NAIC Producer Licensing Handbook Revisions Add Exam and Remote Testing Guidance

Exam quality and access are at the center of proposed revisions to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ State Licensing Handbook. The changes spell out recommended practices for producer testing, including how states work with test vendors, where and when candidates can sit for exams, and safeguards for remote sessions. They also address a licensing difference among states involving surplus lines coverage.

The Producer Licensing Uniformity (D) Working Group adopted the revisions on Oct. 7 and is seeking written feedback through Oct. 30. The Producer Licensing (D) Task Force is scheduled to review submissions and consider adopting the revised handbook at its Nov. 5 meeting. The proposed text is available in the combined revised handbook chapters.

Exam content, vendor standards and access

The recommended exam process would give state regulators and industry representatives an annual role in reviewing test questions with vendors. Under the proposed guidance, a state advisory committee would review examination forms for substantive and psychometric requirements. That recurring review could give states and vendors a regular point to assess whether exam questions meet the intended standards.

The revisions also recommend that states work with vendors to approve candidate information bulletins. Those bulletins should describe the exams, related policies and procedures, the content outline and study references candidates need to prepare. Clear information before registration can help candidates understand what an exam covers and how the testing process works.

States are also urged to set clear performance standards for vendors and hold them accountable. The proposed handbook does not specify a single set of targets in the source material; instead, it calls for states to define expectations for the vendors they use. That leaves room for state-specific arrangements while emphasizing that testing services should be subject to explicit standards.

Access is another focus. The recommendations call for testing locations reasonably convenient to residents throughout each state, with registration available online or by phone. Candidates should be able to schedule an exam within two to five business days after registering. The handbook also recommends a secure network of test centers staffed by qualified proctors.

Those details connect convenience with administration: a candidate should have workable options for booking a test, while states retain a defined setting and qualified supervision for in-person exams. The proposed guidance describes a recommended approach, rather than announcing a uniform testing system for every state.

Remote exams and licensing differences

For remote testing, the proposed revisions outline steps intended to support exam delivery and security. Vendors should provide a system check for the candidate’s computer and internet service, install any software needed to deliver the exam, and verify the candidate’s identity through a comprehensive security check. Candidates should take the exam alone in a secure, distraction-free setting.

The guidance recommends continuous monitoring through video and audio recording, alongside AI-enhanced proctoring. It also calls for evening and weekend exam hours, which could give candidates more scheduling flexibility than weekday-only availability. After testing, vendors should analyze exam data for patterns that may indicate suspicious activity.

These recommendations set out several pieces of a remote testing process: checking a candidate’s equipment before the exam, confirming identity, supervising the session and reviewing data afterward. States considering remote delivery would need to account for each step in their procedures. The proposed text says remote testing should offer the same support as in-person test sites.

The handbook revisions also address the treatment of surplus lines licenses. States do not use one nationwide model: a surplus lines credential may be a separate license type or a line of authority attached to a producer license. Whatever structure a state uses, the proposed addition says a resident must hold a valid property/casualty producer license to qualify for a surplus lines license. That prerequisite applies to individuals and business entities.

Additional guidance on approving continuing education instructors is included in the proposed changes, though the source material does not detail the specific criteria.

Comment period and next meeting

Written comments on the proposed handbook revisions and additions are due Oct. 30. They should be sent to Tim Mullen, staff support for the Producer Licensing (D) Task Force, at tmullen@naic.org. The task force is set to consider the handbook at its Nov. 5 meeting.

That meeting’s agenda also includes proposed revisions to the Independent Adjuster Licensing Guideline, the 1033 written consent process template, and proposed 2027 task force charges. Agenda materials are expected to be posted on the task force webpage. The Nov. 5 review will determine whether these recommended exam and licensing practices are incorporated into the handbook.

Featured image provided by NAIC