23. The representative of France introduced GRBP-84-08 and GRBP-84-09. GRBP adopted the proposals and agreed to submit them for consideration by WP.29 at a later stage, when other amendments to UN regulation No. 172 were being proposed and adopted by GRBP.

24. The Co-chairs of TFTA introduced GRBP-84-30. The Chair sought clarification on the important delay between method definition and limit setting for C3 tyres. The Co-chairs of TFTA informed that the timeline for the C3 method to be finalized by February 2027 was probably too optimistic and needed to be updated. The representative of Japan supported the on-going activities, recalling the need for technology-neutral approaches for C2 and C3 tyres.

25. The representative of JATMA recalled its statement made during the 199th session of WP.29 on the importance of a technology-neutral solution for test methods and stressed the necessity to continue working on improving the equivalence criteria for C1 tyres. He further stated that the need for technology neutrality extended beyond C1 tyres to the deliberations on C2 and C3 tyres, which presented greater complexity across countries and regions. In this regard, he welcomed the planned C3 brainstorming session planned for October 2026 and stressed that C3 tyre market analysis and segmentation should duly take into account the diverse market realities and technical knowledge across the Contracting Parties to the 1958 Agreement. He concluded by stating that the consideration of test methods should proceed, without prejudging any particular technical approach, from a technology-neutral perspective.

26. The representatives of Italy, Germany and ETRTO were supportive to migrate the tyre abrasion activity from a task force to an informal working group. GRBP requested the Chair to inform WP.29 at its 200th session on this matter and report back at the next session of GRBP. TFTA agreed to initiate drafting ToRs in case WP.29 does not object the proposed migration towards an IWG on TA.

27. The representative of ETRTO introduced GRBP-84-21. The representative of the UK requested more information about the rationale for replacing some text by “greater than”. The representative of ETRTO clarified that this was proposed to improve markings’ consistency.

28. The representative of ETRTO introduced GRBP-84-22. The representative of JATMA informed they were facing similar challenges.

29. The representative of ETRTO introduced GRBP-84-24 and GRBP-84-25. The representative of BIPAVER noted the issue described probably had a low occurrence. He added that some actors had their own run-flat standards, and that attempts to merge different run-flat standards have not materialized yet. The representative of ETRTO pointed out that these various standards were not all recognized by the official run-flat marking.

30. The representative of ETRTO introduced GRBP-84-26. The representative of France suggested to add UN Regulation No. 186 under the proposed amendment to paragraph 5.1.2. The representative of JATMA confirmed that they had similar concerns with the applicability of paragraph 5.1.2. and said they would work with ETRTO towards an updated proposal.

31. As GRBP-84-21, GRBP-84-22, GRBP-84-24, GRBP-84-25 and GRBP-84-26 were not considered for adoption, GRBP agreed to reconsider these proposals at forthcoming sessions based on revised proposals.

32. The representative of ETRTO introduced GRBP-84-23-Rev.1. GRBP adopted the content of GRBP-84-23-Rev.1 and agreed to postpone its submission to WP.29 until further notice.

33. The representative of OICA introduced GRBP-84-32. The representative of France said they would be happy to support refining the proposal. The representative of Germany asked some clarification about the timing of this proposal given UN Regulation No. 142 had been adopted a while ago. The representative of OICA confirmed most owners removed the stickers, indicating a warning could be more effective. The representative of the Netherlands and of the UK requested careful considerations before amending UN Regulations. The representative of the Netherlands added that the proposal was not fit for vehicles of categories X or Y. The Chair informed that it was compulsory to have a sticker for periodic technical inspections in France. GRBP agreed to consider an updated proposal at forthcoming sessions of GRBP.

34. The representative of ETRTO introduced GRBP-84-27. The representative of the EC noted the proposal should be clarified and invited to revert it to TFTA for further refinement. GRBP supported the recommendation from the representative of the EC.