To amend section 3745.015 and to enact sections 3745.81, 3745.82, 3745.83, 3745.84, 3745.85, 3745.86, and 3745.87 of the Revised Code to prohibit, with exceptions, the use of intentionally added PFAS in various products.
HB743 would create a new set of state restrictions on intentionally added PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, in consumer and other products sold in Ohio. The bill directs the Ohio EPA director to adopt rules requiring manufacturers to report detailed information about PFAS-containing products, including product identification, the purpose of the PFAS, the amount present, and manufacturer contact information. It also authorizes the director to request testing, issue prohibitions for noncompliant products, and establish fees to support administration and enforcement.
The bill sets a phased approach to restrictions. Beginning January 1, 2028, it would ban PFAS in a list of specified products, including carpets and rugs, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, juvenile products, feminine hygiene products, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture. Beginning January 1, 2033, it would broadly prohibit sale of any product containing intentionally added PFAS unless exempted or determined to be a currently unavoidable use. The director could also expand prohibitions by rule before 2033, with priority given to products most likely to harm people or contaminate the environment.
The bill would amend the environmental protection fund to include revenue from fees collected under the new PFAS reporting program. It also creates enforcement authority and civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation, with each day of noncompliance treated as a separate offense. The attorney general could bring enforcement actions at the request of the Ohio EPA director. The bill includes exemptions for products already governed by preemptive federal law, used products, firefighting foam authorized under state law, pesticides under federal pesticide law, and FDA-regulated medical devices and drugs.
Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be an environmental and consumer-safety regulation aimed at reducing PFAS exposure and contamination, with a strong compliance and enforcement framework. The absence of recorded debate means any support or opposition is not reflected in the available history.
The main points of contention likely concern the breadth of the PFAS restrictions, the reporting burden on manufacturers, the director’s rulemaking authority, and the practical availability of alternatives for certain products. The bill anticipates those concerns by allowing exemptions for currently unavoidable uses and by permitting the director to waive or extend reporting requirements in some circumstances. Industries that make or sell affected products, as well as agricultural stakeholders and manufacturers of regulated products, would be the most directly affected parties.
HB743 would add a new PFAS regulatory chapter to the Revised Code, expanding Ohio EPA authority over product reporting, testing, product bans, fee collection, and enforcement. It would affect manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers of products containing intentionally added PFAS, while also creating exemptions for certain federally regulated or otherwise excluded products. The bill would also channel fee revenue into the environmental protection fund and authorize civil penalties for violations.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from debate or roll call. The bill’s structure suggests a policy goal of limiting PFAS exposure and environmental contamination, with a regulatory approach that balances prohibition with exemptions and phased implementation. Overall, the measure appears pro-regulation and consumer/environment-focused, but the absence of recorded discussion means opposition or support cannot be quantified from the provided materials.
Likely areas of contention include the scope of the product bans, the cost and feasibility of compliance for manufacturers, and whether PFAS alternatives are sufficiently available for all affected uses. The bill’s broad rulemaking authority for the Ohio EPA director may also draw concern, especially because the director could expand prohibitions by category and determine currently unavoidable uses. Agricultural and medical stakeholders may focus on exemptions and consultation requirements, while consumer and environmental advocates would likely support the restrictions as a response to PFAS contamination risks.