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.