Regulation of Auxiliary Containers:
HB 565 would create a statutory definition of “auxiliary container” in Florida law and then bar local governments and state agencies from regulating those containers. The bill defines auxiliary containers broadly to include reusable or single-use bags, cups, bottles, cans, and other packaging made from materials such as cloth, paper, plastic, cardboard, molded fiber, aluminum, glass, or similar substrates, when used to transport, consume, or protect merchandise, food, or beverages from certain retail and food-service establishments.
The bill also amends the state’s solid waste and recycling statutes to remove obsolete language tied to a 2010 Department of Environmental Protection report and to conform cross-references in related provisions. Its central policy change is a statewide preemption: local governments, local agencies, and state agencies would be prohibited from adopting rules, ordinances, taxes, bans, restrictions, or other regulations concerning the use, sale, disposition, or prohibition of auxiliary containers. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
HB 565 would significantly limit local control over bag and container regulation by reserving authority over auxiliary containers to the state. In practice, this would prevent cities and counties from enacting plastic bag bans, container fees, disposal restrictions, or similar local measures, and it would likely affect retailers, restaurants, food establishments, consumers, and local environmental programs. The bill also updates Florida’s waste-management statutes by defining a new term and conforming outdated references in the solid waste code.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no detailed public debate captured in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for uniform statewide regulation over a patchwork of local rules. Its failure in the Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee suggests it did not advance, but the provided context does not show whether that was due to substantive opposition, procedural timing, or other legislative priorities.
The main point of contention is likely the preemption of local authority. Supporters of local environmental regulation would likely object to the bill because it would block municipalities and counties from addressing litter, waste reduction, and plastic pollution through local ordinances or taxes. Opponents of local regulation would likely support the bill as a way to ensure consistency for businesses operating across jurisdictions and to avoid conflicting local requirements. The broad definition of auxiliary containers, which covers many kinds of packaging beyond plastic bags, could also be controversial because it extends the preemption beyond a narrow single-use bag issue.