SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

On February 24, 2026, Alaska submitted an application to administer the RCRA hazardous waste program, which included a letter from the Governor, a State hazardous waste program description, an Attorney General's statement and copies of applicable State statutes and regulation (amended on March 24, 2026), a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA, amended July 28, 2026), and a showing of the State's public participation activities prior to program submission to the EPA. These documents taken together are hereafter referred to as the application and provide the basis for the EPA determining that the State's program is equivalent to the Federal program, as further described in the following paragraph.

A. Why are State programs authorized?

Section 3006 of RCRA allows the EPA to authorize state hazardous waste programs to operate in the State in lieu of the Federal hazardous waste program, ( printed page 50722) subject to the authority retained by the EPA in accordance with RCRA, including HSWA. The EPA grants authorization if the EPA finds that the State program is: (1) “equivalent” to the Federal program; (2) is consistent with the Federal program and other State programs; and (3) provides for adequate enforcement of compliance with the requirements of the hazardous waste program (RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b)). States are required to impose requirements which are at least as stringent as the Federal program. States may impose requirements which are more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal program. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 271.1(i). The EPA's regulations for final state authorization appear at 40 CFR part 271.

B. What were the comments and responses to the EPA's proposal?

On May 14, 2026, the EPA published a tentative determination announcing its intent to grant Alaska final authorization for its state hazardous waste program. Further background on the tentative decision to grant authorization appears in 91 FR 27229-27234, May 14, 2026.

Along with the tentative determination, the EPA announced the availability of the application for public comment. The EPA received four written comments during the May 14 through July 2, 2026, public comment period. Significant issues raised by the commenters and the EPA's responses are summarized in the following paragraphs of this document.

The Agency considered all the points raised and has concluded that the comments do not provide reason for the EPA to deny or delay the final authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program or to modify the approval. As explained in the tentative decision and further explained in this final authorization, the EPA finds that Alaska's hazardous waste program is: (1) equivalent to the Federal program; (2) consistent with the Federal program and other State programs; and (3) provides for adequate enforcement of compliance with the requirements of the hazardous waste program (RCRA Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b)) and the EPA has determined that it meets all statutory and regulatory requirements for authorization as established by RCRA. The EPA's regulations for state authorization appear at 40 CFR part 271.

1. Comment

Three commenters requested the EPA delay final authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program until their comments and requests for clarification are addressed.

• • Comment: Alaska Oil & Gas Association recommends that ADEC address several areas (see 2. and 3. Comments) that AO&GA characterizes as needing more clarity, or revision in Alaska's regulations before the EPA grants hazardous waste authorization to Alaska.
  • Comment: The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) asks that the EPA and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation evaluate cumulative risks and the potential for increased burdens on rural and Tribal communities and identify safeguards before authorizing Alaska's hazardous waste program (see 4. Comment).
  • Comment: Anonymous recommends that the EPA not enact or approve the final authorization until all hydrocarbons are prevented from leaks, spills, or any type of emissions (see Comment 5.).

Response to Comment 1

• • The EPA considered all the points raised and has concluded that these issues are outside the scope of the Agency's decision to authorize Alaska's hazardous waste program. Commenters may elect to raise hazardous waste program implementation and coordination issues with Alaska. The EPA is making a final authorization determination based on the State program that was submitted by Alaska to the EPA for authorization, consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements as enumerated above. The comments do not provide reasons for the EPA to deny or delay the authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program or to modify the approval under the authorization review framework.

2. Comment

Several comments express concern regarding Alaska's universal waste regulations at 18 AAC 62.205, 1110, 1135, and 1390 which add electronic waste as a universal waste stream. These commenters suggest that ADEC adopt alternative approaches to the regulation of electronic waste than those that were included in Alaska's authorization submission to the EPA.

• • Comment: Alaska Oil & Gas Association states that:

Only five U.S. States manage electronic waste as universal waste. The commenter asks why Alaska is managing electronic waste as universal waste when most states do not.

Alaska's management of electronic waste as universal waste could lead to shipments being rejected in Washington State.

Analytical testing to show discarded electronic devices are not RCRA hazardous waste is not a practical solution to electronic waste management.

Alaska should clarify that electronic devices sent for resale or legitimate recycling are not discarded and are therefore not solid waste.

Alaska should define electronic waste consistent with the EPA's guidance and interpretation.

Alaska should make several changes to Alaska Administrative Code to clarify applicability, management standards, reporting requirements, and definition of electronic waste.

• • Comment: Aditi Vig asserts that:

Electronic waste should be considered in the hazardous waste category instead of solid waste because the potential negative health impacts are detrimental to exposed populations.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) exposure is a major concern for electronic waste disposal. Expanding the oversight of hazardous waste to rural populations in Alaska will go a long way to keep Alaskans healthy by keeping the negative health effects associated with toxic exposure from PBDEs at a minimal level.

Response to Comment 2

• • These comments include policy recommendations and suggest future actions and are outside the scope of the EPA's final authorization determination. The EPA appreciates the commenters' concerns about possible PBDE health effects; however, agency review of individual chemical toxicity and potential health effects is not part of the EPA's state hazardous waste program authorization process under RCRA. See also response to Comment 1. for explanation of the basis for the EPA's final authorization determination.

3. Comment

One Comment related to the applicability of RCRA requirements to spent leather products that meet a hazardous waste threshold for chromium.

• • Comment: Alaska Oil & Gas Association states that:

After Alaska's hazardous waste program is authorized, ADEC should interpret that used leather and waste leather products meet the criteria under 40 CFR 261.(4)(b)(6) hazardous waste exclusion, even if these spent leather products fail the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).

Used leather may meet the hazardous waste threshold for ( printed page 50723) chromium because it contains trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium resulting from the leather tanning process.

ADEC should issue guidance that used leather products should not be classified as hazardous waste due to trivalent chromium content unless the leather is visibly contaminated with another hazardous substance.

Response to Comment 3

• • The Alaska Oil & Gas Association (AO&GA) comments relate to regulatory interpretations that it wishes ADEC to adopt regarding the applicability of the40 CFR 261.4(b)(6) hazardous waste exclusion to discarded leather. These comments do not provide a basis for the EPA to deny or delay Alaska's requested program authorization. See also response to Comment 1. for explanation of the EPA's final authorization determination.

4. Comment

One commenter provided a list of eight recommendations and several related comments on behalf of an inter-Tribal organization.

• • Comment: The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) makes the following recommendations:

Establish a Tribal Co-stewardship Working Group with representation from CRRC and CRRC member Tribes.

Maintain clear EPA and ADEC points of contact for rural and Tribal hazardous waste concerns during and after the hazardous waste program transition.

Provide plain-language guidance explaining applicable rules, reporting requirements, inspection procedures, and timelines.

Commit to regular rural and Tribal outreach, including community visits, training, and technical assistance.

Ensure public access to permits, enforcement actions, compliance information, and opportunities to raise concerns.

Support capacity-building for Tribal governments to participate in environmental review, data collection, monitoring, and enforcement-related processes.

Evaluate cumulative impacts and risks to subsistence resources, food security, public lands, cultural continuity, and Tribal governance. CRRC further recommends that the EPA and ADEC evaluate these risks and identify safeguards prior to final authorization (see also Comment 1.).

Ensure that State authorization does not reduce the EPA's involvement, Federal accountability, or support for broader rural Alaska solid waste issues.

In addition, CRRC's comment identified concerns about possible State budget constraints that would result in less outreach, technical assistance, and State enforcement. CRRC further described concerns related to transparency and the possibility of new State requirements beyond those in the Federal program. CRRC also commented that a State-administered program may provide opportunity for program design and budgeting that reflects rural Alaska hazardous waste issues that may not be fully addressed under a Federal program.

Response to Comment 4

• • The EPA appreciates the Chugach Regional Resources Commission's engagement on this authorization and recognizes the Federal Government's trust relationship with federally- recognized Tribes. The agency considered all the points raised in the CRRC letter and concluded that, while the comments do not provide reason for the EPA to deny or delay the authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program or to modify the approval, certain comments are relevant to hazardous waste program implementation. Please see response to Comment 1 forr explanation of the EPA's final authorization determination.

The commenter identified the need for clarity regarding Federal and State primacy and program implementation roles. The EPA notes that the State of Alaska currently implements the RCRA solid waste management program. This authorization does not alter the present approach to solid waste management issues in Alaska or the EPA's prior approvals of Alaska's solid waste management program pursuant to RCRA Subtitle D. Alaska will continue to have primary responsibility for the solid waste program after the EPA authorizes the State to implement the RCRA hazardous waste program.

The EPA notes that Alaska does not assert State hazardous waste program authority over Indian country, as defined in Federal statute (18. U.S.C. 1151); Alaska does not seek State hazardous waste program authority over Indian lands under 40 CFR 271.1(h) and 271.7(b). Once final authorization is effective, the EPA will continue to implement the Federal hazardous waste program in Indian country in the State of Alaska.

Elements of Alaska's hazardous waste program submission address CRRC's concerns; identify the State's resources and funding sources; and describe the EPA's ongoing oversight role. ADEC included a Program Description in its State hazardous waste program submission to the EPA. This Program Description estimates program costs and State funding sources The EPA maintains oversight authority over authorized State hazardous waste programs and will monitor State activities on a regular basis. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the EPA and Alaska provides the EPA will assess State administration and enforcement of the hazardous waste program on a continuing basis for equivalence and consistency with RCRA, this MOA, all applicable Federal requirements and policies, and for adequacy of enforcement. The EPA may consider, as part of its regular assessment, written comments about the State's program administration and enforcement that are received from regulated persons, the public, Alaska Native Tribal governments and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations, and Federal, State and local agencies. The MOA also includes provisions governing oversight, information sharing, data management, confidentiality, and public requests for information, among others. The EPA will continue to work with State and Tribal partners in Alaska to help support successful State hazardous waste program implementation and ensure compliance with laws and regulations.

Following the effective date of authorization, State hazardous waste program implementation and coordination is the authorized State's responsibility. Tribes may continue to request government-to-government consultation with the EPA. The EPA will continue to offer consultation with federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native corporations, consistent with applicable Federal laws and regulations, and policies.

5. Comment

• • Comment: Anonymous recommends that the EPA not enact or approve the final authorization until all hydrocarbons are prevented from leaks, spills, or any type of emission(s).
  • The commenter additionally states that we need to transition to clean renewables because of the impact from global warming producing and consuming fossil fuels.

Response to Comment 5

The EPA interprets these comments as identifying environmental concerns that are outside of the scope of this authorization. Please see the response to Comment 1. for an explanation of the basis for the EPA to deny or delay the authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program. ( printed page 50724)

C. What decisions has the EPA made in this authorization?

The EPA has made the final determination that Alaska's application meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA as of May 14, 2026. Therefore, the EPA is granting Alaska final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program described in the authorization application, subject to the authority retained by the EPA under RCRA. Alaska will have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA State hazardous waste program described in its program application, subject to the requirements of RCRA, including HSWA. New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before such states are authorized for the requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Alaska, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. Section I. G. of this document discusses the provisions for which Alaska did not seek authorization as part of this program submission.

D. What is the effect of this authorization?

The effect of this authorization is that persons in Alaska subject to RCRA must comply with the authorized State hazardous waste program requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. These include Alaska's adopted Federal RCRA regulations with modifications (effective June 1, 2025). Additionally, such persons must comply with applicable Federal requirements, such as HSWA regulations issued by the EPA for which the State has not yet received authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued requirements.

As an authorized State, Alaska is responsible for enforcement of its hazardous waste program. However, the EPA continues to have independent authority under RCRA. Sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, the authority to: conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; and enforce authorized program requirements. Regulations for which Alaska is authorized are already effective under State law and are not changed by this authorization.

E. What rules are the EPA authorizing with this action?

Alaska has adopted almost verbatim the Federal hazardous waste regulations found in 40 CFR parts 124, 260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279, promulgated through July 26, 2024, except for the technical corrections promulgated August 9, 2023 (88 FR 54086) affecting 40 CFR part 261 subparts M, AA, and CC, and with a few additional modifications as described in this document. The EPA does not authorize states for certain Federal regulations relating to import/export requirements (40 CFR part 262 subpart H), Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR part 268), and manifest registry and electronic manifest functions administered solely by the EPA (40 CFR part 262 subpart B, 40 CFR part 263 subpart B, 40 CFR part 265 subpart FF, and 40 CFR part 267 subpart E). Alaska has adopted these provisions by leaving the authority with the EPA for implementation and enforcement.

State hazardous waste requirements that are either equivalent to or more stringent than the corresponding Federal requirements will become part of the authorized State program and are federally enforceable. Upon authorization, the State's hazardous waste program requirements that are either equivalent to or more stringent than the corresponding Federal rules will apply in lieu of the Federal rules. State hazardous waste program requirements that are broader in scope than the Federal program will not be part of the authorized program and are not federally enforceable. The application authorized rules are identified in the chart below.

In the discussion below, the EPA also identifies State hazardous waste requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope.

Alaska Program Provisions That Are More Stringent or Broader in Scope Than the Federal Program

1. More Stringent Provisions

The EPA considers the following Alaska program requirements to be more stringent than the corresponding Federal requirements.

a. Reporting/Notification Requirements

Alaska's hazardous waste regulations include additional State reporting and notification requirements, which are not part of the Federal program. Specifically, Alaska requires annual notification for the following handler categories: (1) Small Quantity Generators (SQGs); (2) Large Quantity Generators (LQGs); and (3) Transporters. These reporting requirements are described in 18 AAC 62.301(a)(2), 18 AAC 62.430, and 18 AAC 62.840(b).

b. Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring

Alaska adopted by reference the EPA's 2009 Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities—Unified Guidance (EPA 530-F-09-007) in 18 AAC 62.525(b). In some circumstances this Unified Guidance is more specific regarding the statistical analysis that must be applied to a particular data set, which makes the State's adoption of the Unified Guidance as a regulatory requirement more stringent than the Federal regulations in these situations.

c. Standards for Corrective Action

18 AAC 62.527 requires that corrective action for a release from a solid waste management unit must satisfy requirements for the corrective action program under 18 AAC 62.525 and the State requirements under the Contaminated Sites Program in 18 AAC 75.300-18 AAC 75.396. These additional State regulations include specific procedural requirements for cleanup that are not required by the Federal program, and, in some cases, the State program includes more stringent cleanup standards for contaminants in soil and groundwater (18 AAC 75.340-75.345). Where soil or groundwater cleanup standards differ between State cleanup standards and RCRA-state hazardous waste program requirements, the more stringent of the standards ( printed page 50725) applies (18 AAC 62.527 and 18 AAC 62.630). Alaska's regulations at 18 AAC 62.850(b) also require that if closure and post-closure requirements in 40 CFR part 267, subpart F includes corrective action requirements, the facility owner/operator must also comply with 18 AAC 62.527.

2. Broader in Scope Provisions

The EPA considers the following Alaska program requirements to be broader in scope than the Federal requirements.

a. Alaska-Specific Siting Requirements

18 AAC 63—Siting of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities creates specific location requirements and a public participation process that facilities must adhere to prior to receiving a permit for a new TSDF, in addition to other requirements. Some of the requirements within 18 AAC 63 are not addressed in the Federal regulations in 40 CFR 264.18 and are thus considered broader in scope. 18 AAC 62.1010 (Siting of hazardous waste management facilities) says for new facilities, not fewer than 365 days before the construction of a facility requiring a permit, the owner or operator must initiate the requirements of 18 AAC 63; 18 AAC 63.020 identifies pre-application requirements for siting approval; and 18 AAC 63.030 identifies application requirements for siting approval. 18 AAC 63.040 (Location Requirements) establishes minimum setback requirements for hazardous waste management facilities with regard to nearby land use and 18 AAC 63.050 identifies State financial assurance and compliance history siting approval requirements.

F. Universal Waste: Electronic Items Added

Alaska's regulations at 18 AAC 62.205, 1110, 1135, and 1390 add electronic waste as a universal waste stream, which Alaska maintains will result in streamlined handling requirements if the electronic waste is properly recycled. The State has defined “electronic waste” as “a device that contains one or more circuit boards or other complex circuitry, including computer components, laptops, central processing units, mouses, keyboards, monitors, cellular telephones, audio or video devices, and copy machines; electronic waste includes components, subassemblies, or other parts derived from the disassembly of electronic items. It does not include refrigerators, freezers, stoves, dishwashers, washers, or dryers.” 18 AAC 62.1390(c)(2). Thus, electronic waste managed under the universal waste regulations is exempt from the State's standard hazardous waste requirements. Electronic waste that is not a characteristic hazardous waste as determined by a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) performed on that specific item or model by the generator or manufacturer, or other documentation provided by the manufacturer and approved by the EPA or Alaska, may be managed as solid waste as set out under the State Solid Waste Management regulations (18 AAC 60).

The EPA notes that Alaska will manage electronic waste as universal waste without adopting 40 CFR part 273 subpart G (Petitions to Include Other Wastes Under 40 CFR part 273). The EPA acknowledges that the State may adopt electronic waste as State-only universal waste without adopting 40 CFR part 273 subpart G as the State regulations as of June 1, 2025, provide Alaska with the authority to evaluate proposed State-only universal waste streams under factors that are analogous to the factors in 40 CFR 273.81.

G. Federal Regulations Alaska Is Not Adopting in This Final Authorization

Alaska did not adopt and is not seeking authorization of the following Federal regulations. Implementation and enforcement of these regulations will remain with the EPA:

a. 40 CFR part 260 subpart C—Rulemaking Petitions.

b. 40 CFR part 273 subpart G—Petitions to Include Other Wastes Under 40 CFR part 273.

Alaska has not adopted the Federal regulation for the Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes at 40 CFR part 266 subpart Q (89 FR 82682, October 11, 2024). Currently authorized states are not required to seek authorization for this provision until July 1, 2027.

H. How will the State enforce compliance with the rules?

RCRA section 3006(b) requires that the State provide adequate enforcement of compliance with the hazardous waste requirements to receive authorization. The EPA has determined that Alaska can adequately enforce compliance with its hazardous waste regulations. Alaska's enforcement authorities include the power to issue, modify, suspend, or revoke permits; collect information and enter and inspect the premises of persons who handle hazardous waste; assess administrative penalties or initiate action in court for penalties or injunctive relief; issue abatement and corrective action orders; and pursue criminal violations. Alaska's enforcement provisions are located at Alaska Statutes (AS) 46.03.020 et seq. (2024).

Who handles permits after this authorization takes effect?

Alaska will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer and enforce the permits it issues. The EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which the EPA issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until such permits expire or are terminated. When Alaska either incorporates the terms and conditions of the Federal permits into State RCRA permits or issues State RCRA permits to those facilities, the EPA will terminate those previously issued EPA permits and rely on the State RCRA permits. The EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the authorized provisions after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will implement State oversight of permits through review and comment on State permits as appropriate, such comments may be incorporated into the permit by the State. The EPA will continue to oversee and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Alaska is not yet authorized.

II. Analysis

A. The EPA Review of State Hazardous Waste Program Submission

On February 24, 2026, the State submitted an application consisting of a letter from the Governor, a State hazardous waste program description, an Attorney General's statement and copies of applicable State statutes and regulations (amended on March 24, 2026), a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA, amended July 28, 2026), and a showing of the State's public participation activities prior to program submission to the EPA. Per 40 CFR 271.5(b), the EPA must notify the State whether its submission is complete within 30 days of receipt of a state program submission. On March 25, 2026, the EPA determined Alaska submitted required elements of a program submission consistent with 40 CFR 271.5 and the submission was complete.

In accordance with the process described in RCRA section 3006 and 40 CFR part 271, the EPA has reviewed Alaska's final program submission for equivalency with the Federal program; consistency with the Federal program and state programs applicable in other states; and, for adequate enforcement of compliance with RCRA requirements. ( printed page 50726) The EPA determines that the State program is equivalent to the Federal program; consistent with the Federal program and state programs applicable in other states; and, adequate for enforcement. The EPA also evaluated where the State is more stringent or broader in scope compared to the Federal program. The State has identified some areas in its statutes and regulations where it is broader in scope or more stringent than the EPA. While the State identified a few differences in approach, the EPA's final determination is the State program is at least equivalent to the Federal program and includes State regulations which are more stringent than the Federal regulations and certain State requirements which are broader in scope than the Federal program.

The EPA received four written comments during the May 14 through July 2, 2026, public comment period. The EPA considered all the points raised in the comments and concluded that the comments do not provide reason for the EPA to deny or delay the final authorization of Alaska's hazardous waste program or to modify the approval. The EPA summarizes significant comments and the EPA's responses in section I.B. of this document.

B. How would authorization affect Indian country and areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction?

The EPA acknowledges that Alaska does not assert State hazardous waste program authority over Indian country, as defined in Federal statute (18 U.S.C. 1151); Alaska does not seek State hazardous waste program authority over Indian lands under 40 CFR 271.1(h) and 271.7(b). Once final authorization is effective, the EPA Region 10 will continue to implement the Federal RCRA Subtitle C program in Indian country in the State of Alaska. Alaska has no authority to implement a State hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program in Indian country.

The EPA retains jurisdiction, authority, and responsibility for the implementation of the Federal Program in Indian country as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1151 and areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within the State of Alaska. Once final authorization is effective, the State will be authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in lieu of the Federal program consistent with RCRA except in Indian country (as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1151) or in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. Within the State of Alaska, the EPA maintains full authority and responsibility for the implementation of RCRA in Indian country and in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. In these areas, the EPA will continue to implement the Federal hazardous waste program. For example, the Alaska Statehood Act section 11 acknowledges the United States retains exclusive jurisdiction over Denali National Park.

C. What is codification and will the EPA codify Alaska's hazardous waste program if authorized in a final action?

Codification is the process of placing citations and references to the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. The EPA does this by adding those citations and references to the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA is not codifying Alaska's hazardous waste program at this time. However, the EPA reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272 subpart C for the authorization of Alaska's program changes at a later date. Alaska's hazardous waste regulations are found at 18 AAC 62.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes can be found at www.epa.gov/​laws-regulations/​laws-and-executiveorders.

A. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This final authorization does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those already imposed by State law. The final program authorization does not create any new requirements and does not directly regulate any entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.

D. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This final action does not involve technical standards.

Authority

Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

91 FR 50721