ETRTO presents its position on remaining open points for C₁ tyre abrasion limit settings, reminding positions from GRBP-82-24. Key points include: inclusion of two assessment methods; limit settings proposing approximately 23% market removal by Euro7 application timeline and additional 13.5% removal five years later; exclusion of C₁ special use tyres representing 0.7% of EU market; retention of 0.1 allowance for Extra Load tyres and tyres with nominal aspect ratio 40 suitable for speeds 300 km/h representing 7.2% of market. ETRTO views this as a challenging compromise package respecting political expectations and industry effort.

Proposal to supersede document GRBP/2026/4 intended to introduce a “default mode”, to specify requirements to be applied to the emission of Enhanced Exterior Sound (EES), with corresponding transitional provisions, and to draw a limit curve to introduce electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles that can be propelled without an internal combustion engine operating in the scope of ASEP (Annex 7).

Proposal to amend paragraph 2.18. to update Standard Reference Test Tyre definitions to ASTM International standards: E1136-19 for SRTT14, F2493-24 for SRTT16, F2872-25 for SRTT16C, F2871-25 for SRTT19.5, F2870-23 for SRTT22.5, F3678-25 for SRTT19.5 siped, and F3677-23 for SRTT22.5 siped. Also amend paragraph 12.21. to accept existing type approvals and grant extensions to class C₃ tyres using either SRTT19.5 or SRTT22.5 before 1 September 2028, and use SRTT19.5 siped or SRTT22.

Proposal to ensure robust tyre abrasion measurements regardless of the test method used.

Proposal to supersede GRBP/2025/28, consolidating amendment proposals from GRBP/2025/28, GRBP-82-27, GRBP/2026/6, and GRBP-83-20-Rev.2. Changes include moving tyre abrasion provisions to a separate UN Regulation, deleting paragraphs 5.7 to 5.10 and Annex 10, updating ASTM standard references to F2872-25, F2871-25, and F3678-25, amending Annex 5 part (b) paragraph 1.1.1., and deleting paragraph 2.21. defining abrasion performance terms.

Proposal to amend GRBP-83-32-Rev.1 to ensure robust tyre abrasion measurements regardless of test method used. Amendments modify paragraph 6.1 to require test facilities demonstrate equivalence per Annex 4 procedure; insert paragraphs 12.8 and 12.9 deeming inter-facility campaign participants equivalent for C₁ tyres and allowing pre-regulation test data through 1 July 2028; insert Annex 3 paragraph 1.4 requiring inter-facility equivalence assessment; amend Annex 3 paragraph 2.8 with abrasion calculation equations including transfer function coefficient; insert test report items 1.1–1.4 in Appendices 2 and 6; and insert new Annex 4 establishing equivalence demonstration procedure for vehicle and indoor drum test facilities.

Proposal to establish a list of test facilities deemed equivalent pursuant to paragraph 12.8 of the draft UN Regulation on tyre abrasion. The list recognizes six foundational facilities that participated in the initial inter-facility campaign to develop abrasion limits for C₁ tyres. The facilities are: DEKRA Test Center SA (France, circuit); IFV (Germany, circuit); Link Engineering Company GmbH (Germany, circuit); Bridgestone Corporation (Japan, indoor drum); Sumitomo Rubber Industries, LTD. (Japan, indoor drum); and The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd. (Japan, indoor drum). These facilities generated foundational data used to define abrasion limits and are deemed equivalent for equivalence procedures under Annex 4.

This status report documents the Tyre Abrasion Task Force’s progress toward finalizing a draft UN Regulation on tyre abrasion for C1 tyres, as presented to GRBP 83 Part II. The task force pursued three workstreams: data analysis to reduce method uncertainty and inversion risk, editorial improvements to increase clarity of the draft regulation, and development of a method equivalence solution. GRBP 83 Part I achieved consensus on limit values and introductory dates but could not reach consensus on equivalence procedures between convoy and drum methods. Six informal documents (GRBP-83-32-Rev.1, GRBP-83-48-Rev.1, GRBP-83-49, GRBP-83-50-Rev.1, GRBP-83-53, and GRBP-83-55) addressing equivalence methodology, drum specifications, and code of practice frequency were submitted for potential adoption at the extraordinary GRBP 83 Part II session.

ETRTO comments on EC/JRC compromise proposal for Annex 4 tyre abrasion. ETRTO proposes an ALI range minimum of 0.5 as feasible and consistent with statistical distribution in MA results, rejecting the 0.7 range as unrealistic. For Generic Transfer Function gain, ETRTO recommends retaining a = 1.38 rather than the revised a = 1.45, to minimize rejection of good vehicle test results. ETRTO requests TFTA ToR amendment to confirm these conditions by February 2027 based on TA-45-9.

Proposal to amend document GRBP-83-32-Rev.1. Paragraph 1.2.9. amended to exclude special use Professional off-road tyres from scope. Paragraph 2.51. amended to read that the authority which has granted type approval may verify conformity control methods, with normal minimum frequency of verifications at least once every three years. Justification states special use tyres should be excluded as no limits will be established for them, and the three-year frequency aligns with Schedule 1 of the 1958 Agreement.

JATMA submitted this position on the draft UN Regulation for tyre abrasion at GRBP-83-54. JATMA requests adoption of the indoor drum test method under conditions equivalent to the vehicle test method for type approval. JATMA proposes that the Generic transfer function coefficient should be 1.14, calculated excluding tyre code 127 which exhibits significant variation. JATMA also proposes that the abrasion index range for tyres used in the Annex 4 procedure should be set between 0.4 and 0.5, and that no restrictions should be imposed on baseline test facilities when applying the Specific Transfer Function.

Proposal to amend document GRBP-83-32-Rev.1 to renumber Paragraph 6.1. as 6.1.1., renumber current Paragraph 6.1.1. as 6.1.2., introduce new paragraph 1.4. to Annex 3 Introduction, amend paragraph 2.8. with detailed abrasion index and level calculation equations, renumber items in Appendix 2, delete item 1.3. from Appendix 2, and amend item 1.3. in Appendix 6 to clarify transfer function applicability between circuit and drum test facilities.