. Jaeger? Uh, I, I have one question, if I may. So does this replace the con— the conventional paper process that we have?

Mr. Chair, this is a voluntary program for dealers to sign up for. So if the dealer chooses to do this and use a third party You could potentially go to the dealership, purchase a vehicle that day. They will use their provider to go to our system, make sure that vehicle and the customer are eligible to use the system, then go through it all. They'll calculate the excise tax, what your registration fees will be, produce your permit for a plate if you've ordered a plate or transferred a plate, and you will never have to go to a county. You'll pay all those fees that day.

And then will the state still issue the actual paper title to the vehicle and send it to the purchaser or the owner?

Mr. Chair, currently that title will not be printed automatically. The customer can request it for any reason, and we're building out that portion right now. But it will be an additional request. Most of the titles we see coming through dealerships do have liens on them, which means they are already not printed by the state until you pay off that lien. So there won't be much deviation for the customer because, like I said, most people purchasing that vehicle at dealership, they're getting some sort of loan. This is one of the top 2 purchases you'll make in your life, so most of them finance it. So we're not printing that title until they pay it off anyway.

So the title will simply exist online and you can access it. Could the consumer access their title, or would they have to go through a dealer or the county or some other agency?

Mr. Chair, good question. So one of the things we just built, built out, and it's been live for, I want to say, a few months, but I'm sure it's closer to 6, is you can now log on to your my605.gov Drive portal, and you can get essentially a page that prints that is everything that's on your title. So if you need to prove to someone you own that vehicle, you can go do that right now, even if you have an electronically held title. So that's your proof for whoever you need to give it to. It does say not for transfer purposes on that piece of paper when you print it out.

And just one more. So these third-party vendors, for lack of a better term, they have to have all the backup to make sure that that information is not lost. Is that correct? And that's covered in your rules and in statute?

Mr. Chair, so I don't know how much of this they store, but your dealership would have to keep the copies for 5 years of the original paperwork, and that's something they already have to do. Now, the— there are some storage requirements that will be going into the contracts. We haven't finished those, so I can't speak to exactly what they will be, but they do have some obligation to keep some of that information stored for a period of time.

Okay, thank you. Well, I don't have any other questions. Did I spur any other questions from other members? Seeing none, we will move on to discussion and/or action.

Mr.

Chair, Representative Muckey, move the—

move that we deem the rulemaking process complete.

Second.

We have a motion to deem the process complete from Representative Muckey, second by Representative DeGroot. Is there any discussion on the motion?

None.

No discussion.

Seeing no discussion, I'll ask the secretary to please call the roll.

Aye.

Aye.

Muckey? Aye.

Howard?

Aye.

Hansen?

Aye.

Mehlhaff?

Aye.

Mr. Chair, unanimous.

Having received a unanimous vote, the rulemaking process is deemed complete. And at this time, I will hand the gavel back to the chairman.

Thank you very much, Senator Mehlhoff. That concludes our rules packets for the day. Is there anything from our esteemed staff on this fine morning? Mr. Code Counsel.

Mr. Chairman, Justin Goetz, Code Counsel. Um, just one quick item. You'll be at your June meeting getting a look at a Form 12 update to capture the SB 133 updates to the rulemaking process. This would be the regulatory impact Analysis form, and so at that point I'll be asking for your feedback and formal action to bless that form. So just something to have on your radar. That's all I have. Thank you.

Anything else from the members of the committee? Okey doke. Seeing nothing further, the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Moved by Senator Melhoff. Seconded by.

Second.

Representative DeGroot, all those in favor of adjournment will signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay. We are adjourned. Thanks, everybody. Have a great day.