121. The representative of France reported on the progress made by the informal working group. He added that only three issues were still pending: (i) the assignment of a US reference code to tyre manufacturers not producing tyres in USA territory, (ii) the inclusion into the scope of tyres with a tread depth exceeding 14.3 mm and (iii) the inclusion into the scope of tyres for specific trailers. He indicated that hopefully these matters could be resolved by the informal working group before the September 2012 session of GRRF. The text of the draft UN GTR would be submitted to AC.3 for consideration and voting at its March 2013 session.

122. The representative of the United States of America reported that (i) two possible solutions were under consideration for resolving the issue of reference code, (ii) specific provisions for tyres with a tread depth exceeding 14.3 mm could be incorporated into the UN GTR and (iii) to exclude from the scope of the UN GTR the special tyres for specific trailers. He mentioned that the text of the section dealing with Wet Grip provision needed updating to avoid references to “Type approval”. Finally, he suggested that Contracting Parties review the full document to help speed the adoption.

123. The Chair of the informal working group confirmed that his group would meet again on 29 June 2012 at the Palais des Nations linked to the 157th session of WP.29. He anticipated the text of the draft UN GTR would be submitted to GRRF at its September 2012 session. He invited WP.29 representatives to participate at that meeting to reach an agreement and to allow the adoption of the UN GTR at the March 2013 session of AC.3.

88. The representative of France reported that, since the March 2012 session of AC.3, only minor progress had been made by the informal working group. He added that the group would meet again on 29 June 2012 to finalize the text of the draft UN GTR which would be submitted to GRRF for detailed consideration at its September 2012 session. The final draft UN GTR would then be submitted to AC.3 for consideration and voting at its March 2013 session.

The United States abstains due to the inability to quantify the benefits in terms of lives saved as required by US statutes caused by a current lack of resources to devote to the effort. All other Contracting Parties present vote in favor. The EU expresses its disappointment and stresses its belief that the effectiveness of the 1998 Agreement requires urgent attention.

105. Submitted for consideration and vote, the proposed draft UN GTR on tyres (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/63, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2014/83, WP.29-164-04) was established in the UN Global Registry on 13 November 2014 by consensus vote of the following Contracting Parties present and voting: Australia, Canada, China, European Union (voting for Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom), India, Japan, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa and Turkey.

106. The technical report (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/122, WP.29-164-04) and the adopted proposal for the development of the UN GTR (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/15) would be appended to the established UN GTR.

107. The United States of America voted to abstain on the UN GTR on tyres. The representative of the United States of America thanked France as sponsor, the United Kingdom for the chairmanship, and the tyre industry for the time and energy involved in the effort. He stated that the UN GTR offers a set of safety requirements that, in its entirety, no single country or region currently has and that, when implemented would truly increase vehicle safety worldwide. He further indicated that the United States of America abstained as it is not in a position to implement the UN GTR within a year due to resource constraints (according to the rules of the 1998 Agreement).

108. The representative of EU expressed his gratitude to the parties for their hard work to finalize the draft GTR on tyres and welcomed the positive vote by the Contracting Parties. He regretted that there had been one abstention and pointed out that the need for efficiency of the 1998 Agreement was more than urgent. The representative of ETRTO echoed a similar statement.

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.

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.