The Senate Commerce Committee approved a restructured chapter of Industrial Commission rules under IDAPA 17.01.01 but rejected a proposed deletion of subsection 305.01(a) that committee members and stakeholders said could create confusion over whether sureties and claims handlers must have an in‑state presence.

Paul Jeffries of the Industrial Commission told the committee the rewrite is a zero‑based regulation (ZBR) chapter rewrite intended to streamline decades of rule text. "This chapter rewrite was promulgated in accordance with executive order 2020‑1 regarding 0 based regulation," Jeffries said, and he described negotiated rule‑making held from November 2023 through July 2024 and two public hearings on Oct. 7 and Oct. 24, 2024.

The proposed rewrite consolidates and modernizes rules under the Idaho Workers' Compensation Law, the commission said, including standards for electronic claim reporting and payment. Patty Vaughn, benefits administration manager for the commission, explained the commission relies on the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) implementation guide developed by the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions to standardize claim data reporting across jurisdictions.

The most contested item was language in section 305 that would read, in part, that carriers, self‑insured employers and licensed adjusters "shall maintain an office within the state of Idaho." Commission staff and several senators said statute (Idaho Code §72‑305) already requires prompt in‑state claim service but does not mandate a brick‑and‑mortar office. Jeffries said the commission interprets "office" broadly and noted the commission has issued guidance to that effect. "We do not consider that this rule requires a so called brick and mortar office," Jeffries said, adding the commission expects a physical address where adjusting occurs within Idaho.

Industry witnesses urged different approaches. Elizabeth Kreiner of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association said insurers wanted the rule language removed or clarified during ZBR so it would not exceed statute; she asked the committee to strike subsection 305.01(a). By contrast, Barbara Jordan of the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association said the association supported leaving the sentence to ensure claimants can reach adjusters locally when needed.

Chris Wagner, a local third‑party administrator, warned striking the office language could erode the practical requirement that claims be handled by an in‑state adjuster, pointing to license reciprocity across states and the use of remote offices. "If you remove that office part ... you are now beginning to move towards removing the in‑state adjusting requirement," Wagner said, describing how out‑of‑state adjusting could follow if the clause were deleted.

Senators debated the statutory baseline and whether a rule change would add clarity or create confusion. Senator Foreman moved to approve docket 17‑0101‑2301 while rejecting subsection 305.01(a); Senator Byrd seconded. The committee approved the rewrite and rejected 305.01(a), preserving the commission's broader interpretive materials and leaving the statutory requirement under Idaho Code §72‑305 in force.

Commission staff said they received dozens of stakeholder comments in the negotiated rule‑making process and that the rewrite reflected much of that input; they also said the commission can audit sureties and monitor prompt claim service even without the deleted sentence. Senator Nichols noted that many other states have no explicit brick‑and‑mortar requirement and supported the committee motion.