An Act Concerning Participation In The Tire Stewardship Program By Tire Retailers.
Summary
HB 5017 amends Connecticut’s tire stewardship law to require tire retailers, not just producers, to participate in a statewide tire stewardship organization by January 1, 2026. The bill keeps the existing framework for a producer-funded program that collects discarded tires, provides free public drop-off access, transports tires for recycling, and promotes public education and market development. It also requires the stewardship plan to identify participating retailers beginning in 2026 and to describe how the program will use existing in-state service providers and infrastructure where feasible.
The bill further clarifies that the stewardship program must be financed solely through producer funding and must meet performance, recycling, and compliance requirements. It preserves and expands liability protections by granting immunity from antitrust and unfair trade practice claims to producers, retailers, and stewardship organizations when acting within the authority of the statute. It also adds a new enforcement provision: after January 1, 2026, a retailer that does not participate in the authorized tire stewardship program may not supply tires in Connecticut, matching the existing prohibition already applicable to nonparticipating producers.
Impact
The bill would amend Connecticut General Statutes section 22a-905i, changing the tire stewardship program from a producer-centered system to one that explicitly includes tire retailers as required participants. It would impose a statutory deadline for retailer participation, require stewardship plans to account for retailers, and create a supply ban for nonparticipating retailers beginning in 2026. The measure also reinforces the program’s producer-funded structure and maintains statutory immunity for covered participants acting under the program.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support in committee but not unanimous agreement. The Environment Committee voted 24-11 to give the bill a Joint Favorable Substitute, indicating a generally favorable view of expanding and formalizing the tire stewardship program while still reflecting some opposition. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed public arguments, but the vote pattern suggests the proposal was viewed positively overall with some concern about the new retailer mandate or program implementation.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the new requirement that tire retailers must participate in the stewardship organization by 2026 and the related prohibition on selling tires if they do not comply. That mandate likely raises concerns about administrative burden, compliance costs, and the extent to which retailers should be compelled to join a producer-funded program. Another possible issue is the bill’s continued reliance on producer funding while expanding obligations to retailers, which may be seen as shifting operational responsibilities without changing the financing model. Supporters likely view the bill as strengthening statewide recycling and ensuring broader participation in tire collection and disposal.