As South Dakota's public media network, SDPB serves everyone with transparency, integrity, and commitment to open access. Good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB. SDPB helps shape South Dakota's future by educating, informing, and inspiring the next generation of thinkers, leaders, and creators. SDPB— good, useful, and And full of wonder.

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

DeGroot.

Here.

Larson.

Mehlhaff.

Here.

Muckey.

Here.

Howard.

Here.

Hansen.

Here.

Mr.

Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you, we have a quorum. Chair will entertain a motion to approve the minutes of our last meeting. Seconded by Representative Muckey. Seconded by Senator Melhoff. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of approval of the minutes will say aye. Those opposed, nay. That motion carries. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Interim Rules Review Committee. We'll take our rules packets in the order that they appear on our agenda. And so That means we will begin with the Department of Game, Fish and Parks, and the chair will pass the gavel down to Representative DeGroot.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome everybody. Now keep in mind it's really going to get hot in here and humid, so let's keep our presentations brief and short and concise. Okay, anyway, that being said, this morning we're going to open our hearing with The Game, Fish, and Parks. They are proposing to amend rules to modify apprenticeship deer hunting, youth deer hunting, and mentored deer hunting units in southeastern South Dakota. Welcome, Mr. Kirschman. Proponent testimony.

Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman, and to the Mr. Chairman and Madam Vice Chair of the committee as well, and committee members, good morning. Tom Kirschman, Director of the Wildlife Division, Department of Game, Fish, and Parks. A month ago, I looked at the weather forecast ahead and looked at it was going to be this hot, so we only brought one rule for your consideration today to make it quick and expeditious to avoid the heat. But we do have actually a very small package in front of you this particular month. As Mr. Chairman just read the overall changes that occur with these particular rules. So first and foremost, again, I'd like to say thank you to Mr. Goetz and the style and format changes that were incorporated through the review of the rules themselves. And then the actual intent of the rule changes that you have in front of you. We've had ongoing conversations internally and externally of our agency with many landowners and sportsmen in southeast South Dakota. In particular, there's 9 counties in particular that are designated as hunting units in the rule package here where for probably the past 5 to 6 years deer numbers have been extremely low. And really what precipitated the initial cause of the reduced number of deer numbers was EHD, or emeragic disease. And it is one where Deer are actually, they are bit by a biting midge that occurs under the right environmental conditions where you have a lot of water, it gets hot, water recedes, you have mudflats, and these biting midges then come out. And if a deer is bit and succumbs to EHD, they get an extremely high temperature and they have internal bleeding. And typically what you do is you find a lot of deer that succumb to it very, very quickly within a couple of days, and you usually find them around water sources because they're Going to that water because of the high fever. Well, to make a long story short, we've had consecutive years in the southeast where we've had EHD hit pretty hard in these particular areas. Thus, our deer numbers are way down. We have taken other management actions of reducing overall license numbers. We've put on further restrictions, and yet those deer numbers just aren't responding like we anticipated that we they would. So our next result in visiting with the commission. It's about population management, and for population management when it comes to deer, if you want to reduce the numbers, you have a higher harvest on the doe segment of the population. If you want to increase numbers, you want to minimize or reduce that death on the doe segment of the population. So in this case, we've made multiple licenses adjustments, but the area where we have not made any adjustments yet because we don't like to do it. Is on that youth and mentor youth segment of hunting opportunities because we're looking at the future and recruiting of young folks into the sport of hunting. However, in these 9 hunting units or these 9 counties, we look back last year, we had almost or right around 600 doe were harvested in those 9 county areas. And so through further conversations with the commission, we ultimately brought forward a recommendation to temporarily close down these units for the youth and mentor youth deer hunting opportunities and the apprentice hunting opportunities. We don't want this as a long-term— we will evaluate it on a year-to-year basis to see where the population goes, and hopefully in the very near future we can reinstate that opportunity to hunt in those areas. One thing I want to make sure that is also understood in these rule changes, what it does It has no impact on anybody still to buy or obtain a youth deer license or an apprentice deer license or mentor deer license because they are essentially statewide licenses. What this would do is just say in those 9 counties in southeast South Dakota, you would not be able— or those licenses wouldn't be valid in those particular counties, but in the rest of the state they would be. So even though somebody might have to travel somewhere to take advantage of that opportunity, It does not preclude them from obtaining one of those licenses yet. So, Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, that's what the rule in front of you is. In those 9 counties in southeast South Dakota, we would be closing down youth mentor deer hunting and the apprentice. And we will observe on a year-to-year basis and hopefully open that opportunity back up should the deer population respond. So back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. But before you leave, could you just list for the community those 9 counties?

Sure.

So basically what we are looking at is Yankton, Bonhomme, Union, Clay, Turner, Hutchison, Lincoln, and then I'm missing one of them. 8. Davison, I believe it is.

Thank you.

Are there any other proponents? Seeing no other proponents, are there opponents? Seeing no opponents, we'll close testimony and open it up for committee questions. Senator?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just wondering what your biologists are saying. I, I know you're going to try and open it back up as soon as possible, but is the prediction a couple of years, 5 years, 10 years? What, what are other people experiencing as far as recovering from this?

Through the Chair?

Yes.

Yeah, Senator Howard, so we do not have a finite deadline of when we plan to open it back up to youth and mentor youth in those particular units. I would say it really is contingent on a couple of factors. So we will be monitoring deer numbers in this area through a couple of means. Number one, through whatever harvest information we do obtain from other licenses that are available in that area for buck only. And then we also collect biological information. So we do something that's called fall deer classifications where we go out and And actually count doe and fawn ratios. And so if we see a higher level of recruitment, especially for a year or two, we believe that we can open this opportunity back up even within hopefully a year or two. This is a way to really boost that comeback, if I may. All of our information right now indicates that we are seeing a slow but steady incline of the numbers. We're hoping this, over a year or two, would help bolster that a little bit faster and get us back to that opportunity. So short-term is my best answer for you, but not a definitive date that it'll be 5 years, 10 years. We're hoping for a couple at most.

Any other questions? If not, I, I have just one. How do you determine which counties fall into this category?

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, and that's really through a lot of our conversations internally with our managers, our biologists, our conservation officers, in visiting with our hunters, our landowners. And then we use our biological information that we have collected. I mentioned that fall classification. We do that in all of our counties and all of our units, and that area in particular is where we have seen the information that tells us we're just not getting the recruitment and those numbers are lower. And that's why there was a focus on those 9 counties.

Thank you.

Seeing no further questions, uh, the committee— I'll open the committee up to any discussion and/or action.

Mr. Chair?

Yes, Representative Muckey.

I move we deem the rulemaking process complete.

Moved by Representative Muckey and seconded by Senator Howard that Rules process is complete. Madam Secretary, any, any comments on that? Madam Secretary, take roll.

Larson.

Mehlhaff.

Aye.

Muckey.

Aye.

Howard.

Aye.

Hansen.

Aye.

DeGroot.

Aye.

5 yeas.

Having received a positive-negative vote, the rule process is deemed complete. Pass the gavel on to the chairman.

Thank you, Representative.

Senator Larson is not here, but she's online, I guess.

Think again. Maybe she'll be on in a little bit, though. We will move on, though, to the South Dakota Cosmetology Commission, Department of Labor and Regulation, with a proposal to amend a rule to allow The Cosmetology Commission to apply relevant work experience toward education hours for out-of-state applicants who have cosmetology-related licenses that are not equivalent to licenses issued by the commission. The committee will now hear proponent testimony. Good morning and welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair, Senator Larson online hopefully, and committee members, and also our LRC staff. I'm Adrienne Ness, and I am the program director for the South Dakota Cosmetology Commission. And on behalf of the commission, we are asking you to deem the rulemaking process complete for the rule change enclosed in the packet. This rule change was directed by our legislature this past session through House Bill 1194, which as summarized provides the authority for our Cosmetology Commission to credit work experience for educational hours when those out-of-state licensures don't quite meet the same requirements for cosmetology held licenses in the state of South Dakota. The proposed rule change only impacts individual licensees who are applying for licensure in South Dakota from out of state. The following steps were completed as a part of the rulemaking process. The approval to proceed was received from Secretary Holtman on May 4th. The LRC reported no style or format changes as required. No interested parties received or No, excuse me. No interested parties requested advance notification of the rulemaking to the commission, and the public rules hearing was held on June 25th with no comments received from public attendees and a unanimous approval from our cosmetology commission members. With all previously stated criteria met, the commission attests that the rulemaking process is complete and is ready for your approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. I will stand by for questions.

Thank you, Ms. Ness. Are there any further proponents to these proposed rules? Any further proponents? Seeing none, are there any opponents? Any opponents? Seeing no opponents, are there any questions from the members of the committee? Senator Howard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just curious if you could give us any examples, um, of cosmetology-related licenses that this would apply to.

Ms. Nessen.

Mr. Chair, Senator Howard, good morning. An example might be a hair technician license, which in some states such as Oregon, to our neighbors of the north, and to our neighbors of the west, Minnesota, they also have just a hair technician license, which allows an individual to not practice the entire scope of cosmetology but just a segment thereof. Some individuals will then go back, pursue additional education for other services, and may have a combination of these licenses. licenses that would apply to a cosmetology license when crediting work experience as well.

Follow-up, Senator Howard.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So if they're coming in from out of state and they have the hair technician, are they then— are you using this to give them a full cosmetology license in our state?

Ms. Ness.

Mr. Chair, it would depend on the qualifications and the type of work experience. but in a combination of the licenses held, that would be a consideration.

Follow-up, Senator Howard.

What if they don't meet the qualifications? I mean, I guess, yeah, just explain the process a little bit more. I, I just want to make sure that, that they are fully qualified for getting a license before we go.

Yeah, go ahead.

Mr. Chair, thank you, Senator Howard, for the follow-up question. We would evaluate that experience in alignment with the school education to ensure that they would meet the qualifications as required. If they would have the requisite hours or if the work experience could be credited to help offset some of that, that would be a consideration that the commission would take under— into consideration.

Any follow-up?

Further questions? Any further questions? All right, seeing no further questions, thank you very much. We'll move to committee discussion or action on these proposed rules.

Mr.

Chair, Senator Mehlhaff.

I would move that the rules process be deemed complete.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Mr.

Chair. Any expertise on this issue?

Yes, yes, I was actually at the bill signing ceremony for that. I was the only bald guy there. And I think this is a good rule. It makes South Dakota more open to folks who want to move to South Dakota for whatever reasons to be able to bring their skills and, and practice their trade here.

Thank you, sir. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, then the motion before the committee is 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.

Excused.

Mehlhaff.

Aye.

Muckey.

Aye.

Howard.

Aye.

Hansen.

Aye.

Mr. Chair, 5 yeas.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. That motion carries. The rules process is complete. Chair will pass the gavel down to Representative Muckey.

Actually, Mr. Chair, if it'd be okay if I had to handle this one. All right. I thought he said Representative Muckey. Yeah, so, okay, before us now on the agenda we have the South Dakota Lottery Commission, Department of Revenue. It's a rules package to adopt updated rules for the Millionaire for Life game and rules for the new Powerball X's and O's game and to repeal obsolete rules. Do we have any proponents? Welcome, Mr. Lengel. Good to see you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairs and members of the commission. My name is Norm Lingle. I'm the executive director for the South Dakota Lottery. As Senator Melhoff mentioned, we have 3 things that we want to cover today as part of this rule package: eliminate some duplication amongst the rules, adopt the most current game group rules for Millionaire for Life, and then also A new draw game, Powerball X's and O's. So with that, I'll start and run through this. 48-03-06-04 is a Powerball game that repeals the section pertaining to ineligible players. That's a duplicate from what's already in statute. 48-03-07-10, Dakota Cash, same thing. Eliminates the section pertaining to ineligible players.

Okay.

4803.10, Wildcard Game, repeals that chapter as we no longer offer that game. 4803.13, Hot Lotto, same thing, no longer offer that game, so that repeals. 4803.1503, Mega Millions Game Group Rules, it's the ineligible player piece of that as well.

Okay.

4803.16, Monopoly Millionaires Club, repeals that chapter as that game is no longer offered. 4803.1706, Easy Match, repeals the section pertaining to ineligible players. 4803.1803, Lucky for Life, same thing, section— repeals the section on ineligible players.

Yes.

And then 48.0319, the LottoAmerica game, which is the same thing as well, repeals the section pertaining to ineligible players. All right. So that brings us to 48.0320, the Millionaire for Life game. And as I mentioned, this just updates the South Dakota administrative rules to reflect the updated product game group rules. What those updated game group rules do is actually makes a couple adjustments. This was done after a risk analysis was completed by the game group as well as the multistate lottery. It includes language when there is more than one grand prize winner in a drawing, the amount of the capped cash option for each grand prize winning ticket. will be the grand prize cash value divided equally by the number of grand prize winning tickets. And then the second level prize was also adjusted. That is, if there is between 1 and 7 second level winners within a single drawing, the prize will be an annuitized $100,000 a year for life.

Okay.

Or a $2.2 million cash prize. If there are more than 8, that prize liability will be capped at $15 million and split equally. All right. So then moving on to Powerball X's and O's. That's the new draw game that's being proposed. That game is— a little background— is a partnership between Powerball and the NFL. Through lots of research, we found that there was similarities between the folks that watch NFL as well as that play Powerball. So some of the specifics regarding this game, it's a $5 price point, rolling jackpot with the jackpot starting at $1 million in cash. It's an 8 of 32 game. So if you think of the traditional draw games where they use numbers, this is going to use NFL team logos instead of numbers. It's a once-a-week drawing that will be held on Sundays, and it will happen 52 weeks a year. There's also a second chance component to this where both winning and non-winning tickets can be entered for NFL-centric prizes. NFL.com gift cards, all the way up to potential Super Bowl tickets. So with that, within the rules, 4803.2101, that rule allows for players to purchase a ticket for up to 9 future drawings. Okay? That is the same as all our other draw games. 48-03-2102 adopts the multistate Powerball X's and O's game group rules as our rules. That's the same way that we handle other multistate games as well. And then finally, 48-02-2103 authorizes the South Dakota Lottery to offer the Powerball X's and O's game. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I ask for your support and will stand by for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Lingle. Is there any other proponent testimony on this packet? Seeing none, is there any opponent testimony? Which I see none of that, so we will open up to committee questions. Any questions for Mr. Lingle? I have one. Are the odds of winning— are they better than the Vikings winning the Super Bowl this year? Probably not. That was a rhetorical question. So we'll move on to action. Representative Muckey.

I move we deem the rulemaking process complete.

We have a motion by Representative Muckey, seconded by Senator Howard, to deem the process complete. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I'll ask the secretary to please call the roll. DeGroot.

Aye.

Larson.

Excused.

Muckey.

Aye.

Howard.

Aye.

Hansen.

Aye.

Mehlhaff.

Aye.

Mr.

Chair, 5 yeas.

Motion having received a majority, the unanimous vote, the rulemaking process is deemed complete. And at this time, I'll hand the gavel off to Representative Muckey.

Thank you, Senator Melhoff. We are off to our next rules packet. South Dakota Board of Nursing amend and adopt rules to remove the requirement for the board to notify a nursing education program of an applicant's licensure examination results. Remove the requirement for the board to issue renewal certificates and inactive status cards and allow registered nurses to delegate gastro— gastrostomy care to a nursing assistant. We'll go ahead with proponent testimony. Go ahead and state your name and welcome.

So good morning, Mr. Chair and Madam Vice Chair, members of the committee. Thank you very much for meeting today. My name is Linda Young. I'm the executive director for the South Dakota Board of Nursing, and I'm presenting the rules On behalf of the board. So I'll first provide a brief summary, you know, in regard to the key points, rule changes, and then the key points on Form 15. So to summarize those rule changes in section— or Rule 2048.03, Section 6, this rule was amended to remove the requirement for the board to notify a nursing education program of an applicant's licensure exam results. And this amendment was needed for the board to come into compliance with SDCL 127.1.5, subdivision number 18. This statute expressly prohibits the board from sharing licensure exam results. So please know that the board has worked with our nursing educators in the state, basically to provide them with pass rate information on their programs without disclosing individual exam results. So this rule reflects LRC's recommendations as well for clarity, style, form, and legality. And then 3 rules in 2048.03, Section 10, 11, and 13, those were amended to remove the requirement for the board to print and issue renewal certificate and inactive cards. And so this change supports better public protection by eliminating the use of those printed cards for verification of licensure status. Instead, the board encourages stakeholders and nurses to use our free online verification site.

Okay.

And these provide real-time information on a nurse's licensure status. And that's important when a nurse may be issued discipline to basically— for suspended perhaps for unsafe practice. So to promote better public protection.

So—

and these rules were amended also to incorporate all of LRC's recommendations for form, clarity, and legality. Our new section— one new section, 2048.04-01, number 24, Was added to allow registered nurses to delegate gastrostomy tube care and that to a nursing assistant. And that rule was added at the request of the South Dakota Department of Human Services Developmental Disabilities Division. And it basically allows that— enables that person with a gastrostomy tube to stay in their shared living home. So before delegating those tasks though, the registered nurse must provide them some additional education on that specific care of that gastrostomy tube and the client, and then also must provide supervision of that nurse aide. So this rule was also amended to incorporate LRC's recommendations for clarity. So additionally, the LRC recommended that Chapter 2048.06 be updated to strike fee language for those duplicate Certificates of Renewal cards. So therefore, Section 2048.06 Number 1 and number 2 were updated to strike that language and were updated to reflect current style and form, you know, to add 2 new rules— those 2 new rules to separate out the fees for the certified registered nurse anesthetists and the clinical nurse specialists into their own rules rather than them being in the RN rule. So no substantive changes were made to those rules.

Okay.

No fee increases. So regarding Form 15 and demonstrating compliance with the rulemaking process, the board received authorization approval to proceed with the rules from Secretary of Department of Health Melissa Magstadt on April 13th, 2026, and we held a public hearing on the proposed rules on June 2nd. The proposed rules, supporting documents including fiscal note, impact statement, and the small business notice of hearing were presented And received by the LRC and the BFM on April 14th and 20th, 2026. And we published the notice of a public hearing in 3 newspapers on May 2nd and 3rd, and that was the Aberdeen News, Rapid City Journal, and Sioux Falls Argus Leader. April 24th, 33 parties were mailed the notice of public hearing and a copy of those proposed rules. And then additionally, we published on the notice on rules.sd.gov And we also shared information on the proposed rules and the notice of hearing at the South Dakota Center for Nursing Workforce's Annual Symposium, which was held April 29th with over 100 nursing stakeholders from nursing facilities, hospitals, LPN/RN nursing education programs. So Form 10 provides the minutes of the public hearing. No written comments were received. 4 people did testify orally in support of the new rule. To allow the RN to delegate— we always say G-tube, gastrostomy tube care. No changes were made to the proposed rules as a result of that hearing. And then the final rules and supporting docs were submitted to the IRRC Committee on June 4th and the LRC on June 5th, and the new regulatory impact analysis was submitted on July 2nd. So with that, I'd like to thank the—

Thank you.

Justin and Kelly and their staff for their assistance in providing the recommendations for revising these rules to conform with form, style, clarity, and legality, and all of their recommendations were incorporated into the final rules. And with that said, thank you, Mr. Chair and Madam Chair and Vice Chair and members of the committee, and I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you, appreciate that. Any more proponent testimony? Any other proponents? Seeing none, we'll move on to opponent testimony. Do we have any opponents? Seeing none, I'll move on to committee questions. Senator Howard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So part of this references South Dakota Codified Law 01-27-1.518, and I think you said that you You do notify people who need to know of a pass or fail. But then my question is, because I pulled that up and it says any test questions, scoring keys, results, or other examination data. So maybe I'm just asking for your opinion, but does that need to be changed? Because to me, a pass/fail is still your note, it's still a result. So— I understand the need. We, we have to notify people who need to know of the pass or fail, but do we need to look at this statute? Because—

Oh, um, are you referring to the knowledge to the nursing education program, just to clarify, or the applicant?

The, the test score. You know, you're, you're eliminating notifying people of test scores, but you— I think you said you still let them know whether the applicant passed or failed. But then my question is, isn't that still violating— or maybe that's more of a question for Code Counsel, I don't know.

Well, certainly the applicant does learn that they get a pass/fail, so there's really no total score, but it's either a pass/fail. So they do receive that notice of— from the testing agency. Um, as to the— so yes, they do, they do get their pass In regard to that, that's the applicant. Um, the, the other— any other individual wanting those results would not be given that individual's score or whether they passed, failed, or any of the other information relating to the exam. Um, in regard to the overall percentage, if they have, for instance, SDSU has 200 students, they would get their overall passing score, and that's what we're helping them to, to do because they do need that in order to assure national accreditation. So if that probably adds complexity to the question, but—

Follow-ups, Senator Howard?

Thank you, and maybe it's a question for, for Code Council. I thought, I thought this statute was referring back to open records laws, um, so then Okay, when a nurse is hired, their employer has to be notified, or some— or do they— are they notified or not notified?

In response to your question, actually, in order to employ a nurse, they either have to hold a license to practice and/or have a temporary permit. And so, part of that requirement is passing that national exam, and that's the one that we use for licensure purposes. Which, in regard to that, we can't share the results of that exam, but when they get a license, then that is on our, our online verification service, and that employer should be verifying it.

Okay.

Good questions. Any further questions from the committee? Seeing no further questions, we'll move on to committee discussion and/or action. Senator Mehlhaff.

I'd move the rulemaking process be deemed complete.

We have a motion from Senator Mehlhaff, seconded by Senator Howard, to deem the rulemaking process complete. Any comments on the motion? Seeing no comments on the motion, the action before the committee is to deem the rulemaking process complete. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

DeGroot.

Aye.

Larson.

Larson.

Mehlhaff.

Aye.

Aye.

Larson is an aye. Mehlhaff is an aye, correct?

Howard.

Aye.

Hansen. Aye.

Muckey.

Aye.

Mr.

Chair, unanimous.

With that, the rulemaking process is deemed complete. Move on to our next packet. South Dakota Board of Pharmacy amend and adopt rules to provide a new rule set for remote drop sites and add an operational waiver process to rule for pharmacies and repeal obsolete rules in Article 2051. We will go forward taking proponent testimony at this time. Go ahead and introduce yourself and proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Tyler Latch, the executive director for the South Dakota Board of Pharmacy. I'm here today on behalf of the board to present the proposed changes to administrative rules, Article 2051. These draft rules have been sent to the major stakeholders for comments. The formal rules review comment period closed on June 15th. We sent notice of rules hearing and the most recent draft to our listserv as well as stakeholders, and we posted them on the board website, the boards and commissions website, and the LRC rules website. After the Department of Health approved The committee has approved these packages for rules promulgation. The fiscal note has been approved by Bureau of Finance and Management. There is no fiscal change due to these rule proposals. The rules have been sent and reviewed by the Legislative Research Council, and suggestions for changes in form and style have been received and incorporated. The following— following the public hearing, the rules were sent to LRC and the committee on June 25th.

Thank you.

The Board of Pharmacy respectfully requests your approval of the amendments and additions and repeals to Articles 2051. The proposed changes in Sections 2051.05, 2051.06, 2051.15, 2051.17, 2051.19, 2051.20, 2051.21, 2051.22, 2051.27, 2051.28, 2051.29, and 2051.30 provide for verbiage and reference cleanup, clarification, and simplification of the proposed rules throughout these chapters. All fee wording is added nonrefundable and to avoid any confusion by applicants. And the following sections have specific items of importance. In Chapter 2051.13, a new section for remote drop sites were added. Senate Bill 14 made a new designation of the remote drop site. This bill allowed for the Board of Pharmacy to promulgate rules. These rules will further outline the requirements needed to safely provide medications to patients in areas where pharmacy services are limited. In Chapter 2051.14, the board has worked with LRC, the Department of Health, and the Governor's Office to create a process for pharmacists to apply for and receive operational waivers to specified rules under certain situations. These operational waivers would allow the board to ensure safety in all reaches of the pharmacy licensing spectrum. We have independent pharmacies that due to cost are unable to implement some of the latest technology, whereas we also have big corporations and hospitals that wish to utilize the latest technology. This process would allow a pharmacist to apply for a waiver, which requires the pharmacist to To prove that the proposed process is safe or— is as safe or safer than what is outlined in specific rules. The process is essential for healthcare today, specifically in pharmacy. We worked with Laura Ringling at the governor's office who assisted the board in writing these new rules to ensure that we are achieving the mission of the board of ensuring the public safety. And being cautious to specifically call out that waivers cannot apply to licensing, registration, education, or examination requirements. Lastly, Chapter 2051.34, which was the contested hearing procedures, has been repealed, as this is outlined in administrative law. During the public rules hearing, the board reviewed written comments from 8 parties and received oral comments from 4 individuals. Based on these comments, the board considered amendments, data, opinions, and arguments regarding the proposed rules and made several changes to the rules that moved forward. At the hearing, following changes were proposed and accepted. All LRC style and form changes were agreed on. Section 2051.0204 and 2051.2802.01 have been removed from this packet due to LRC concerns on statutory authority. Changes to the wording of Sections 2051.05, 2051.13, 2051.14, and 2051.15 were slightly modified after discussion due to comments at the rules hearing. The board has worked with the LRC staff to address the other 2 concerns to— in the LRC letter. Pertaining to the notice of hearing, I mistakenly understood that the reason and the effect of the packet were the same, therefore did not include the duplicative reasoning. From here on forward in the rules process, I will specifically call out that for all future notices to have the reason and effect. Secondly, the fiscal forms have been updated. Form 5 initially stated that there was no cost to implement these rule changes. It was added that there is no ongoing fiscal changes due to the implementation of these proposed rules. The new Form 14 effective July 1st was provided via email after working with Justin and LRC. In closing, the Board of Pharmacy wishes to thank you for considering this rules packet of proposed changes. Changes continue to happen rapidly in the practice of pharmacy. We have to be mindful to keep every part of our industry in mind from the smallest pharmacy in rural South Dakota to the large chains and hospitals in the cities that implement the latest and greatest in technology and resources. Our mission is to keep every South Dakotan's safety in mind when we implement changes. I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you.

Any further proponent testimony? Any further proponents? Seeing none, we'll move on to opponent testimony. Do we have any opponents? Seeing none, I'll move on to Committee questions? Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, move on to committee discussion and/or action. Senator Howard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would deem the rulemaking process complete for the Board of Pharmacy.

We have a motion from Senator Howard, second from Representative Hansen, to deem the rulemaking process complete. Any comments on the motion? Seeing none, the motion before the committee is to deem the rulemaking process complete. All, all in favor will vote aye. Opposed, nay. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

DeGroot?

Aye.

Larson?

Aye.

Mehlhaff?

Aye.

Howard?

Aye.

Hansen?

Aye.

Muckey? Aye.

Mr. Chair, unanimous.

With that vote, the rulemaking process is deemed complete. Moving on to our final packet of the day, South Dakota Housing Development Authority amend and adopt rules to establish a clear process for the application evaluation criteria and approval of loans for airport infrastructure. Go ahead and introduce yourself and proceed with proponent testimony.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Vice Chair and committee members. My name is Chaz Olson and I'm the Executive Director of South Dakota Housing. I'm here today to provide information and answer questions related to Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here to present proposed amendments to the rules under Chapter 2009-26 of South Dakota Codified Law 11-15, pursuant to the passage of Senate Bill 76 regarding the South Dakota Housing Infrastructure Fund. I'll start by talking a little bit about the process using the presentation format in Form 15 and then provide some additional color to the changes to the rules. On June 2nd, South Dakota Housing received approval to proceed With the rule promulgation process from GOED. And then on June 5th, the proposed rules and supporting documentation were submitted to the LRC and Bureau of Finance and Management. The supporting documents included the fiscal note, small business impact statement, and notice of public hearing. On June 10th, the notice of public hearing was published in 5 newspapers, including the Yankton Press and Dakotan, Spearfish Black Hills Pioneer, Aberdeen American News, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, and the Watertown Public Opinion. In addition to publishing in those 5 newspapers, on June 10th, we also sent out an email blast with a copy of the public notice that went to a list of 460 interested parties, which is a list that we've been compiling since the passage of House Bill 1033 in 2022 that initially approved the infrastructure funding. No written comments were submitted during the comment period. However, we did have one attendee at our public hearing that didn't necessarily provide comments or on the rules, But they did provide testimony in support of the airport loans being repaid to the Housing Infrastructure Fund for housing infrastructure projects in the future. The final rules and supporting documentation were sent to the committee members via FedEx and email on July 2nd and submitted to the LRC on July 6th. I did want to take a moment to thank Code Counsel Goetz and Ms. Thompson for their assistance throughout the process. Always super helpful.

Thank you.

It is also worth noting that between our initial submission to the LRC on June 5th and the final submission to the LRC and committee members on July 6th, Senate Bill 33 came into law, which updated the Form 14 to a regulatory impact analysis, which was included in your packets and uploaded to the rules site. Now I'll provide some commentary on the changes and additions to the rules. Senate Bill 76 from the 2026 legislative session amended South Dakota Codified Law 1115 to authorize loans for airport infrastructure from the Housing Infrastructure Fund to the owner or operator of an airport with scheduled air service in a metropolitan statistical area of at least 125,000. They defined— Senate Bill 76 defined the terms of the loan as follows. The loan may not exceed $50— the loans may not exceed $15 million with an interest rate of 2%. Paid back over a 20-year amortization with payments made annually back to the Housing Infrastructure Fund. The bill also did require that the loans be unsecured. So in Rule 1, we added the terms airport infrastructure financing and airport infrastructure project to our list of definitions, and then also specified which definitions apply to airport infrastructure projects, such as the rule that talks about what types of loans can be made out of the Housing Infrastructure Fund and what types of Loans are required to execute a written agreement. Rules 25 through 27 are new rules and apply specifically to the airport infrastructure funding. Rule 25 states that South Dakota Housing will prescribe the application form for airport infrastructure funding and publish it on our website, which will provide the information and documentation necessary for the authority to evaluate the proposed airport infrastructure project. Rule 26 defines the criteria for airport infrastructure funding, which includes whether the applicant is the owner or operator of an airport as described in 1115-9, which is an airport with scheduled air service in an MSA with a population of at least 125,000. And the second criteria is whether the proposed airport infrastructure project complies with applicable design standards, ordinances, regulations, and law. Last, Rule 27 states that the South Dakota Housing Board shall approve or deny the application based on the criteria established in the previous law— or in the previous Rule 26. And if approved, the applicant will enter into a written agreement for the funding. With that, we would appreciate your support, and I'm happy to answer any questions regarding the proposed amendments or anything about the rules process.

Thank you.

Any further proponent testimony?

Mr. Chairman, this is Julie Johnson.

Oh, go ahead, go ahead and proceed. Please introduce yourself and go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Julie Johnson. I'm a lawyer near Aberdeen and registered lobbyist for a group called Homes for South Dakota, which is most if not all of the nonprofit housing groups in South Dakota. We've been privileged to work with We've worked with the South Dakota Housing Development Authority and their capable staff throughout the entire process of implementing the Housing Infrastructure Loan and Grant Fund and are very pleased with the outcomes of that. We, however, did want to see that that fund continued to exist into the future, which is why there were some amendments to Senate Bill 76, which you see incorporated in the rules as well. We want to be sure the world knows that this is not a slush fund and that there are still needs for infrastructure loan monies. But at the same time, our group agreed to not oppose the airport use of the fund, but to put the payments back into the fund so the fund does continue to exist into the future. So with that, I would simply ask your support of the rules today. And your support of the fund. Thank you for your help.

Thank you. Any further proponent testimony? Seeing none, move on to opponent testimony. Any opponents? Seeing none, we'll move on to committee questions. Any questions from the committee? All right, seeing none, we'll move on to committee discussion and/or action. Senator Howard.

Discussion. I will be voting against this for numerous reasons, but I also want to point out that SB 76 was amending Chapter 11 of South Dakota Codified Law, and it was Chapter 11, or yeah, am I saying that right? 11-15. But I want to read for people. So Chapter 11 of South Dakota Codified Law is the South Dakota Housing Infrastructure Fund, and it talks about It defines what the authority is, housing infrastructure, and it says, there's hereby created the South Dakota Housing Infrastructure Fund to be administered by the authority for the purpose of making loans and grants for housing infrastructure projects. Then if you go to South Dakota Codified Law 11— where is that? 11-15.

11-15.

It goes on and it talks about the distribution of monies, housing infrastructure loans. Everything about this fund is for housing. It's— you read, why does it exist? It exists because there's a serious shortage of sanitary, decent, and safe residential housing at prices or rentals which people of the state can afford. And it goes on and on.

Mm-hmm.

So all of this has to do with housing authority. SB 76 was not passed by a 2/3 majority. It should have been. It was a new appropriation with a new purpose. It should not have just been simply amending this part of our statute because this part of our statute deals with housing, not airports. So my issue is how this was done. I don't believe it was done properly. I think it violates statute, possibly even our Constitution. So for those reasons, I will be voting against this.

Thank you, Senator. Any further discussion and/or action? Representative.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I agree with that, and so that's a lot of the reason why I'm going to also be voting against this proposed rules. I think if the legislature were to look at the definition of appropriation, sort of just stepping away from the politics of any bill, I think they would agree that— I think at least the majority would agree that this is This bill that brought us to this point should have required a 2/3 vote, but that's not how it was passed through the legislature, and I really disagree with that. And I think the legislature needs to relook at its definition of appropriation, that it's money and that it's also a specific purpose. In this case, The specific purpose was changed to something different. Therefore, it was a new appropriation and should have required a 2/3 vote. And so in the future, I think the legislature really needs to just sit back, maybe away from any particular bill that's being driven through the legislature at any given time, and really consider that definition and how to apply it in the future. But as for me, in this particular proposed rule, I'm going to vote no on it.

Thank you.

Because I don't think the authority was properly there to spend these dollars.

Thanks.

Thank you, Representative Hansen. Any further discussion and/or action? Mr.

Chair.

Senator Mehlhaff.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I'm going to take the opposite approach. I'm going to support— well, I guess maybe if there's no other comments, I'll make a motion.

Go ahead, Mr.

Chair. Representative DeGroot, I make a motion that the rule process is complete.

Second.

We have a motion from Representative DeGroot, seconded by Senator Melhoff, to deem the rulemaking process complete. Any comments on the motion?

Mr. Chair, thank you. Sorry to get out of order there. I didn't realize some motion— anyway, I'm going to take a different approach. I'm supporting this rules Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm in favor of this package, and I, I would just point out that I, I believe the 2/3 was taken up and supported by the legislature, that it didn't need that. And I, I don't believe that this committee is here to thwart the will of the legislature as a whole. I think the agency did a good job complying with the request of the legislature, just as they did last year. When we supported the public school district in Ellsworth, Boxelder Douglas School. And I would encourage everybody to vote yes on this.

Oh, sorry. Any further discussion from the committee? Any further comments? I may add one here. I know that as I look at this particular issue in statute, and again, And, you know, our job as a Rules Committee is really to look at the will of the statute and what the legislature passed. You know, certainly I have my concerns long-term about making sure we prioritize housing in terms of our funding and finding ways to use our funding that we do have to actually approach specific topics. But knowing that this is effectively what the will of the legislature put forward, I know that's part of our job too, to look at that and make sure we're following rules as far as that goes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will just add to that though that our job, yes, is to pass rules that follow legislative intent, but not when it violates the Constitution.

So—

Any further discussion from the committee on the motion? All right, reminder, the motion before the committee is to deem the rulemaking process complete. All in favor will vote aye, those opposed nay. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

DeGroot?

Aye.

Larson?

Aye.

Mehlhaff?

Aye.

Howard?

Nay. Hansen?

No.

Muckey?

Aye.

Mr. Chair, 4 yeas, 2 nays.

With majority of the committee voting in favor, the rulemaking process is deemed complete. With that, I'll pass the gavel back to Chair Hansen.

Thank you very much. That concludes our rules packets for the day. Mr. Goetz, anything from the staff?

Mr. Chairman, Justin Goetz, Code Counsel.

Just briefly, I wanted to thank the executive branch agencies, the Governor's Office, and John Katilnik for working to get the infrastructure in place for July 1st and the website for rules, as well as the new Form 14. So thank you to all involved.

Thank you, sir. Anything else from the members of the committee for the good of the order? Seeing none, Chair Wennerchen, a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Moved by Representative Muckey, seconded by Senator Howard, that we adjourn. All those in favor of adjournment will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay. We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.

SDPB brings South Dakotans together, telling the stories that unite small towns Big ideas and the people who make our state shine. Good, useful, and full of wonder.

SDPB.

SDPB shares the voices and experiences of South Dakotans, preserving our stories, our culture, and our sense of place.

SDPB—

good, useful, and full of wonder. As South Dakota's public media network, SDPB serves everyone. With transparency, integrity, and commitment to open access. Good, useful, and full of wonder.

SDPB.

SDPB helps shape South Dakota's future by educating, informing, and inspiring the next generation of thinkers, leaders, and creators. SDPB— good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB serves South Dakota. through an interconnected communications system that is on 24/7/365. The first place for AMBER Alerts, public safety announcements, and EAS messages. SDPB keeps public servants and citizens informed. Good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB. SDPB brings you closer to your government with gavel-to-gavel coverage of the South Dakota Legislature and in-depth reporting from Pierre. Good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB. From early learners to lifelong students. SDPB inspires curiosity through trusted educational programs and resources for every stage of life. Good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB. When South Dakotans need reliable information, SDPB is there providing updates and coverage that keep our communities safe and connected. Good, useful, and full of wonder.

SDPB.

SDPB celebrates South Dakota's student athletes with live coverage of SDHSAA state championships, sharing the excitement of hometown heroes. SDPB— good, useful, and full of wonder. From choir to debate to theater, SDPB shines a spotlight on South Dakota's talented students through SDHSAA All-State Fine Arts programming. Good, useful, and full of wonder.

SDPB.

Every day, SDPB connects South Dakotans with stories that inform, inspire, and bring us together.

SDPB—

good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB is your home for facts, based journalism, connecting South Dakotans with news they can trust and stories that matter. Good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB. From children's programs to in-depth documentaries, SDPB sparks curiosity and lifelong learning in every South Dakotan.

SDPB—

good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB brings South Dakotans together, telling the stories that unite small towns, big ideas, and the people who make our state shine. Good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB. SDPB shares the voices and experiences of South Dakotans, preserving our stories, our culture, and our sense of place. SDPB.

Good.

Useful. And full of wonder.

Thank you.

As South Dakota's public media network, SDPB serves everyone with transparency, integrity, and commitment to open access. Good, useful, and full of wonder. SDPB. SDPB helps shape South Dakota's future by educating, informing, and inspiring the next generation of thinkers, leaders, and creators.

SDPB.

Good, useful, and full of wonder.