《Global Technical Regulationfor TYRES》.pptVIP

Global Technical Regulationfor TYRES ETRTO PROPOSAL Previous GTR not successful Our analysis of the lack of success of the previous attempt at a GTR for tyres indicates that one of the main causes was: A unique rigid tyre global regulation is not an appropriate answer in respect to the full purpose of the 1998 Agreement. Why propose a GTR? ETRTO analysis of current market situation Current problems for tyre industry In markets covered by Contracting Parties of 1958 Agreements: new regulations induce review of actual legal marking and legal marking proliferation In the global market test proliferation legal marking proliferation (1958 Agreements regulations + others) several factory code lists ETRTO vision In the global market it would be preferable to have A GTR with: A unique test menu A unique legal marking structure A world wide factory code ETRTO analysis  Situation in Global market: A more detailed worldwide analysis leads to approximately: 27 different test methods 6 different legal sidewall markings 2 factory code lists Various administrative prescriptions (complicated, costly, time consuming) Small markets are usually the most demanding ETRTO proposals in the framework of 1998 Agreements Proposal to build the test menu Invite WP 29 C.P. to submit the tests they want to include in the test menu C.P. will select the most appropriate tests Obtain approval from WP29 and AC3 for the GTR test menu for tyres Define the procedure for the possible evolutions in the framework of WP29 (C.P. : Contracting Parties) Proposal to build the test menu The test menu for GTR will include : all the type of tests already used in the main regulations for each type of performance, only one test will be selected the best regulatory practice to be defined as reference benchmark A unique legal marking structure Within GTR 1998 Agreements, the legal marking structure will contain : a global logo an area for type approval basic registration number: