Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/22/1994 05:00 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
TAPE 94-13, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked "Mrs. Mulder" to introduce SB
152.
SB 152 - WEIGHTS & MEASURES: INSPECTIONS/CITATIONS
Number 003
WENDY MULDER introduced herself as special assistant to
Commissioner Paul Fuhs, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, adding that there were three components to the
bill: the air carriers, and weights and measures, or
measuring devices. She stated that SB 152 would provide for
the reestablishment of the weights and measures officials'
authority allowing for effective administration and
enforcement of the weights and measures regulations and,
specifically, provide the authority to effectively enforce
the registration fee requirements of the regulations.
In addition, MRS. MULDER stated, SB 152 would provide for
the ability to increase program receipts by ensuring that
all who are obliged to register weighing and measuring
devices will register and pay the fee, and that the director
would have the ability to better utilize available resources
and improve the level of coverage of the state with an
increase in the number if devices inspected and registered.
The present law requires twice annual inspection for all
weighing and measuring devices in the state. She said SB
152 would allow the director to reduce the frequency of
testing of certain types of devices that, through
experience, do not require such frequent testing.
MRS. MULDER concluded by saying that the proposed changes
would expedite collection of device registration fees and
place basic policy powers in the day-to-day weights and
measures regulatory process. Reducing the twice annual
field device inspections would put the state and the
division closer to a legal operation, as well as allowing
the director flexibility to efficiently administer the
weights and measures program.
Number 088
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked for clarification on the
frequency of inspections.
MRS. MULDER responded that the current statutory requirement
is that inspections be done semi-annually, but that, because
of the budget constraints, those inspections are only being
done annually, although some inspections are being done
twice.
Number 102
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the measuring devices drift
considerably more if there is one year between calibrations.
Number 105
MRS. MULDER responded that as long as the devices are tested
and sealed, and the seals are not tampered with, there will
be very little problem with enforcement.
Number 113
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the question was not one of
legality, but of the technical accuracy of the measuring
device.
Number 118
MRS. MULDER responded that the answer was no; there is very
little variation between six months and one year in the
accuracy of the scales, as long as the seal has not been
tampered with.
Number 128
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if there are reports from the
National Standards Institute which indicate that once a year
is a reasonable frequency of calibration.
Number 131
MRS. MULDER responded in the negative, stating that she only
has the data from her directors.
Number 141
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that he had asked because of the
problem with federal oversight, and that the feds require
more frequent calibration, but his understanding from Mrs.
Mulder was that she had data which reassured the department
that the consumers would be at little risk if scales were
only calibrated annually.
Number 151
MRS. MULDER responded that Representative Vezey's
understanding was in fact what the DCED believes is the
case. She added that it must be remembered that the DCED
has, since 1986, only been doing the
inspections/calibrations once a year, although some places
do get them twice a year. She also stated that the
department feels that it's not the calibration that is the
biggest concern.
Number 160
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that he could see the truckers
descending upon the legislature en masse if they felt that
any weight was being deprived them due to faulty scales.
MRS. MULDER responded that truck scales are done more often;
the intent here is to not have to go to Nakanak twice a year
to check the fish scales.
Number 183
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that it seems like it would
behoove everyone to have a provision allowing for an
independent agency to perform the inspections.
Number 193
MRS. MULDER responded that she had no problem with that.
Number 197
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if there were currently contract
operators who do calibration.
Number 201
MRS. MULDER and REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY both responded in the
negative.
Number 207
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if Section 2 relates to truck
scales, and if the change to annually would also apply to
that statute.
Number 223
MRS. MULDER responded that Section 2 just gives the
department the right to enforce this chapter in cases of
violations.
Number 236
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if Section 2 came about like EO
89, and if there was less interest from the administration
in transferring this due to their feelings regarding EO 89.
Number 246
MRS. MULDER responded that EO 89 dealt primarily with the
trucking issue, and the DCED already has enforcement powers
for the trucks; SB 152 would give it enforcement powers for
the other scales. She concluded that she didn't think this
was a concern for the administration like EO 89 had been.
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Mrs. Mulder to explain Section
2.
Number 254
MRS. MULDER explained that Section 2 clarifies offenses and
penalties in cases of violation regarding the use of certain
weighing devices.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that he hoped we wouldn't be
inadvertently grabbing batch plants in this legislation, and
referred to buying concrete not by the pound but by the
yard.
MRS. MULDER said that hadn't been a problem; no one had ever
screamed and yelled about that, and this bill had made it
all the way through the Senate.
Number 278
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that we all know the Senate
doesn't understand the problem.
Number 280
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS suggested that the next committee look
into Representative Vezey's asphalt concern.
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved that SB 152 be passed from
committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal notes.
Number 291
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if there were any objections.
There were none, and so SB 152 was declared to be moved from
committee.
Number 296
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|