Transcript Highlights:

• If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes. If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.
• If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes. If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.
• If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes. If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.
• If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes. If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.
• If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes. If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

Bills: HCR43, HCR154, HCR165, HCR186, HCR200, HCR202, HCR206

Keywords: pedestrian safety, raised crosswalks, Honolulu, traffic infrastructure, school zone, HCR154, Hele-On, Hele-On Shared Ride Program, County of Hawaii, Hawaii County, Mass Transit Agency, shared ride, paratransit, accessible transportation, ADA, mobility devices, wheelchair accessible, kupuna, seniors, elderly

Summary: The Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs reconvened on April 21 and took up a series of House Concurrent Resolutions, with no public testimony. Members first approved HCR 43, urging raised crosswalks near Ala Wai Elementary at University Avenue, Malkiki Street, and Kamoku Street to improve student safety, and HCR 154, asking Hawaii County to expand the Heleon shared ride program islandwide, including rural and underserved areas. They also passed HCR 165, calling for permanent pickleball nets and court lighting at Kamilo Iki Community Park, and HCR 186, urging the U.S. Department of Defense and Defense Health Agency to extend health care authorization renewals for people affected by the Red Hill water contamination crisis. The committee then approved HCR 200, which urges the Department of Defense to reassess prior CERCLA-related closure decisions in light of evolving PFAS science. Members said the measure was intended to help keep PFAS out of the water system. HCR 202, establishing a legislative task force on Hawaii’s future energy pathways, was amended before passage to expand the task force’s scope to include separation of generation from transmission and distribution, add Senate leadership representation, and include representatives from the Agricultural Development Corporation and the Farm Bureau. Several members supported the amended version with reservations, expressing concern about possible cost impacts from separating generation and distribution. Finally, the committee passed HCR 206 HD1, which requests the Hawaii State Energy Office to convene a working group to study the impacts of large data centers on utilities, ratepayers, natural resources, and climate goals. All measures were adopted by the committee, with HCR 202 passing with amendments and the others passing unamended. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I was appreciative that that got changed from 8 to 10.
• But let's talk about some of the proposals to change it.
• I think these are needed changes.
• I think these are needed changes.
• We hear a lot about changes and not doing too many changes, but also oftentimes in the same sort of presentation

Summary: The committee heard a series of presentations on comprehensive plan updates, permitting reform, special purpose district coordination, and subdivision reform. Pierce County and the City of Redmond described their recent comprehensive plan updates, emphasizing housing production, transit-oriented development, middle housing, preservation of affordable housing, and the need for technical assistance and clearer state guidance. Both jurisdictions said the planning process took years and was complicated by overlapping state requirements, changing legislative mandates, and multiple review authorities. Redmond in particular said mid-course legislative changes forced supplemental environmental review and added significant cost and delay, and both local governments asked for more stability, clearer statutes, and better-aligned timelines. Presenters from the architecture, building official, and development sectors focused on permitting delays and proposed ways to speed housing delivery. Dave Boucher of AIA Washington argued for a provisional construction permit process for projects stamped by licensed professionals, along with mandatory deadlines and fewer stalled review cycles. Tim Woodard of WABO described existing tools such as pre-application meetings and phased approvals, noting they can improve certainty but also require staff time and careful coordination. Representatives from Master Builders and D.R. Horton said permit and subdivision delays add substantial cost to housing, citing studies showing months of delay and tens of thousands of dollars added per home, and urged administrative approvals, concurrent review, self-certification, and limits on repeated review cycles. The committee also reviewed a Commerce-led task force report on integrating special purpose districts into Growth Management Act planning. The task force recommended early invitation and notice to water, sewer, school, port, and other service providers during countywide planning policy and comprehensive plan updates, better coordination on grants and capital projects, updated water system coordination plans, and improved school siting and funding alignment in fast-growing areas. Speakers stressed that the recommendations were intended to be light-touch and focused on better communication rather than major statutory overhaul, while also noting that rural and slow-growing areas should not be burdened with the same requirements as rapidly growing jurisdictions. On subdivision reform, FutureWise and the City of Spokane discussed making more subdivision decisions administrative, preserving vesting, clarifying exemptions, and reducing unnecessary notice and appeal steps. Spokane described local reforms such as smaller minimum lot sizes, unit lot subdivisions, and reduced-process “minor engineering review” for simple plats, while raising concerns about new notice requirements and appeals to city councils for technical plat decisions. Across the hearing, members repeatedly returned to the theme that local governments, builders, and state agencies need clearer, more coordinated rules to reduce delay and uncertainty while still protecting safety and planning goals.

Transcript Highlights:

• . changes. changes.
• We just We just had change happens.
• ought to change it. ought to change it.
• If they want to change.
• And I think we for this change?"

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Rules and Administration Committee met on March 19, 2026, to consider the referral path for Senate File 4139, the sports betting bill, rather than the substance of the proposal. Senator Franzen, the bill’s chief author, asked that the bill be referred first to the Commerce Committee, saying he had discussed the matter with the relevant committee chairs and that Commerce was the best place to address the bill’s consumer protection provisions. He emphasized that any final path to passage would still require the bill to go through State and Local Government as well. Senator Rasmusson objected and argued the bill should go first to State and Local Government, citing Senate jurisdiction rules, which he said assign gambling bills to that committee. He noted that prior sports betting bills had been referred there first and said a predictable referral process is important. Senator Maye Quade, Senator Dibble, Senator Bar, and Senator Jasinski also supported sending the bill to State and Local Government first, arguing that the committee has primary jurisdiction over gambling and that the bill’s consumer protection language does not change that basic referral. Senator Champion and Senator Miller supported the Commerce referral, saying authors may request an initial committee and that the bill’s consumer protection sections fit Commerce jurisdiction. Senator Marty moved to re-refer Senate File 4139 to the Committee on State and Local Government. Before the vote, members continued debating whether the bill’s structure and prior referral history justified Commerce or whether committee jurisdiction rules required State and Local Government first. The transcript ends with the motion pending and no final vote or disposition shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• The changes do not start until page 10.
• My changes start on page 10.
• And then, I think my next change is on page 12.
• And then, I think my next change is on page 12. change is on page 12, which the original draft allowed
• But if it's not the desire of the division to make any of those changes or recommend any of the changes

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee reviewed four bill drafts for the Rural Health Transformation effort. The first required the presidential physical fitness test in PE classes; members asked about DPI and school support, then moved and approved the draft. The second required physicians to complete one hour of continuing education on nutrition and metabolic health each renewal cycle and included legislative intent encouraging other health boards to consider nutrition-related CE; it was approved after brief discussion. The third bill adopted the Physician Assistant Licensure Compact. Members discussed a separate issue involving occupational therapy compact background checks and whether that fix could be added now or would need to wait until later; the committee also discussed Board of Medicine input and the compact’s workforce benefits. The draft was moved forward to the full committee. The fourth bill expanded pharmacists’ prescriptive authority and therapeutic substitution. Legislative Council explained the draft, and Senator Roars proposed substantial amendments to narrow motion sickness, UTI, diabetes supply, and substitution provisions. Members debated whether to vote on amendments now or wait for the special session public hearing; concerns were raised about transparency, stakeholder input, and avoiding premature action. No amendment vote was taken, and the bill was left for later consideration. The committee then recessed until the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• Taken separately, these changes don't say much, but taken together, as I outlined, these changes are
• Neither can be changed with legislation.
• They did not have the liberty to make the changes that they had made.
• We certainly can find that's chump change in the Texas budget.
• The agency specifically made rule changes.

Bills: SB82, SB1807, SB2254, HB119, HB130, HB581, HJR98, SB1988, SB 18, SB 34

Keywords: business liability, concealed carry, handgun policy, premises liability, criminal acts, civil liability, business premises, concealed handgun, property liability, property rights, gun regulations, criminal liability, protective order, confidentiality, personal information, court records, victim protection, charitable raffle, nonprofit, wildlife conservation

Transcript Highlights:

• predict behaviors are and what they could change with plan design.
• So, as with anything, a law change can occur at any point to make that change.
• What this does is allows us to change the mechanics.
• We make this change. The plan continues. We actually expand the benefits.
• There are a lot of things that are changing in our health care system.

Bills: SB2160

Keywords: health insurance, public employees, uniform group insurance, retirement, state employees, 908, all

Summary: The committee resumed work on Senate Bill 2160, which would move the Public Employees Retirement System health plan from grandfathered to non-grandfathered status under the Affordable Care Act. PERS officials Rebecca Frickie and Derek Holbein explained that the bill would allow more flexibility in plan design, including higher deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket maximums, while also adding enhanced preventive benefits. They clarified that ACA “essential health benefits” apply to individual and small-group markets, not to PERS as a large employer, and that the bill’s projected cost increases were based on actuarial estimates and prior bid scenarios from Sanford and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Members debated whether the bill would actually save money or simply shift costs to employees. Supporters argued that non-grandfathered status would create more levers to manage medical inflation and could produce net premium savings through plan redesign, citing prior bid comparisons showing potential reductions of 1% to 8% depending on the option. Opponents, including Representative Schauer and North Dakota United president Nick Archelette, questioned how the state would pay for the estimated $25 million to $30 million in added benefits and warned that employees could face higher out-of-pocket costs amid already strained household budgets. Frickie said the legislature would control funding decisions and that current law requiring the state to pay full family premiums could be changed only by statute. The committee also discussed reserve funding, with members noting that a $4.3 million reserve draw in the bill was intended to cover the final months of the biennium and could be modified. After testimony and discussion, Vice Chair Johnson moved a do-pass recommendation and referral to Appropriations. The motion passed 10-3-1, with Representatives Ostlie, Schatz, and Schauer voting no. Representative Gump agreed to carry the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it won't change anything. I question. So it won't change anything.
• It won't change any information and all. It won't change any of<00:03:14.159> that.
• Let me change that motion to of me.
• those last changes. those last changes.
• bills of uh would I consider changing bills of uh would I consider changing one<00:10:09.920>

Bills: SB85, SB263, HB277, HB267, SB288, SB85, SB263, HB277, HB267, SB288

Keywords: vaccination exemption, religious exemption, medical exemption, vaccine mandate, testing requirement, public schools, K-12, students, parents, guardians, higher education, college enrollment, university attendance, public institutions of higher education, immunization, religious tenets, sincerely held belief, school health policy, Alabama, AHSAA physical form

Transcript Highlights:

• just just a change in statute and rule. just just a change in statute and rule.
• Quite frankly, it doesn't change what they do. It changes what they're called.
• changes you're making in section one. changes you're making in section one.
• any<01:10:21.920> PA the name change does not change any PA the name change does not change
• change what PAs can or cannot do. change what PAs can or cannot do.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 185, which would add timelines to Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC) investigations. Senator Howard Pearl said the bill was prompted by concerns from the New Hampshire Association of Realtors about delays at the Real Estate Commission, and he explained that the proposal would require OPLC staff to make an initial determination within 30 days and, if misconduct is found, complete an investigation within 60 days. He said the goal is to improve transparency and give consumers and licensees more timely information, while preserving the board’s adjudicatory role. He also noted that the bill had been amended to delay implementation to give OPLC time to work through its backlog. Committee members questioned how the bill would work when an investigation is incomplete and whether the board could send a case back to OPLC without a firm deadline. Pearl said the board would have discretion to continue the investigation or make a final determination, and that the bill was intended to streamline OPLC’s process rather than impose a hard cap on complex cases. OPLC Executive Director Deanna Durus and General Counsel Nicholas Fry then testified that the agency has already changed its procedures under prior legislation, including a facial review of complaints and monthly board review of dismissal memos. They said the bill would substantially alter the current structure, could conflict with existing limitation periods and board duties, and would be difficult to implement without additional staff and funding. Durus said the agency’s backlog is large, that new complaints are being triaged and prioritized, and that some urgent matters are moved ahead based on risk and statutory deadlines. She said OPLC had completed a review of about 500 backlog cases that would now be dismissed under current screening standards, and that those cases are being turned into memos for board review. Board of Medicine public member Nina Gardner testified in favor of the bill but said the backlog is significant and that the agency needs more resources to make the process work effectively. She said the board is seeing progress, but not fast enough, and suggested the bill may not go far enough without additional staffing and funding. No vote was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We changed it to rules on that page.
• Okay, well let's see if it changes, because I haven't seen the budget myself since it's been changed.
• Now it's climate change.
• And so this definition here of climate change, But while it does include major changes in temperature
• It's always kind of changing.

Transcript Highlights:

• change is it kept the insurance mandate process in place.
• So that change does remain in the Senate version, and that's on...
• So that change does remain in the Senate version.
• The other changes that were made are on page three, starting row 11.
• So those are the changes that were done on the Senate side.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee on HB 1248 met to review differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, which concerns the PERS pilot program and insurance mandate process. Rebecca Frickie, executive director of PERS, explained that the Senate version removed the House provisions repealing the insurance mandate process, kept the two-year PERS pilot intact, and preserved the requirement for a report at the end of the pilot while removing language that would have required PERS to submit a bill to expand coverage to the commercial market. Members discussed the bill’s cost-benefit analysis requirements. Frickie said the current law triggers a cost-benefit analysis at the start of the pilot and again when a bill is introduced to roll coverage out commercially, but the Senate draft would change that to only one analysis at the end of the pilot if a rollout bill is introduced. Legislative Council indicated that if the committee wants that simplified approach, additional conforming changes are needed elsewhere in the code. Senators also asked about the purpose of the initial analysis and whether it is used beyond being attached to the bill packet; Frickie said PERS relies primarily on its own actuary and was not aware of broader use. The committee discussed whether the revised process would still require legislative sponsorship for any future rollout, and Frickie confirmed that a legislator or other sponsor would need to introduce such a bill. Examples mentioned included insulin caps and breast exams as possible future pilot items. The committee agreed to request Legislative Council draft the needed language changes and planned to reconvene after receiving the updated draft; no final vote was taken and the meeting was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It makes no changes to the financing.
• change anything about that. change anything about that.
• Anytime they change one of the assumptions, it changes the total outcome.
• Anytime they change one of the assumptions, it changes the total outcome.
• change uh the retirement assumption. change uh the retirement assumption.

Keywords: Finance - Room 216, 2 February, 2026; 3:00 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first heard a bill concerning tax increment financing (TIFs). The sponsor explained that the measure would not change the existing financing structure, but would add an optional arrangement cities could negotiate with developers: a revenue bond guaranteed by taxes generated from the development. The goal was to let developers guarantee the bond and access funds sooner on the front end of a project rather than waiting to see whether tax revenues meet projections. After no questions, the committee adopted a motion that the title was sufficient and reported the bill out do pass as a committee substitute. The next bill, Senate Bill 2873, came from the Department of Revenue and dealt with enforcement of the state’s vape registry law. The sponsor said the bill fills a gap left by prior legislation by creating a statutory forfeiture process for seized products valued at $20,000 or less, including notice, a right to contest, and rules for disposition of forfeited property. The committee then moved the bill title sufficient and do pass, and it was reported out. Senate Bill 2894 addressed local improvement projects funded in 2021 through 2024 that had not been executed or had unspent money remaining. The bill would require return of certain funds after a memorandum of understanding was not signed or after three years with unspent balances, require remittance of unspent interest, allow withholding of some city diversion or state aid road funds for noncompliance, and require periodic status reports to the Legislative Budget Office. The sponsor also offered an amendment giving entities 60 days from the bill’s effective date to request a one-time six-month extension; the amendment and the bill both received favorable votes and were reported out. Senate Bill 2910 would require employers in the PERS system to settle the books if a unit of government or other employer terminates participation. Senate Bill 2911 proposed a new return-to-work option for PERS retirees, shortening the separation period from 90 days to 30 days and allowing certain retirees to return to public employment at up to 80% of the stated salary, with employer-paid retirement contributions and possible health insurance support. The sponsor said the bill would exclude elected officials, K-12 superintendents, and IHL/community college administrators, and he discussed the bill’s expected effect on PERS funding with questions from members about actuarial impact and whether the proposal would affect existing retirement rules. Both bills were discussed but the transcript excerpt does not show final committee action on Senate Bill 2911.

Transcript Highlights:

• If not, what do we need to do to change it?
• And then we're changing the funding, if you choose to change the funding, at the very end.
• I want to make a note here: the measure has changed since 2001.
• Do you want to change the dates for some of the hearings?
• So if that's the case, then do we have to make that change?

Summary: The meeting began with approval of the prior minutes and then shifted to an update from Department of Education Secretary Jacob Oliva and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Smith on early childhood education, especially the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) program. They said Arkansas had received a federal Preschool Development Grant and described ABC as a large state program with about 23,800 funded slots and roughly $114 million in annual appropriations. Department officials said they are reviewing slot allocations because about 1,000 seats are funded but unfilled, while more than 2,000 families are on waiting lists, and they plan to reduce or reallocate slots from providers that have not filled them over several years. They also said they are examining whether income thresholds, curriculum expectations, daily rates, and summer programming should be updated, and members raised concerns about access, local control, transportation, and whether the program should better align with K-12 choice and school readiness goals. The committee agreed to form an early childhood subcommittee and asked the Bureau of Legislative Research to help gather historical data and other information for future discussion. The committee then received a legal presentation from BLR attorney Taylor Lloyd on the constitutional and statutory framework for education adequacy in Arkansas. She reviewed the Dupree and Lake View cases, explaining that the state must maintain a general, suitable, and efficient system of free public schools, and that adequacy and equity are distinct but related concepts. She emphasized that the General Assembly is responsible for defining adequacy, studying whether the system meets that standard, and reacting to the evidence, while the courts ultimately decide constitutional compliance. Lloyd also explained the current adequacy definition, the role of the matrix as a funding tool rather than a spending mandate, and the distinction between unrestricted foundation funding and restricted categorical funding. BLR’s Elizabeth Bynum followed with a historical overview of how Arkansas responded to the court cases and developed the current adequacy process. She traced major legislative actions from the 1980s through the Lake View litigation, including the creation of funding formulas, categorical aid, isolated funding, declining enrollment funding, and the 2003-2004 adequacy study that led to the Continuing Adequacy Evaluation Act and the matrix used to set foundation funding. She also described later changes to the adequacy statute, the financial reporting requirements for districts, and the ongoing use of surveys, stakeholder testimony, and consultant studies in the biennial adequacy process. Members asked questions about whether private or homeschool programs could use public funds for expenses like utilities, whether stakeholders should include those groups, the difference between average daily membership and attendance, and whether school board members are surveyed; staff said those issues would need further research or were outside the scope of the presenters’ role.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that amount will change because, again, these are the January numbers.
• So it'll change through the end of this fiscal year.
• And it changes. Home ownership changes all the time.
• Nathe, it's not going to get any cheaper to make the change.
• We did make a nice change this last biennium. ...to collect that money.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Section F is a very simple change.
• Is that why that change was made? Do you all know? What's the effect of that change?
• This section has, if you see all the changes, you'll see that there's lots of changes.
• We just changed the title in here.
• So this change was made to add clinical nurse specialist among. inverting the left off, so this change

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Whenever that was changed, it's not clear why it wasn't changed with the ERB, but basically allowed you
• There's no change there.
• How would that change our slope?
• Who has changed... Those benefits in the last decade, again, have been changed multiple times.
• Does the legislature change them?

Transcript Highlights:

• The picture changed again in 2014 when the voters passed Proposition 2, which changed the rules regarding
• ACA 1 is an opportunity to change that.
• This needs to change.
• This needs to change.
• The federal policy changes.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held a hearing on proposals to reform California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or rainy day fund, ahead of the May Revision. Members and witnesses reviewed how Proposition 2 (2014) changed reserve rules, including mandatory deposits, a 10% cap on the fund, and limits tied to the Governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. LAO staff explained that California’s revenues are highly volatile, that current reserve rules are complicated by interactions with Proposition 98 and the Gann limit, and that under current law reserves would cover only about one-third of funding shortfalls in a benchmark scenario over 50 years. The LAO presented its report recommending a larger reserve target, including raising the cap to 50% by 2055 and pairing that with either broader, more flexible deposit rules or a simpler approach that deposits all excess capital gains. The Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to raise the cap from 10% to 20% and exempt BSA deposits from the state appropriations limit, while Assembly Member Valencia presented ACA 1, which would make similar changes and was described as an evolving proposal. Testimony generally supported saving more during boom years, but differed on how much to hardwire into the Constitution versus leave flexible, and on whether to broaden the deposit formulas beyond capital gains. Public witnesses and committee members raised additional issues, including whether reserve reforms should also address debt repayment, the treatment of unemployment insurance fund debt, and whether the Gann limit should be adjusted to better allow reserve growth. Supporters argued that stronger reserves would protect Californians from cuts during downturns and help the state weather volatility and federal funding threats. Some advocates warned that reforms should not come at the expense of current public needs, while taxpayer representatives cautioned against turning the BSA into a pass-through account that weakens constitutional spending limits. The hearing ended without a vote, with the committee chair noting the complexity of the issue and adjourning after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the language that we changed.
• changes in the language that we changed. changes in the language that we changed.
• is a very broad thing and so we changed is a very broad thing and so we changed that<00:15:08.320
• The amendment changes nothing right.
• So, I've not had a chance to incorporate those changes, but I will be incorporating those changes.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There is vague campaign finance language that this is changing and unclear voter changes.
• <00:20:32.880> Uh changing and unclear voter changes.
• Uh changing and unclear voter changes.
• <00:38:57.520> Uh change charter. It's in the charter. Uh change charter.
• change line six. Line six. Right. change line six. Line six.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in the statute is that they only change in the statute is that um<00:32:01.799> changing<00:32
• M, would that change the revenue estimate making that change?
• Madam Chair, it would not change the amount of the revenue estimate, but it would change the funding
• M, would that change the revenue estimate making that change?
• Madam Chair, it would not change the amount of the revenue estimate, but it would change the funding

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Franklin, if I were to summarize some of the changes, there's a lot of terminology changes that necessarily
• don't change the content.
• Franklin, if I were to summarize some of the changes, there's a lot of terminology changes that necessarily
• don't change the content.
• I'm seeing specifically in our packets, members of the changes. ...necessarily don't change the content

Summary: The Administrative Rules Subcommittee reviewed a series of agency rules and related requests. The Department of Corrections and Post-Prison Transfer Board reported quarterly updates with no questions, and several Commerce rules were approved, including repeals tied to the minority business enterprise and women-owned business enterprise programs and the Consolidated Incentives Act because they were superseded by Act 116 or duplicative of statute. The Insurance Department’s new rule for online marketplace guarantee providers was also approved, with Airbnb used as an example of the type of platform covered. The Department of Education presented an update to the Arkansas Adult Diploma Program to align payment milestones with Act 502 of 2025, and DFA presented a rule implementing a new tax credit for Arkansas rice used in beer and sake production under Act 874 of 2025. Members asked about verification of grain bills and whether the credit was broadly available; DFA said the rule tracks the statute and requires producers to submit the grain bill with their return. DHS then presented a SNAP rule implementing federal changes from Public Law 119-21, including raising the able-bodied adult without dependents age limit to 64, changing treatment of dependents and exemptions, and adjusting energy assistance income treatment; the rule was approved despite one public comment. Later, DHS Medical Services amended the Medicaid Rehab Hospital Manual to allow rehab hospitals to operate psychiatric units and bill Medicaid for those services, and also secured approval for a recovery audit contractor exemption because Arkansas law bars contingency-fee contractors and the state already has other program integrity safeguards. The Board of Public Accountancy’s rules implementing Act 428 of 2025 were approved after discussion of a new CPA licensure pathway requiring a bachelor’s degree plus two years of experience, changes to substantial equivalency for out-of-state CPAs, and removal of a government/not-for-profit coursework requirement. The committee also approved the Department of Education’s request to be excluded from certain reporting requirements, retained all 18 DAPSAF rules under a review of Group 3, filed outstanding 2023-session rulemaking updates, and adjourned after filing monthly updates.