House Commerce committee holds Labor administrative-rules docket after members raise concerns about deleted definitions

The House Commerce and Human Resources Committee voted unanimously to hold docket 0901012401, a set of Department of Labor administrative procedure rules, after lawmakers said the draft removes several definitions without clearly pointing readers to where those definitions will be found.

Director Janie Revere, director of the Idaho Department of Labor, told the committee the department—s review is part of a broad "zero-based regulation" initiative and that the changes eliminate outdated rules and provisions that duplicate state or federal statute. "There is no fiscal impact to the general fund or any dedicated or federal funds since there is no change to the program," Revere said.

Committee members pressed agency staff for details after the draft struck definitions such as "subpoena" and other terms that previously appeared in the rules. Committee discussion emphasized that removing a definition from a rule is acceptable only if the new, applicable definition is clearly traceable in the docket's authorizing statutes or other cited authorities. Lawmakers repeatedly said the rules as posted sometimes fail to show where the deleted definitions now reside.

The department said some definitions are found in state statute, some in federal law and some in agency guidance and claimed the intent is to avoid needless repetition between code and rule. Determinations Administrator Josh McKenna, who helped answer technical questions, said the department provides claimants with a claims guide and posts guidance on its website, but he acknowledged legislators may still have difficulty finding federal-code references when they are not cited in the rule itself.

Representative Holzklaw moved to hold the docket until a time certain. The committee approved the hold unanimously on a roll call (15 yes, 0 no). The chairman said the item will be brought back at a time certain next week as noted in the meeting record.

Why it matters: Committee members said the practical effect of removing definitions without clear, documented cross-references could be that a reader attempting to interpret a rule would need to search multiple federal and state sources to find the operative definition. Members urged the department to either retain definitions that materially affect eligibility or to add explicit citations to the authorizing code or federal regulation that now define those terms.

The committee did not adopt the rule in this meeting and left the docket pending further review.