Not to be Published

PER CURIAM:

Anonymous No. 1 and No. 2, dental hygienists, appeal from the administrative law court's (ALC) reconsideration of sections 40-15-80(B), -82(1), and -110(A)(10) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011) and determination that no separate standard of care exists for hygienists working in the public school setting. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2011) ("The court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the administrative law judge as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact."); Spartanburg Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Oncology & Hematology Assocs. of S.C., LLC, 387 S.C. 79, 89, 690 S.E.2d 783, 788 (2010) ("Judicial review of administrative agency decisions is therefore `limited to a determination of whether they are supported by substantial evidence.'" (quotingRoper Hosp. v. Bd. of S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 306 S.C. 138, 140, 410 S.E.2d 558, 559 (1991))); Carolina Alliance for Fair Emp't v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 337 S.C. 476, 490, 523 S.E.2d 795, 802 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[A] statute must receive a practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of the lawmakers."); Santee Cooper Resort v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n., 298 S.C. 179, 184, 379 S.E.2d 119, 122 (1989) ("Words used in a statute should be taken in their ordinary and popular significance unless there is something in the statute requiring a different interpretation.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONFUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.