SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What comments were received on Florida's proposed authorization and how is the EPA responding to these comments?

During the public comment period for the direct final action (91 FR 14648) and proposed rule (91 FR 14673), the EPA received two separate comments. The comments are provided in the docket for this action. See Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2025-1577 at www.regulations.gov. A summary of the comments and the EPA's responses are provided below.

Comment 1: The first commenter supported the EPA's authorization of revisions to Florida's hazardous waste program, stating that the EPA's authorization of the Florida hazardous waste program is beneficial in safeguarding human health and the environment.

Response: Because this comment is supportive of the authorization, the EPA determined that there is no basis to withdraw or deny authorization of revisions to the State program based on this comment.

Comment 2: The second commenter supported the EPA's authorization of revisions to the Florida hazardous waste program but posed several clarifying ( printed page 55281) questions as to the EPA's authorization decision as set forth below.

Comment 2.a.: The commenter notes that the Florida hazardous waste program largely incorporates the Federal hazardous waste regulations by reference but also includes additional State provisions that are either in addition to, or more stringent than, the Federal provisions incorporated by reference. The comment requests clarification of how that determination is reflected in the structure of the State rules.

EPA Response to Comment 2.a.: For purposes of this authorization, most of the provisions being authorized were incorporated by reference. In some cases, the State adds additional regulatory language stating that certain Federal provisions are excluded from that incorporation by reference or adopts another definition from its statutes (for example, the definition of “lamp”). The EPA reviews the totality of the incorporated by reference provisions and any additional State language, to evaluate equivalency.

Comment 2.b.: The commenter requests clarification on whether, for Checklists 181 and 244, the authorized provisions are incorporated by reference in whole or in part or implemented through independently codified State text.

EPA Response to Comment 2.b.: The State provisions being authorized for Checklists 181 and 244 incorporate the Federal regulations by reference. The authorized State provisions list any Federal regulations that are excluded from that incorporation by reference.

Comment 2.c.: The commenter requests confirmation as to whether any substantive differences exist between the Florida provisions and the corresponding Federal requirements.

EPA Response to Comment 2.c.: As documented in the direct final action, for the Federal rules being authorized, there are no substantive differences between the Federal requirements and the State requirements.

Comment 2.d.: The commenter requests that the EPA identify which import/export functions listed in Checklist 244 remain under Federal implementation and explain how they interact with Florida's authorized program.

EPA Response to Comment 2.d.: Checklist 244 makes conforming changes to regulations related to twelve hazardous waste import/export recovery and disposal operations used in hazardous waste export and import notices submitted to the EPA by exporters and importers in the United States, and in movement documents that accompany export and import shipments. These Federal changes were needed to reflect changes to regulations related to Canadian import/export recovery and disposal operations that Canada promulgated in 2021. State programs are required to adopt the provisions in this rule to maintain their equivalency with the Federal program under 40 CFR 271.10(e); however, the import and export requirements are administered by the Federal government as a matter of foreign policy.

Comment 2.e.: The commenter notes that in the direct final action the EPA stated that it authorized Checklist 181 for completeness. The commenter requested clarification as to the effect of this statement.

EPA Response to Comment 2.e.: As noted in the direct final action, Florida added hazardous waste lamps as a category of universal waste prior to the EPA adding them as a category of universal waste. Florida adopts the federal universal waste lamp regulations by reference but was never specifically authorized for Checklist 181 because lamps were already a part of the Florida universal waste program when Checklist 181 was promulgated. The authorization of Checklist 181 clarifies any ambiguity as to whether Florida is authorized for Checklist 181.

Because this commenter asked clarifying questions only, to which the EPA has responded above, the EPA determined that there is no basis to withdraw or deny authorization of revisions to the State program based on this comment.

II. Why did the EPA issue this response to comments?

In the direct final action and proposed rule, the EPA stated that if it received adverse comments, we would either publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final action in the Federal Register informing the public the authorization will not take effect, or we would publish a notification containing a response to comments that either reverses the decision or affirms the final action will take effect. As stated above, the EPA determined that the comments received were not adverse; therefore, there is no basis to withdraw or deny authorization of revisions to the State program based on the comments received. However, the EPA publishes this notice in the Federal Register responding to the comments and acknowledging that the direct final action took effect on May 26, 2026, as provided in the direct final action.

Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

91 FR 55280