Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paint Stewardship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee trims paint stewardship fee language, keeps DES oversight and antitrust exemption
Summary
Lawmakers removed explicit fee language from a proposed paint stewardship bill, instead requiring a manufacturer plan reviewed by the Department of Environmental Services (DES); the committee discussed antitrust exemptions and liability safeguards and recorded a straw vote in favor.
A Commerce and Consumer Affairs subcommittee moved forward with revised paint stewardship language after sponsors removed explicit fee-setting provisions and clarified liability and antitrust issues.
Sponsor testimony said the amendment strips statutory fee language and instead requires paint manufacturers to submit an implementation plan that the Department of Environmental Services (DES) will review. “What this bill does right now is, it takes out all statements about the fee. It just simply says there's a plan will be involved. Yes,” the sponsor said.
The committee discussed liability and antitrust concerns. Representative Cole asked whether the bill would shield manufacturers from liability for spills or accidental pollution; the sponsor and an attorney representing the American Coatings Association said the bill does not remove environmental liability. Jonathan Melanson, with the law firm Demers, Prasal and Thomas, representing the American Coatings Association, told the committee that definitions in the draft require “environmentally sound management practices” and that operators under the program would remain responsible for cleanup if they broke environmental rules.
The committee also considered an explicit antitrust exemption for manufacturer or representative organizations implementing the stewardship program. Members said the narrowly drawn exemption is intended to allow coordinated program administration (for example, a nonprofit program operator) without triggering state antitrust statutes; the transcript records referenced to “RSA 3 56” and later to “RSA 3 56 (antitrust).” The sponsor described the clause as limited and said DES would review operational plans to ensure compliance with environmental law.
Because sponsors removed fee language from statute, committee members asked how program costs would be handled and who would administer the program. The sponsor said the plan would identify program administration, subcontractors to collect or manage paint, and funding; DES would review the plan to ensure compliance with state requirements.
The subcommittee took a nonbinding straw vote on the matter; the chair recorded a hand-count of eight members in favor of moving the amendment toward the full committee. Committee members said the amendment remains in draft form and that staff will finalize statutory text before a full-committee vote.
The committee also discussed civil-liability and disclosure language and clarified that the amendment would not limit cleanup obligations for pollution or accidents. Representatives asked for explicit assurances that DES and other state oversight mechanisms remain responsible for environmental review and enforcement.
Staff and the sponsor agreed to supply a final amendment draft and to coordinate with DES and interested industry stakeholders before the item reaches the full committee.
