AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 44-53-398, RELATING TO THE SALE OF PRODUCTS CONTAINING EPHEDRINE, PSEUDOEPHEDRINE, OR PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT MANUFACTURERS OF THESE PRODUCTS PAY MONTHLY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DATA COLLECTION, TO ESTABLISH A PENALTY FOR MANUFACTURERS THAT FAIL TO COMPLY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
H4382 amends South Carolina’s controlled-substance precursor sales law for nonprescription products containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine. The bill keeps the existing retailer verification and electronic logging requirements, including photo ID checks, purchaser signatures, real-time reporting to a data collection system, and stop-sale alerts when a transaction would exceed state or federal limits. It also preserves the confidentiality of log information and the limited immunity provided to retailers who release information in good faith to law enforcement.
The main new policy change is that, beginning October 1, 2026, manufacturers of these products sold in or into South Carolina must pay monthly fees to support the data collection system. The bill requires the system administrator and manufacturers to negotiate the fee annually, limits increases to less than 10 percent unless higher costs are shown, and allows SLED to request proof of payment. It also adds manufacturer-specific penalties for nonpayment or other violations, mirroring the existing fine structure applied to retailers.
The bill’s impact on state law is to shift part of the cost of operating the pseudoephedrine tracking system from retailers and the state to manufacturers, while strengthening enforcement by expressly making manufacturer noncompliance unlawful and punishable by fines. It amends Section 44-53-398 of the South Carolina Code, which governs the sale of ephedrine-related products and the electronic tracking system used to prevent diversion for methamphetamine production or other misuse.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable, at least in the House, where the bill passed 107-0. No committee transcript or recorded debate is provided, but the unanimous vote suggests broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition at the floor stage. The bill’s structure also indicates a practical, enforcement-oriented approach rather than a controversial policy shift.
Notable points of contention, to the extent they can be inferred, would likely center on the new fee obligation imposed on manufacturers and the administrative burden of annual fee negotiations and proof-of-payment requests. Retailers are not newly burdened beyond existing compliance duties, so any disagreement would more likely come from manufacturers or industry stakeholders concerned about cost-shifting, regulatory administration, or the scope of penalties.
The bill amends S.C. Code Section 44-53-398 to require manufacturers of nonprescription ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine products sold in or into South Carolina to pay monthly fees to the administrator of the state’s real-time data collection system, beginning October 1, 2026. It also creates manufacturer penalties for violations and makes failure to comply unlawful under the same section that already governs retailer sales controls, thereby expanding enforcement authority and funding for the tracking system.
The available voting history shows overwhelming support: the House passed the bill 107-0. No committee discussion is included, but the unanimous vote indicates the measure was viewed as a routine enforcement and funding update rather than a controversial policy change. The absence of recorded opposition suggests broad agreement on tightening pseudoephedrine diversion controls and assigning system costs to manufacturers.
The main potential point of contention is the new monthly fee imposed on manufacturers of ephedrine- and pseudoephedrine-containing products, along with the requirement that fees be negotiated annually and documented upon request by SLED. Manufacturers may object to the added cost and administrative oversight, while supporters are likely to view the fee as a fair way to fund the data system used to prevent illegal diversion. No other specific disputes are documented in the provided materials.