This webcast is a service of SDPB.

Good, useful, and full of wonder.

SDPB. All right. Good morning. We'll call the Interim Rules Review Committee to order. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll?

DeGroot.

Here.

Larson. Mehlhaff.

Here.

Muckey.

Here.

Howard.

Here.

Larson. Hansen.

Here.

Madam Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you. All right, with that, I just want to remind everyone to please silence your cell phones, make sure you signed in if you're, if you're planning on testifying, and with that, um, I would entertain a motion. For approval of the minutes of the last meeting.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, with a motion by Senator Mehlhaff, second by Representative DeGroot. No, no, just voice. All right, with that, all those in favor will say aye. All those opposed, nay.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, that motion is passed. All right, we are going to get going. We have quite a few people signed up to testify. We have a few packets, nothing compared to what we're going to have in October apparently, but we're still going to get going. So first packet up this morning is for the South Dakota Animal Industry Board, the Department of Ag and Natural Resources, and that is to amend rules to update definitions to more accurately reflect current terminology modernize the language of reference material, and add municipal or other permitted solid waste landfills as facilities at which certain animal carcasses may be disposed of to reflect current practice. Do we have— well, welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I apologize, I did not sign in electronically. So I'm Mendel Miller. I'm the state veterinarian for South Dakota and executive officer for the Animal Industry Board. bringing forth these rules today.

Go ahead with your testimony.

So, yeah, pretty simple on the rules, uh, this time. Most of it is language, um, updating the language. We do have several places in our rules where the Code of Federal Regulations is referenced, especially Chapter 9. So we update the, the current year for that, uh, That document. So we changed 2021 to 2025, most current year, for in numerous places. And then again, the one substantive change is the approval of the landfills to accept carcasses, which is being done statewide already. We just needed to put it in our rules so it was clear that it was acceptable. And with that, I'll take questions.

Well, we'll see if there are any other proponent testifiers. Any other proponents? Okay. Any opponents in the room or online?

Okay.

With that, we'll open it up to questions from the committee. All right. If there are no questions—

Madam Chair, I have a question.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Yeah, this is Representative Hansen. I just have a question about that disposal rule, 1268.03.05. You said that this has been happening prior to the adoption of this rule. So, you know, I read the old rule and it says incorporate into a composting system or Deposited or disposed of by a licensed rendering plant. So, um, you said that this is already happening where they're putting these in solid waste landfills or other waste disposal facilities. So what rule were they operating under that they were doing this prior to the adoption of this rule? I mean, maybe you could just fill us in on why or how that was happening outside of the rule.

Madam Chair, yeah, that's a good question. Um, and the landfills themselves, as they were as they were permitted through DANR's process, had been approved to receive these carcasses. The Animal Industry Board had just not formally put it into our regulation or our rule as an acceptable means, but they were already accepting it under other— under their authorities, local authorities.

Did you have a follow-up? Representative Hansen.

No, well, you know, just I guess one just out of curiosity, not particularly on this rule or the adoption thereof, but do you also have procedures in your rules for the smell that these can create? These these facilities. I mean, I've visited one town in particular where. You know, the, the smell that's created from these facilities are particularly bad for the people in that town. And is that something that you adopt in your rules, or is that taken care of by local ordinance? Maybe you can just fill me in on that.

Madam Chair, yeah, another great question. We certainly are aware of those situations. We do not have rules regarding smells. It is my understanding that those are under the local ordinances and the, the local permitting of those facilities.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for answering those questions. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Comments? All right, with that, I would entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I move that the rules process is complete.

Second. All right, with the motion and a second to deem the rulemaking process complete for the Animal Industry Board rule, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll?

DeGroot.

Aye.

Larson.

Aye.

Mehlhaff.

Aye.

Muckey.

Aye.

Howard.

Aye.

Hansen.

Aye.

Madam Chair, unanimous.

All right, with a unanimous vote, that rule has deemed— has passed. Thank you so much. All right, we're going to move on to the South Dakota State Board of Addiction and Prevention Professionals from the Department of Social Services, and this is to adopt, repeal, and transfer rules pertaining to set the education, work experience, supervision, and examination requirements for peer support services. Update the education, work experience, supervision, and examination requirements for addiction counseling and prevention services. Establish the requirements of board-approved supervision to meet the requirements for the board to certify or license providers of peer support, addiction counseling, and prevention services. Set the standards for renewal of a recognition, certification, or license issued by the board, and to clarify the standards for providing services through electronic means. Welcome. Go ahead and give us your name and provide the testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Greg Tishkoff. I'm an attorney in the Legal Division of the Department of Social Services, and I serve as general counsel for the Board of Addiction and Prevention Professionals. Today I'll be presenting the rules package on behalf of the board. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for your time and consideration today. These rules implement the statutory changes the legislature made with House Bill 1029 earlier this year. House Bill 1029 updated statutes to reflect the complete list of practitioners providing addiction counseling and prevention services to include peer support specialists. The bill also provided for a supervisee status to allow the board to consider options for a recognition status for for people working towards certification or licensure at an advanced stage in that process. In addition to implementing House Bill 1029, these rules reflect a comprehensive update to Article 2080 to provide clarity and transparency for applicants, licensees, and the public accessing these services. These updates are intended to streamline the credentialing and licensing process to help meet workforce needs for these services while maintaining professional, standards, and competency expectation for practitioners. The board used a repeal and replace approach to amend the rules. The current 10 chapters within Article 2080 were either repealed or transferred. 11 new chapters have been drafted that set forth the education, work experience, supervision, and examination requirements of each category of practitioner to add clarity and better assist applicants and providers in understanding the requirements for certification and licensure. Broadly speaking, these rules will first set the education, work experience, supervision, and examination requirements for peer support specialists as a newly created provider category. Second, update the education, work experience, supervision, and examination requirements for addiction counseling and prevention services. Third, establish board-approved supervision to meet the requirements for the board to certify providers of peer support and addiction counseling and prevention services. And fourth, set the standards for renewal of recognition, certification, or a license issued by the board. And fifth, clarify the standards for providing services through electronic means. Importantly, these rules do not change the current recognition, certification, or license qualifications or the fees for addiction counselors or prevention professionals, nor do these rules change the roles of any practitioner providing services, but rather add the roles provided for in House Bill 1029. Now I would like to review the highlights of Form 15. Approval to proceed was made by DSS Secretary Althoff on June 30th, 2026. Initial documents were served on LRC and the Bureau of Finance and Management on July 6th and July 9th. The materials incorporated by reference in these rules were given to LRC on August 10th, 2026. Notice of the public hearing was published on July 9th, 2026 in the Aberdeen News and the Black Hills Pioneer, and on July 10th in the Dakota Scout. They were also posted on rules.sd.gov and dss.sd.gov. The board also notified interested parties on the Department of Social Services email and mailing lists containing 250 email recipients and 8 mail recipients. They notified interested parties of the Board of Addiction and Prevention Professionals consisting of 64 provider agencies and 2 professional organizations. They notified by email all 1,033 current licensees and applicants of the Board of Addiction and Prevention Professionals. They discussed the proposed rules during open session at numerous board meetings. They presented the proposed rules to the South Dakota Association of Addiction and Prevention Professionals Board of Directors and its membership for discussion and comment. And they presented the proposed rules to the South Dakota Council of Community Behavioral Health Board of Directors for discussion and comment. The public hearing was held on July 31st. 2026. 2 written comments were received that expressed general support for the rules. In addition, the South Dakota Council of Community Behavioral Health recommended changes to proposed rules 2080.1306 and 2080.1809. These recommended changes are outlined in pages 2 and 3 of the public hearing minutes. The recommendations of the council were accepted by the board and are reflected in the final version of the rules before you today. Final rules and supporting documents were served on LRC and this committee on August 24th, 2026. The board has adopted all of LRC's recommended form and style edits. One final note: after the final rules package was submitted to this committee on August 24th, Code Council identified an error at page 156 where the word trainee should actually be supervisee. To comport with the catch line of Section 2080.1914. That's again on page 156. The board's executive secretary, Jennifer Stolle, consulted with Code Council prior to this meeting and was told this technical correction could be made with the committee's permission to the final rules to be submitted to the Secretary of State. The board respectfully requests permission to make this technical. technical correction at this time. Finally, the Board extends its thanks to Justin Goetz and Kelly Thompson for their assistance in reviewing the rules for legality, clarity, formatting, and final presentation to this committee. As you can see, this was a very comprehensive review of these rules, and their contributions are greatly appreciated. On behalf of the Board, I ask for your favorable consideration of this rules package. with a motion to deem the process complete. Thank you. I'll stand by for questions, and I will also add that Tiffany Butler, a member of the board, is also present online to assist in answering any committee questions.

All right, thank you, Mr. Tishkoff. So first, we'll see if there are any proponents in the room who would like to testify. Mr. Dosch, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and good morning, members of the Interim Rules Review Committee. My name is Terri Dosch. I serve as the executive director for the South Dakota Council of Community Behavioral Health. For your information, that's a nonprofit association. I represent 18 different community-based behavioral health provider organizations across the state. For relevance, I would tell you that of my 18 members, 17 of them provide substance use disorder services, which these rules address. Now, I don't want to burden you with a lot of testimony except to maybe say that we were strong proponents of the enabling legislation, House Bill 1029, which the legislature passed overwhelmingly this last session. We supported it for a couple of key reasons. The first is this legitimizes the role of a peer support specialist, which is a non-licensed but certified type of entity that can greatly assist individuals who are involved in substance use disorders achieve rehabilitation and achieve recovery. So this brings them into vogue. We also felt that the changes that it also introduced strengthened professionalize the field, as well as increase quality of care, as well as increase public safety. So because we were strong proponents for the enabling legislation, we were actively involved in the generation of the rules that are before you today. Madam Chair, if it works for you, I'd just like to testify once for this set of rules and the next 2 set of rules, which are all connected with the BAP rules, and that way I don't have to get back up again.

That would be great. Thank you.

Sure. And primarily what I want to tell you is the department had a very open process. We were very heavily involved from start to finish, as as Greg said, through the public hearing process as well, providing comments. I'd like you to know that we're the ones that are impacted by these rules, and I think it's always good for the Rules Review Committee to hear from the field that are impacted by anything that's being. being proposed, and, and we are in full support of the rules in their current form. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, that would conclude my testimony, Madam Chair, and thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other proponents in the room? Okay, if not, we will go online. Do we have Tiff— Miss Butler? Is Miss Butler online?

I am online and I'm just available for questions.

Okay, all right, um, and then I have a Miss Nelson. Did you want to provide testimony or just be available for questions?

I am here just for questions.

I am, uh, just available for questions if needed to.

Okay, all right, so any other proponents? All right, do we have any opponents? All right, then there's no rebuttal necessary. And do we have questions from the committee, online or in the room? Okay, well, this was a large packet, but it was very well done apparently, and so it— and it was, so I will say that. So With that, I will entertain a motion.

Madam Chair?

Yes.

I would move that the rules packet be processed, be deemed complete.

Madam Chair, I second.

Thank you. So we have a motion and a second to deem the rulemaking process complete for the South Dakota State Board of Addiction and Prevention Professionals rule. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please?

DeGroot?

Aye.

Aye. Mehlhaff?

Aye.

Muckey?

Aye.

Howard?

Aye.

Hansen?

Aye.

Madam Chair, unanimous.

All right, on a 6-0 vote, that rule has passed. Okay, moving on to the 3rd rule this morning, also Department of Social Services, and it is to amend rules to add a definition of licensed marriage and family therapist working toward a mental health designation to align with prior statutory changes regarding the Board of Addiction and Prevention Professionals, clarify current coverage and program requirements, and to ensure the state's program is compliant with federal regulations. And I would welcome— welcome back.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, again, Greg Tishkoff, attorney with DSS in the Division of Legal Services. I will be presenting the rule changes on behalf of the Division of Medical Services. Thank you again for your time and consideration today. This package consists of only 6 rules. There is a language cleanup in 6716.0108 to clarify that non-coverage of cosmetic surgery services includes reconstructive surgery services. There's another clarification in 6716.2605 That Medicaid provider payments are reduced by the amount of any third-party payments. One proposed rule, 67-16-2506.02, has a small fiscal impact of $1,227, of which $605 is in general funds. The rule clarifies that non-emergency medical transportation of an accompanying adult to a medical service If medically necessary due to age or medical condition, is a reimbursable service. The rule clarification and consequent fiscal impact is needed to comply with federal guidance. Finally, 6716.4103 does add licensed marriage and family therapists working towards a mental health designation as a covered mental health provider type. and clarifies that the administration and scoring of a psychiatric or neuropsychiatric examination is a covered service when done by a technician. All LRC form and style recommendations have been incorporated. Now I'd like to review the highlights of Form 15. Approval to proceed was given by DSS Secretary Althoff on July 21st. 1st, 2026. The proposed rules and supporting documents were submitted to LRC and the Bureau of Finance and Management on July 21st, 2026. Notice of the public hearing was published on July 23rd, 2026 in the Yankton Press and Dakotan, Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Aberdeen American News, and the Watertown Public Opinion. They were also posted on rules.sd.gov and dss.sd.gov. They were mailed to 8 persons and emailed to 246 listserv recipients. The public hearing was held on August 14th, 2026. And the final rules and supporting documents were submitted to LRC and the committee on August 28th. With that, Madam Chair, I thank you again for your time and consideration. We do have medical services divisional leadership here to answer any to assist in answering any committee questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you. Any other proponents for this proposed rule? All right. Anyone online? All right. Any opponents? Very good. All right. Any questions from the committee? Any online? Well, you are getting off really easy today. All right, with that, I would entertain a motion.

Madam Chair?

Yes.

Representative Muckey moves to deem the rulemaking process complete.

Second.

All right, with a motion and a second to deem the rulemaking process complete, Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please?

DeGroot.

Aye.

Larson.

Aye.

Mehlhaff.

Aye.

Muckey.

Aye.

Howard.

Aye.

Hansen.

Aye.

Madam Chair, unanimous.

All right, again with a unanimous 6-0 vote, that rule has been deemed complete. All right, and moving on to the next rule, and it is again Department of Social Services. Welcome back. Mr. Tishkoff, and this is to amend rules to add the term addiction counselor supervisee throughout Article 6761 to align with the larger rules package being brought by the Board of Addiction and Prevention Professionals.

Welcome.

Thank you again. Greg Tishkoff, attorney with DSS in the Division of Legal Services, presenting rules on behalf of the department's Office of Licensing and Accreditation and Division of Behavioral Health. Thanks again for your time and consideration today. I will be brief. The sole purpose of this package is to add the term addiction counselor supervisee throughout the substance use disorder Article 6761. This change is necessary to align the article to the larger Board of Addiction and Prevention Professionals rules package that was presented and approved earlier this morning. The rules were also updated to meet LRC's current form and style preferences. There was no fiscal impact associated with these rules. Now I'll quickly run through the Form 15. Secretary Althoff gave approval to proceed on July 3rd, 2026. Proposed rules and supporting documents were submitted to LRC and the Bureau of Finance and Management on July 23rd. Notice of the public hearing was published on July 23rd in the Rapid City Journal, Mitchell Daily Republic, and the Mobridge Tribune. They were posted on rules.sd.gov and dss.sd.gov, mailed to 8 persons, and emailed to 246 listserv recipients. Public hearing was held on August 14th, 2026. The final rules and supporting documents were submitted to LRC and the committee on August 28th of 2026. With that, Madam Chair, I thank you again for your time and consideration, and I'll stand by for questions.

Thank you so much. All right, any other proponent testimonies for this rule? Testifiers? All right, any opponents? Okay, any questions from the committee? Questions, comments?

Madam Chair, yes, yeah, I'd just like to thank the department for a good explanation of everything that's been going on and the changes that have happened.

So thank you, Senator.

All right, with that, I would entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I move that the rules process is complete.

Second. All right, with the motion and a second to deem the rulemaking process complete, Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please?

Madam Chair, who would you like as the second? Mehlhaff or Muckey?

Um, I think Representative Muckey beat him. Okay, by a hair.

I disagree.

He is younger. He is faster. All right, DeGroot.

Aye.

Larson. Aye.

Mehlhaff.

Aye.

Muckey.

Aye.

Howard.

Aye.

Hansen.

Aye.

Madam Chair, unanimous.

All right, again with unanimous vote, that rule has passed. All right, with that, we will move on to Representative DeGroot.

The next packet on our docket is from the Game, Fish, and Parks. And the Game, Fish, and Parks would like to amend rules to allow transportation of birds prior to tagging and delay tagging of birds until the birds are cleaned to prevent contamination. Do we have someone here to— a proponent to present that? Welcome, Mr. Kirschenmann. Could you please introduce yourself?

Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members and those committee members joining virtually this morning. Tom Kirschenmann, Director of the Wildlife Division, Department of Game, Fish and Parks. You will see on the agenda you actually have, I would consider, 2 packages of rules in front of you. And I don't know, Mr. Chairman, do you want to take them independently or all at one time? I will follow your lead and what your desire is.

Let's just take them Okay.

So the first package that is in front of you has to do with private shooting preserves and talks about doing some adjustments to rules in respect to tagging of birds and the transportation of it. So the private shooting preserves are a little bit different than just the regular sportsman going out and going pheasant hunting out on private land or public land. Private shooting Preserves are licensed through our agency. It has a different season length, different season or different daily limits, different times of the day that they can hunt, all based on that particular operation. This particular rule change that's in front of you and some new rules devised actually was brought forward to the department and the GFP Commission via public petition by a representative and some individuals from the private shooting preserve industry. Industry. And the whole petition that came forward to us and the commission revolves around the having an alternative approach of taking those birds that are harvested on their private shooting preserve either to their lodge or to a processing facility that is outside or off of the private shooting preserve acres that are licensed on their permit. So this really affects a handful of our operators out there right now in the preserve industry. But what this new rule does essentially is they're out on their preserve that is permitted on their acres permitted. They harvest birds. They then can tag them. Excuse me. In the normal process, they would tag them right there on the preserve. They have them on their facility. Now you have some operators that take their birds to a processing facility in a local community or local town to a business or individuals that provide that level of service. What this alternative tagging opportunity would do is instead of tagging them immediately on the property and as they transport them to the processing facility, is they would call back, they would notify the The main lodge, the folks there, they would enter the data into our electronic system. They then would have one of their employees or the operator themselves can take those birds from the preserve that where they were harvested from, take them to the processing facility. They would still have the tags with them; they just would not be placed on the birds yet. They go to the facility, they process the birds, and then the tag is put in the respective. Package than once the bird is, is cleaned and sealed up. Right now they would not have that ability to do it. It would require that they are tagged immediately on there when they start transporting. This provides an additional alternative. It is not a requirement, but it would be an alternative to a facility or an operator that does take their birds to a processing facility. So the petition was brought forward from the, the simple standpoint of Number one, you don't have the tags on those birds right away. They get contaminated as they described it. Take them to the processing facility. They remove them, clean the birds, and then they put that tag back in the package. This would allow them to go to the facility. They have the appropriate number of tags. They're put in the package then once they are processed. So again, it's an alternative that provides to them. We had lengthy discussions internally about this. We had lengthy discussions with those preserve operators that are interested in this approach. We believe we came to an amenable method to make that happen and something that would work for them as well if they choose to do so. If not, when they're out there doing their job, if I may, of guiding folks in pheasant hunting, they tag them right there. They take them back to their lodge and then they go from there. So, Mr. Chairman, that's a quick summary of what this particular rule package does. It provides an alternative opportunity for those operators at preserves.

Thank you very much. Are there any other proponents in the room? I don't see any online. Are there opponents in the room? And again, I don't see any online. I'll close this portion of the portion of the hearing and move on to any questions of Mr. Kirschenmann.

Mr.

Chair, yes, uh, thank you. Mr. Kirschenmann, I, I'm just curious, could you explain a little bit more what the purpose of the tag is in the first place? And secondly, uh, do you have, uh, Game, Fish and Parks personnel that go to the processing plants to confirm that the birds are tagged properly to make— to ensure compliance.

Yeah, through the chair. So number one, your first question, the purpose of the tags for private shooting preserves, you know, for the vast majority of the birds that are harvested are birds that they release. They also harvest a few wild birds, but they are primarily birds that are released. And because of The ability to harvest more than the regular three-day daily bag limit—that's the whole impetus of tracking the number of birds that are harvested on preserves. They are permitted to do so, and then with that, they obtain these tags that each and every single bird harvested on a preserve is tagged. And so each preserve is issued a set number of tags. They can get more if they're. Season is very successful where they harvest more birds, but those tag numbers and are issued specifically to an individual preserve. So then when we do go to a processing facility or at that preserve where our law enforcement staff would look into that or asking questions or seeing how things are going, they can look directly at those numbers. They can look it up in our system or contact our preserve manager and assure that, yep, those tags came from— or those birds came from Preserve X and those came from Preserve Y. And so not only is it for them to transport them legally because they're going to have more than 3 per person, or they can have more than 3 per person, it's a mechanism to track the number. They record all that information, they provide all that information to us as well, and it also provides that transportation component of as well. So they kind of play hand in hand. And then yes, part of your second question there is, again, as I mentioned, we go to the processing facilities and look, or going to the preserve, the lodge itself, those birds are tagged, or the packages have those tags in them. So we know exactly how many there were and then where they came from as well.

One follow-up, and none of this is required, just for a recreational hunter who's hunting in an approved open walk-in place?

Yes, through the chair. Yes, these particular tags, no, these are specific to those birds being harvested on a private shooting preserve. The only thing that would take place outside of preserve is if you have a group of hunters, whether you're in-state or out-of-state, and there's arbitrarily there's 5 of you hunting and one person is going to transport all the birds back to where you all came from, whether it was locally in South Dakota or another community or to another state, then you would be required to have a transportation permit. Because if you're stopped and you're over the limit of your position— possession, then you would be in violation. But you can obtain a transportation permit from our agency and our officers that would then allow you to Follow-up?

Any other questions from the committee? I have, I have one. Just clarification. Right now when they shoot these birds on a private preserve, they tag the bird there around the leg, and then when it goes to the processing plant, they process the bird, cut the leg off, and take the tag out off the leg and put into the package. And the reason for this is to prevent contamination. I assume that that bird may have something on the leg or—

Yeah, through the chair. I mean, again, that was one of the reasons that the petition brought forward is to help eliminate that quote-unquote potential contamination, that you don't have the band or the tag that was on the bird transported for a while and now it's processed, you take it off and then you insert it into the package that's sealed up with the tag. Again, it gives them that alternative to take it to that facility, and then the tag is inserted into the package.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions, are there any comments? Or it's another question? Okay. Seeing no questions, uh, we'll open it up for discussion at the committee and/or action.

Mr. Chair, I would move that the Rules process be deemed complete. Second.

It's been moved that the rule process is complete. Moved by Senator Mehlhaff and seconded by Senator Howard. Madam Secretary, please take the roll.

Larson. Aye. Mehlhaff. Aye. Muckey. Aye. Howard. Aye. Hansen.

Aye.

Aye.

Mr. Chair, unanimous.

We have a unanimous vote on that. The rules process is deemed complete. Well, Mr. Kirschenmann, while we have you up here, we might as well go on to the next packet, and that one has to deal with to allow an individual to harvest a velvet-antlered deer or elk removed preference of federal property closures, separate PST-22A into county-specific spring turkey hunting units for day in Codington County, remove weapons limitations in all units except for Minnehaha County, and align all prairie units for spring turkey and fall. Mr. Kirschenmann, do you want to present your packet?

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it's 5 bullet points. Quite honestly, it's pretty simple in terms of the overall rules package itself. The first one there that talks about the allowance of an individual to harvest a velvet antler deer. Right now in rule, there was actually verbiage that talked about it having to be a polished antler. So anybody that's hunting early in the season, there's oftentimes that desire to harvest a buck that's in quote-unquote velvet. It's part of that nostalgic and those early season hunts, and obviously having our seasons that start like September 1st for our archery season, there are buck deer or antlered deer that are in velvet, and that's something that's pursued. So it's removing the word polished and just saying that it's an antlered animal. Remove the reference of federal properties. I would offer this to you as somewhat of a I'll say a cleanup. In a couple of our rules on these particular seasons that we have in front of you right now, these turkey seasons, there will be mention in there of like Wind Cave National Park or Rushmore National Park. Well, there is no hunting that is legal inside those parks. They control that activity if it's allowed or not. No different than we don't list Sioux Falls, we don't list Pierre, we don't list another municipality that says you can't hunt in there. So what it's doing is just striking or removing those national, I'll say, monuments or parks that, that are mentioned there. They've been in there for a long time, but it's just not necessary to have them in rule. The 3rd bullet there talks about, uh, 22A, which is Day County and Codington County. Those 2 counties geographically are one hunting unit right now for turkey hunting, and what this is doing is splitting them and making them individual hunting units. So that's what that particular one accomplishes. The removal of weapon limitations— we had a couple of hunting units where it was limited to shotgun or muzzleloader or archery only. It would not allow rifle. Those couple of counties, that was removed. The only one that's retaining that restriction that would only allow a shotgun or muzzleloader or archery would be Minnehaha County, just based on the populace and the, the setting of the areas where, where most of that turkey hunting opportunities would take place. And then the last one there is align all the prairie units for spring and turkey hunting. So we have 2 distinct seasons, spring turkey hunting and we have fall turkey hunting. And what this is doing is basically saying fall turkey hunting, hunting units will align specifically to the same units we have for spring turkey. And so when you look at the rules package, all the individual units are, are stricken or removed in the fall turkey season, other than language says it aligns with the spring turkey hunting units themselves. So they're just— if we go in and change spring turkey unit, same thing's going to happen for the fall turkey season. That way it doesn't have to be redundant in administrative rules. So that's essentially what that rules package is, and I'd be happy Thank you.

But stand by for questions. Any other proponents? None in the room. I have none listed remotely. Any opponents? I don't have any listed. Any opponents in the room? Seeing none, we'll go to questions of the committee. Seeing no questions, we move forward to discussion and/or action. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Mr.

Chair?

Yes, I'm sorry. I would move to deem the rulemaking process complete as authorized in South Dakota Codified Law 1-26-4.91. Second.

Was that Mr. Hansen or Speaker Hansen? It's been moved by Senator Howard and seconded by Senator Larson that the rules process is complete as listed by Senator Howard.

Madam Secretary, take the roll. Larson? Aye. Mehlhaff? Aye. Muckey?

Aye.

Howard?

Aye.

Hansen?

Aye.

DeGroot?

Aye.

Mr. Chair, unanimous.

It's been an unanimous vote. Unanimous vote. I deem that the rules process complete. We move on to the next packet, and that's from the Department of Transportation. And the Department of Transportation would like to amend a rule to change speed limits on various highway segments in Union County and eliminate speed limit rule provisions that are no longer needed. Uh, good morning, Ms. Engle. Would you please introduce yourself?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Karla Engle, and I'm Chief Legal Counsel of the South Dakota Department of Transportation. I'm here to discuss Union County Speed Zone Rule 70-01-0262. The procedural steps The steps that have been taken so far regarding the proposed rule are as follows. Secretary Jundt approved proceeding with rulemaking on July 16, 2026. The public hearing was held on August 27. The proposed rules and supporting documents were submitted to Legislative Research Council and the Bureau of Finance and Management on July 29. Publication occurred in the Rapid City Journal on August 4th. Thank you. In the Sioux Falls Argus Leader on August 5th, in the Pierre Capital Journal on August 6th, and in the North Sioux City Times on August 7th. On July 29th, copies of the hearing notice and proposed rule were emailed or mailed to the individuals or entities who've requested rulemaking notification. On the same date, information about the rulemaking was posted on DOT's website and on the OpenSD website. On July 30th, August 12th, and August 20th, information about the hearing was posted on the department's social media platforms, namely Facebook, X, LinkedIn, and Instagram. And on July 29th, copies of the hearing notice and proposed rules were mailed to the mayors and finance officers of North Sioux City, Elk Point, Jefferson, and the sheriff of Union County. The final rules and supporting documents were submitted to LRC and the committee on August 27th. I'll now discuss the purpose and effect of the proposed speed zone changes. The proposed amendments to the Union County Speed Zone Rule will change speed limits on various highway segments in the county under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation and eliminate —speed limit rule provisions that are no longer needed. The reasons for the proposed rule amendments are to enhance safety, clarify the rules, and repeal speed limits for highways that are not under the department's jurisdiction. As to the specific rule changes, in subsection 3 of the rule— this is at the Elk Point Way Station along Interstate 29— there are 2 roads that parallel the interstate, a bypass road and a road leading to the This rule slightly modifies the starting and ending point of the bypass road speed limit to match the signing in place. And additionally, with the addition of a weigh-in-motion facility at the weigh station, the speed limit needs to be reduced to 15 miles per hour rather than 20 miles per hour to ensure proper function of that facility. Subsections 7 and 8. The existing subsection 7 of the rule previously dealt with speed limits on State Trunk Highway 105, but that highway has been removed from the state trunk highway system and is no longer under the department's jurisdiction. So most of the rule is repealed. The only former Highway 105 road segments that remain under the department's jurisdiction are the road segments that cross the interstate and are therefore in the department's right-of-way and jurisdiction. The new subsection 7 sets the speed limit for the I-29 underpass at Exit 2, and new subsection 8 sets the speed limits for I-29 underpass at Exit 9. But those speed limits are remaining the same. As to new subsection 9, the department is proposing a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit for Sioux Point Road and the crossroad over Interstate 29 at Exit 1, both of which are within the department's interstate right-of-way. This rule arose out of a request by Dakota Dunes to post signs on the crossroad. Based on the department's traffic engineers' analysis, the 35-mile-per-hour speed limit is consistent with speed study results. The speed limit setting tool recommended that 35-mile-per-hour speed limit based on the traffic signals and the proximity of traffic signals and the crash rate. This 35-mile-per-hour speed limit is also consistent with speed limits on the local streets in the vicinity of the crossroad. As to new subsection 10, there is currently no speed limit for the crossroad over I-29 at Exit 4. The department is proposing a 25-mile-per-hour speed limit for the westernmost segment, which runs through a residential area with a pedestrian crossing. And then we are proposing a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit for the remainder of the crossroad. This 35-mile-per-hour speed limit is needed due to sight distance issues. And this speed limit is supported by the results of a speed study and local law enforcement. Finally, as to subsection 11, State Trunk Highway 46 straddles the Lincoln and Union County lines, but a speed limit administrative rule was only in place for the portion in Lincoln County. The proposed amendment corrects that oversight. No timely public comments were received on the proposed rule changes, and no members of the public appeared to testify at the hearing. Legislative Research Council's changes to the proposed rules have been incorporated, and we appreciate their expertise. Thank you for your consideration, and I would ask you to deem the rule process complete.

Thank you. I think we have somebody remotely as a proponent, or not?

Mr. Chairman, John Sumala, our statewide traffic engineer, is available remotely, but only for questions.

Thank you. Any other proponents in the room? Are there opponents in the room? I see none online, so I'll close that section of the hearing and we'll go on to committee questions. Yes, Senator Howard.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can't remember, did you— was there any opposition to this from the neighbors, residents?

No.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none, I just have one. Listening to your testimony, you talked about local law enforcement recommendations, traffic engineers' recommendations. Usually, how does a change like this start? Who starts that?

It can start in a variety of ways. We can hear from local law enforcement. Sometimes we hear from local governments. But we also hear from citizens. And I occasionally get calls from citizens, and I'll often refer them to the region traffic engineer who performs these studies. And so we, we always try to do a study to determine if it's supported by data.

Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing none, we'll move on to discussion and/or action.

I would deem the rulemaking process complete as authorized in South Dakota Codified Law 1-26-4.91. Is there a second?

Sorry, Senator Larson, I can't recognize your voice online. Anyway, there's been a motion by Senator Howard. And seconded by Senator Larson that the rule process deemed complete. Madam Secretary, please take the roll.

Larson?

Aye.

Mehlhaff?

Aye.

Muckey?

Aye.

Howard?

Aye.

Hansen?

Aye.

DeGroot?

Aye.

Mr. Chair, unanimous.

Unanimous vote on, on the rule process is deemed complete. I will now— thank you— move it on to Senator Mehlhaff. I had to use it once.

All right. Thank you. At this time, we'll move on to the next packet, which is the Appraiser Certification Program. The Department of Labor and Regulation may propose to amend rules to make appraisers certified by reciprocity subject to the continuing education requirements, allow for the approval of the 8-hour valuation bias and fair housing course as qualifying education, to align course approval terms to the relevant delivery mechanism certification, allow flexibility for approval of seminar-type continuing education courses, To clarify what types of discipline owners of appraisal management companies, or AMCs, are required to disclose on an AMC application, and to clarify change of ownership obligations for AMCs. And, uh, this time we'll take proponent testimony for this rules package. Welcome, Ms. Gustafson. Nice to see you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Katlynn Gustafson, Program Director for the South Dakota Appraiser Certification Program. On behalf of the program, I ask you to deem the administrative rulemaking process complete for the rule changes in the packet. The changes in this packet improve rule clarity and consistency and ensure compliance with federal During the process, the program received public comments and responded to the comments with changes. First, the program received one written comment about its changes to 2077.36. The program adopted the changes suggested by the comment. Second, the program received written and verbal comments from the same source and of the same nature about its proposed changes to 2014-13-7. Based on these comments, the program decided to withdraw its proposed changes to this rule. Thank you for your time and consideration. I will stand by for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Gustafson. Are there any other proponent testifiers in the room? Seeing none, are there any online? Seeing none, we will move to opponent testimony if there is any, which seeing none, we'll close this portion and we'll go to committee questions. Are there any questions regarding this packet? Seeing none, I just have one question with respect to the reciprocity. Is that a fairly new item, or have we always had reciprocity for out-of-state appraisals?

We've always had reciprocity. Um, I would need to look at my notes, but we're just clarifying a few things there based on what the federal government suggested of us.

Okay, thank you. Any other further questions? Seeing none, we'll close questions and move to committee discussion and/or action. Mr.

Chair, Representative Muckey, I move we deem the rulemaking process complete. Second.

Okay, we have a motion to deem the rulemaking process complete from Representative Muckey, seconded by Senator Howard. Any comments on the motion?

No, Mr. Chair.

Seeing none, ask the secretary to please call the roll.

DeGroot. Aye. Larson. Aye. Muckey. Aye. Howard. Aye. Hansen. Aye. Mehlhaff. Aye. Mr. Chair, unanimous.

Having received a unanimous vote, the rulemaking process is hereby deemed complete. At this time, I will hand the gavel back to the Madam Chair.

Thank you. All right. Now we will— we have a staff report to hear about.

Madam Chair, Justin Goetz, Code Council. I wanted to apprise the committee on the first item of a development internally here within LRC, that a Code Council division has been created. It's been a few years in coming. That's a reflection of the fact that Kelly Thompson, who obviously is seated here to the right of me, and I work together very closely and perform a good chunk of our work, most of our work together. And so Kelly has been brought under the Code Counsel ambit. We also have had 2 FTEs, at least 2 FTEs appropriated, one of which is designated for an Assistant Code Counsel position, which I mentioned in the past. That position Has been taken up by Anna Madsen, who has made the transition over. Very excited to bring her on board. And similarly, under kind of Kelly's side of things, the legislative editor, second legislative editor position opened up, and Ben Vukovich has taken on that position. Again, another internal hire here, and we're very, very excited to bring them on board. That will ensure there is Greater continuity of internal knowledge about those positions, as well as additional services, and we hope ever better professionalism and attention to detail and diligence, having that extra set of eyes. So we're again very excited to bring them on board, and you'll be seeing their work here in next, next meeting, as well as the subsequent interim. So.

Thank you.

The second item that's under staff report is with regard to a Form 5 fiscal note update. This is in keeping with Senate Bill 133, which was adopted in the last legislative session. Senate Bill 133 consolidated certain reporting requirements under our administrative rulemaking framework within the regulatory impact analysis, namely the local government impact component was put under the regulatory impact analysis. To account for that then in this form revision where once that concern was dealt with in Form 5, all those references to local government agency impact have been deleted as noted or are proposed for deletion rather. As noted in the staff memo, there are 2 questions within the regulatory impact analysis, the Form That ask these questions about the fiscal impact on local governments. So you see the track changes denoting the revisions proposed for Form 5. I would ask the committee's consideration in adopting the revised form. I would lastly note that I reached out to Steven Kohler with the Bureau of Finance and Management. This is a form that BFM also receives in the rulemaking process, and he had indicated that the, the revisions looked straightforward and was in agreement with the changes. So beyond that, I have no— nothing else to report and would appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

All right, thank you. So any discussion on the revisions proposed to the Form 5? Because I will be looking for a motion. That would move to— that the revisions proposed by staff to the Form 5 fiscal note be adopted by this committee.

Madam Chair?

Yes.

Representative Muckey, I move that we adopt the changes made to the form.

Second.

All right, with the motion made by Representative Muckey, seconded by Senator Mehlhaff, any discussion on the motion? All right, Madam Secretary.

Madam Chair, yes, I, I would just like to acknowledge publicly the great work that our staff does, and, uh, not just on these preparing the staff reports, but the staff memos and all the information that's provided that makes our job quite a bit easier than it— we couldn't— than it would be otherwise. Well, there's no doubt about that. So thank you.

Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please? DeGroot.

Aye. Larson. Aye. Mehlhaff. Aye. Muckey. Aye. Howard. Aye. Hansen. Aye. Madam Chair, unanimous.

All right, with that, that has passed. So we will look for those revisions on that form going forward, on both of those forms going forward. One last thing that we should discuss. Looking at October's calendar, we currently have 17 packets, possibly 18, probably 18. Is there any, any inclination to possibly starting earlier? Do we want to discuss that?

Madam Chair, I think that's a great idea, at least move it to I'm open to 9, and if, if we move to 8, I'll probably come in the night before. That way it makes it easier.

We just got through about 6, 6 packets. I think there was 6. We just went through 8. Yes, we did. 8, um, in just a little over an hour. So yeah, I think if we moved it to 9, I'd be okay with that, and that would be— does anybody have any issue with Moving it to 9?

Madam Chair, I'll support that.

Any opposition? Okay, let's move it to 9. All right, any other business that needs to be taken care of? Okay, with that, I would entertain a motion then.

I would, uh, motion that we adjourn.

Madam Chair, second.

All right, with a motion by Senator Mehlhaff, second by Representative DeGroot to adjourn, all those in favor will say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Anybody opposed? Okay, with that, we are adjourned.