HOUSE BILL REPORT

                      HB 1628

                     As Reported By House Committee on:

                              Commerce & Labor

Title:  An act relating to pasteurization in relation to licenses for the sale of beer.

Brief Description:  Concerning pasteurization in relation to licenses for the sale of beer.

Sponsor(s):  Representatives Heavey, Ferguson, Lisk, McLean, Cooper, Brough, Jones and R. King.

Brief History:

   Reported by House Committee on:

Commerce & Labor, February 28, 1991, DPS.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON

COMMERCE & LABOR

Majority Report: That Substitute House Bill No. 1628 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.  Signed by 10 members:  Representatives Heavey, Chair; Cole, Vice Chair; Fuhrman, Ranking Minority Member; Lisk, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; Franklin; Jones; R. King; O'Brien; Prentice; and Vance.

Staff:  Jim Kelley (786-7166).

Background:  The statutes providing for Class A, B, D, and E beer retailer licenses distinguish between "pasteurized beer," referring to bottled or canned beer, and "unpasteurized beer," referring to keg beer.  These terms are no longer accurate because some beer that is packaged in bottles or cans is unpasteurized.

Summary of Substitute Bill:  In the statutes providing for Class A, B, D, and E beer retailer licenses, all references to "pasteurized beer" and "unpasteurized beer" are stricken.

Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:   The substitute bill includes a provision clarifying that the bill does not affect the laws regulating the sale of keg beer.

Fiscal Note:  Not requested.

Effective Date of Substitute Bill:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For:  (original bill):  The bill removes archaic language.  It has nothing to do with health and safety issues.  Microfiltering is at least as effective as pasteurization.  An amendment to address the regulations of keg sales would be wise.

Testimony Against:  (original bill):  None.

Witnesses:  Steve Wehrly, Miller Brewing Company (in favor); and Carter Mitchell, Liquor Control Board (neutral).