Dear President Carson and Esteemed Members of the New Hampshire Senate:

The undersigned organizations, representing a broad cross-section of companies involved in the manufacture, formulation, distribution, and sale of products for household, institutional, commercial, and industrial use, respectfully write to express our opposition to HB 1544.
This bill adopts an inappropriate policy standard by treating fragrance as a basis for broad product exclusion in public buildings. While the bill is framed as a response to concerns about indoor environments, it would impose a categorical restriction on fragranced products that is overly broad, poorly defined, and not an appropriate basis for public procurement or facility management policy. In addition, the bill raises significant concerns by effectively legislating procurement decisions based on a single attribute, rather than allowing for a balanced, risk-based evaluation that considers product performance, safety, cost, and operational needs.

We recognize that indoor environments and occupant preferences, including sensitivities to certain conditions, are important considerations for facility managers and public institutions. However, the presence of fragrance alone is not an appropriate or sufficiently precise basis for excluding products from use in public settings. Fragrance should not be treated as a proxy for product risk or suitability, nor as a stand-alone justification for broad product prohibitions. As drafted, HB 1544 presents several significant policy and implementation concerns.

Overbroad categorical restriction

The bill applies a sweeping prohibition across multiple product categories, including cleaning products, restroom products, and fragrance-dispensing devices, without distinguishing between product types, use conditions, or functional differences. This one-size-fits-all approach does not reflect how products are used or managed in real-world public facility settings. No other state has enacted such a sweeping and indiscriminate restriction on “scented products.”

Lack of clear and administrable definitions

HB 1544 relies on the concept of “fragrance-free” as a regulatory standard without establishing clear, consistent definitions or parameters for implementation. This creates ambiguity for state agencies, suppliers, and contractors responsible for compliance and procurement.

Failure to account for functional and operational considerations

In certain applications, fragrance or odor-masking components can contribute to product performance, user acceptance, and maintaining sanitary and usable public spaces. A categorical exclusion does not account for these practical considerations and may lead to unintended consequences in facility operations such as malodors.

Problematic precedent for public procurement policy

HB 1544 would establish a precedent for excluding products from public use based on a single product attribute, without a defined risk threshold or a balanced decision-making framework. This approach introduces uncertainty into procurement policy and opens the door to further restrictions based on subjective or inconsistently defined criteria. Public procurement and facility management decisions are best guided by clear, workable standards that account for product function, use conditions, and practical implementation.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Senate to oppose HB 1544.

Sincerely,

Brennan Georgianni
Associate Vice President, Government Affairs and Strategy, American Cleaning Institute (ACI)

Sarah Erickson André
Vice President, Government Affairs & General Counsel, Fragrance Creators Association (FCA)

Michelle L. Kopa
Senior Director, Government Relations & Public Policy (East), Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA)

John Nothdurft Vice President, Government & Public Affairs , The Association for Cleaning and Facility Solutions (ISSA)

Doug Raymond
Consultant, National Aerosol Association (NAA)

Katie Wright
Vice President, State Government Affairs, Personal Care Products Council (PCPC)