Global tire standards: “Why bother?”

London - There has, as yet, been no confirmation as to whether or not the US was represented at the latest round of Global Trade Regulation (GTR) talks, scheduled this week in Brussels.

Aimed at harmonising global tire standards, the GTR could help liberalise the international tire trade – a goal well worth pursuing by every major tire maker, but also one that presents different challenges for the industry in each region.

The challenges seem to be biggest for the US tire industry and its regulators, as evidenced by no-shows of US representative body the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the earlier two rounds of GTR talks.

Observers link this absenteeism to a strong preference in the US for self-certification of tires by manufacturers. This is clearly at odds with the third-party testing approach favoured by GTR proponents – not least the UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) and European Commission.

The situation was summed up more bluntly by a respondent to ERJ's survey on the topic: “America has [its] own regulations under DOT and these are much more lenient than those described under {UN}ECE. So they might think that if [their tires are] okay for ECE  and comply with DOT, why bother?

However, the reader went on to say that It should not be that difficult to agree a harmonised global standard: “A tire is a tire after all. It has a dimension and a load capacity. As for labelling for grip, rolling resistance, noise and mileage these are, anyway, a load of BS to try and keep Chinese [tires] out – but is not working and only adding cost of compliance.”