103. The representative of France informed AC.3 that the informal group would meet again during the September 2011 session of GRRF and that a gtr proposal could be transmitted to AC.3 for its consideration and possible voting at its March or June 2012 sessions. AC.3 agreed to include the provisions for rolling resistance (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/80) in a second phase of the UN GTR. AC.3 continued consideration of the placement of the wet grip adhesion provisions either in the mandatory module or on one of the optional modules of the UN GTR, as requested by the representatives of China and India. No agreement was reached. AC.3 noted that article 7.6 of the Agreement could provide the necessary flexibility for Parties to the Agreement to resolve their concerns when transposing the UN GTR into their national law. The representatives of China and India were invited to consider article 7.6 and to define their position on this issue at the next session of the informal group.

Note: Article 7.6 reads, in part, “A Contracting Party that has adopted into its own laws or regulations an established global technical regulation may decide to rescind or amend the adopted Regulation.”

114. The representative of France informed AC.3 that a draft text for the gtr should be considered by GRRF at its February 2011 session and that, if approved, it would be transmitted for consideration by AC.3 at its November 2011 session.

115. The representative of the EU recalled the proposal to include provisions for rolling resistance into the text of the gtr (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/80). ETRTO supported the proposal. The representative of the United States of America recalled his position (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1085, para. 88) and indicated that the inclusion of such requirements could delay the adoption of the gtr. To solve this issue, AC.3 considered the possibility of including the provisions on rolling resistance in the second phase of the development of the gtr. AC.3 agreed to take a decision on this matter at its March 2011 session.

116. The Chair of the informal group informed AC.3 that some Contracting Parties had expressed their preference to move the provisions for wet grip adhesion from the mandatory module of the gtr to one of the optional modules. The representative of the United States of America indicated that before taking such a decision, all the implications should be considered, for example possible complications could arise for some Contracting Parties if the wet safety requirements are grouped with environmental requirements. AC.3 agreed to take a decision on this topic at its March 2011 session.

89. Agenda item 16.7, Tyres. The representative of the EU proposed to include rolling resistance requirements into the gtr (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2010/80). The representative of the United States of America could not support this proposal as it questioned a long standing agreement on the core elements of the gtr and the associated time scale, which had been reconfirmed in the November 2009 session. AC.3 recommended that the EU coordinate the proposal with China, India, the Russian Federation, the United States of America and other interested parties to try to reach a consensus. The representatives were invited to request their GRRF experts to send comments on the draft gtr for consideration at the next meeting of the informal group, scheduled for September 2010.