{"$schema":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/json-schemas/R2.22/Lobbyregister-Registereintrag-schema-R2.22.json","source":"Deutscher Bundestag, Lobbyregister für die Interessenvertretung gegenüber dem Deutschen Bundestag und der Bundesregierung","sourceUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de","sourceDate":"2026-04-17T00:28:31.174+02:00","jsonDocumentationUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/informationen-und-hilfe/open-data-1049716","registerNumber":"R006695","registerEntryDetails":{"registerEntryId":72858,"legislation":"GL2024","version":8,"detailsPageUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/suche/R006695/72858","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/45/bc/697993/Lobbyregister-Registereintraege-Detailansicht-R006695-2026-02-23_17-51-32.pdf","validFromDate":"2026-02-23T17:51:32.000+01:00","fiscalYearUpdate":{"updateMissing":false,"lastFiscalYearUpdate":"2025-04-14T15:35:21.000+02:00"}},"accountDetails":{"activeLobbyist":true,"activeDateRanges":[{"fromDate":"2024-06-25T08:31:10.000+02:00"}],"firstPublicationDate":"2024-05-22T09:11:25.000+02:00","lastUpdateDate":"2026-02-23T17:51:32.000+01:00","registerEntryVersions":[{"registerEntryId":72858,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R006695/72858","version":8,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2026-02-23T17:51:32.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":56422,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R006695/56422","version":7,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-05-28T15:50:52.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2026-02-23T17:51:32.000+01:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":48711,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R006695/48711","version":6,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2025-04-14T15:35:21.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-05-28T15:50:52.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true},{"registerEntryId":39004,"jsonDetailUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/sucheJson/R006695/39004","version":5,"legislation":"GL2024","validFromDate":"2024-06-25T08:31:10.000+02:00","validUntilDate":"2025-04-14T15:35:21.000+02:00","versionActiveLobbyist":true}],"accountHasCodexViolations":false},"lobbyistIdentity":{"identity":"ORGANIZATION","name":"Pirelli Deutschland ","legalFormType":{"code":"JURISTIC_PERSON","de":"Juristische Person","en":"Legal person"},"legalForm":{"code":"LF_GMBH","de":"Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH)","en":"Limited liability company (GmbH)"},"contactDetails":{"phoneNumber":"+496163710","emails":[{"email":"compliance.rules.de@pirelli.com"}],"websites":[{"website":"www.pirelli.com"}]},"address":{"type":"NATIONAL","street":"Höchster Straße ","streetNumber":"48-60","zipCode":"64747","city":"Breuberg/Odw.","country":{"code":"DE","de":"Deutschland","en":"Germany"}},"capitalCityRepresentationPresent":false,"legalRepresentatives":[{"lastName":"Meier","firstName":"Wolfgang Alfred Josef","function":"Vorsitzender der Geschäftsführung","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"lastName":"Iori","firstName":"Luca","function":"Geschäftsführung","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}},{"lastName":"Vecchiet","firstName":"Erik","function":"Geschäftsführung","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false,"entrustedPerson":true,"contactDetails":{}}],"entrustedPersonsPresent":true,"entrustedPersons":[{"lastName":"Meier","firstName":"Wolfgang Alfred Josef","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Iori","firstName":"Luca","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Vecchiet","firstName":"Erik","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Pasternak","firstName":"Anna Magdalena","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Mühlhause","firstName":"Christof","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Hofmann","firstName":"Thomas","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false},{"lastName":"Vogel","firstName":"Jutta Ursula","recentGovernmentFunctionPresent":false}],"membersPresent":false,"membershipsPresent":true,"memberships":[{"membership":"Wirtschaftsverband der deutschen Kautschukindustrie e. V."},{"membership":"Verband der Automobilindustrie e. V."},{"membership":"Industrieverband Motorrad Deutschland e. V. "},{"membership":"Arbeitgeberverband der Deutschen Kautschukindustrie e.V."}]},"activitiesAndInterests":{"activity":{"code":"ACT_ORGANIZATION_V2","de":"Sonstiges Unternehmen","en":"Other company"},"typesOfExercisingLobbyWork":[{"code":"SELF_OPERATED_OWN_INTEREST","de":"Die Interessenvertretung wird in eigenem Interesse selbst wahrgenommen","en":"Interest representation is self-performed in its own interest"},{"code":"CONTRACTS_OPERATED_BY_THIRD_PARTY","de":"Die Interessenvertretung wird in eigenem Interesse durch die Beauftragung Dritter wahrgenommen","en":"Contracts are awarded to third parties to represent own interests of the company"}],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_WORK_RIGHT","de":"Arbeitsrecht/Arbeitsbedingungen","en":"Work right"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Straßenverkehr","en":"Road traffic"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_CLIMATE","de":"Klimaschutz","en":"Climate protection"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_CONSUMER_PROTECTION","de":"Verbraucherschutz","en":"Consumer protection"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_SCIENCE_RESEARCH_TECHNOLOGY","de":"Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie","en":"Science, research and technology"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_INDUSTRIAL","de":"Industriepolitik","en":"Industrial policy"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_POLICY","de":"Verkehrspolitik","en":"Transport policy"},{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_OVERALL","de":"Allgemeine Energiepolitik","en":"Energy policy in general"},{"code":"FOI_ENERGY_RENEWABLE","de":"Erneuerbare Energien","en":"Renewable energy"},{"code":"FOI_WORK_POLICY","de":"Arbeitsmarkt","en":"Job market"}],"activityDescription":"Pirelli wurde 1872 in Mailand gegründet und ist heute einer der weltweit größten Reifenhersteller und der Einzige, der sich ausschließlich auf den Verbrauchermarkt konzentriert, mit Produkten und Dienstleistungen für Autos, Motorräder und Fahrräder. Mit einer unverwechselbaren Positionierung im „High Value“-Segment ist Pirelli eine globale Marke mit tiefen italienischen Wurzeln, die für ihre Spitzentechnologie, hervorragende Produktion und Leidenschaft für Innovation bekannt ist. Um die höchsten Leistungs-, Sicherheits- und Umweltstandards zu erreichen, investiert Pirelli kontinuierlich in Forschung und Entwicklung, im Jahr 2023 waren es 5,4 % der High Value-Einnahmen. Darüber hinaus engagiert sich das Unternehmen stark für Nachhaltigkeitsinitiativen, was im Laufe der Jahre dazu geführt hat, dass das Pirelli in den führenden weltweiten Rankings Spitzenpositionen einnimmt und in die wichtigsten Indizes\r\nwie den Dow Jones Sustainability World und Europe Indices aufgenommen wurde. Pirelli ist seit 1907 in der Welt des Motorsports aktiv und nimmt heute an mehr als 350 Wettbewerben teil. Seit 2011 ist das Unternehmen der globale Reifenpartner der Formel 1 Weltmeisterschaft. Die Partnerschaft wurde 2023 bis mindestens 2027 verlängert.\r\n \r\nIn Deutschland beschäftigt die Pirelli Deutschland GmbH 2.444 (zum 31.12.2024) Mitarbeitenden und erzielte 2024 einen Umsatz von rund 1,26 Mrd. €. \r\n \r\nDie Tätigkeiten in der Interessensvertretung der Pirelli Deutschland GmbH umfassen u. A. das Monitoring und die Analyse politischer und regulatorischer Entwicklungen. Zum Zwecke der Interessenvertretung werden gelegentlich auch Gespräche mit der Bundesregierung und Mitgliedern des Bundestags geführt.\r\n \r\n\r\n"},"employeesInvolvedInLobbying":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","employeeFTE":0.05},"financialExpenses":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","financialExpensesEuro":{"from":210001,"to":220000}},"mainFundingSources":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","mainFundingSources":[{"code":"MFS_ECONOMIC_ACTIVITY","de":"Wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit","en":"Economic activity"}]},"publicAllowances":{"publicAllowancesPresent":true,"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","publicAllowances":[{"name":"Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Eschborn","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":140001,"to":150000},"description":"Fördermittel des Energie- und Klimafonds (EKF) für den Einbau, den Austausch oder die Optimierung von Anlagentechnik (außer Heizung) sowie Fachplanung und Baubegleitung - Für den Austausch der Beleuchtung in der Mixing Area"},{"name":"Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle","type":{"code":"GERMAN_PUBLIC_SECTOR_FEDERAL","de":"Deutsche Öffentliche Hand – Bund","en":"German Public Sector – Federal"},"location":"Eschborn","publicAllowanceEuro":{"from":1,"to":10000},"description":"Fördermittel des Energie- und Klimafonds (EKF) für den Einbau, den Austausch oder die Optimierung von Anlagentechnik (außer Heizung) sowie Fachplanung und Baubegleitung - Für den Austausch der Beleuchtung in Gebäude 55"}]},"donators":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","totalDonationsEuro":{"from":0,"to":0}},"membershipFees":{"relatedFiscalYearFinished":true,"relatedFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","relatedFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","totalMembershipFees":{"from":0,"to":0},"individualContributorsPresent":false,"individualContributors":[]},"annualReports":{"annualReportLastFiscalYearExists":true,"lastFiscalYearStart":"2024-01-01","lastFiscalYearEnd":"2024-12-31","annualReportPdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/2a/b9/697989/JA_Holding_Endexemplar_2024.pdf"},"regulatoryProjects":{"regulatoryProjectsPresent":true,"regulatoryProjectsCount":1,"regulatoryProjects":[{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0022665","title":"EURO 7: Sachgemäße Grenzwerte Reifenabrieb und Anerkennung verschiedener Messmethoden","printedMattersPresent":false,"printedMatters":[],"draftBillPresent":false,"description":"Auf EU und globaler (UN/ECE) Ebene werden aktuell die Grenzwerte zum Reifenabrieb sowie unterschiedliche Messmethoden (indoor / outdoor) diskutiert und im Rahmen der EURO 7-Verordnung (EU 2023/851) überarbeitet","affectedLawsPresent":false,"affectedLaws":[],"fieldsOfInterest":[{"code":"FOI_ENVIRONMENT_SUSTAINABILITY","de":"Nachhaltigkeit und Ressourcenschutz","en":"Sustainability and resource protection"},{"code":"FOI_TRANSPORTATION_POLICY","de":"Verkehrspolitik","en":"Transport policy"},{"code":"FOI_ECONOMY_AUTOMOBILE","de":"Automobilwirtschaft","en":"Automotive industry"},{"code":"FOI_EU_LAWS","de":"EU-Gesetzgebung","en":"EU legislation"}]}]},"statements":{"statementsPresent":true,"statementsCount":1,"statements":[{"regulatoryProjectNumber":"RV0022665","regulatoryProjectTitle":"EURO 7: Sachgemäße Grenzwerte Reifenabrieb und Anerkennung verschiedener Messmethoden","pdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/ad/d4/697990/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2602230029.pdf","pdfPageCount":8,"text":{"copyrightAcknowledgement":"Die grundlegenden Stellungnahmen und Gutachten können urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke enthalten. Eine Nutzung ist nur im urheberrechtlich zulässigen Rahmen erlaubt.","text":"Stellungnahme zur UNECE Arbeitsgruppe Geräusch und Reifen (GRBP) am\r\n10.02.2026: Einführung EURO7 Pkw Reifen Abriebgrenzen\r\n\r\nIn oben genannter Angelegenheit übersenden wir beiliegende Stellungnahme des Europäischen\r\nReifenverbandes Tyres Europe mit der Bitte um entsprechende Berücksichtigung. Das\r\nKernanliegen haben wir unten kurz zusammengefasst.\r\nUnser Anliegen: Die UNECE Arbeitsgruppe Geräusch und Reifen (GRBP) wird sich u.a. mit den\r\nTestmethoden für Reifenabrieb und den Grenzwerten (siehe unten) befassen.\r\nWir bitten, sich für die Verabschiedung der von der European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation\r\n(ETRTO) vorgeschlagenen gestaffelten Grenzwerte, einzusetzen. Im Sinne der Klarheit und\r\nRechtssicherheit, sollten die Zulagen im Haupttext der Verordnung verankert werden.\r\nBegründung: Für bestimmte Reifenkategorien - insbesondere Winterreifen, Reifen mit hohem\r\nLastindex (XL und HL) sowie Ultra-High-Performance-Reifen - sind gezielte Zulagen erforderlich,\r\nanderenfalls sind negative Auswirkungen auf Sicherheit und Verfügbarkeit (insbes. Anforderungen\r\nder Elektromobilität) zu befürchten. Der Ansatz ermöglicht belastbare Umweltergebnisse, ohne\r\nsicherheitsrelevante Eigenschaften wie Nass-, Trocken- und Schneehaftung zu beeinträchtigen,\r\nund bleibt zugleich praxistauglich sowie industriell umsetzbar.\r\nEine Vorgabe, die über die von der ETRTO vorgeschlagenen Grenzwerte hinausgeht, würde dazu\r\nführen, dass nur wenige europäische Unternehmen am Markt bestehen könnten, was nicht im\r\nSinne der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Reifenindustrie sein kann. Die Produktions- und\r\nEntwicklungskosten in Deutschland liegen bereits deutlich über denen des internationalen\r\nWettbewerbs, insbesondere im Vergleich zu asiatischen Standorten. In jüngster Vergangenheit\r\nhaben Wettbewerber bereits Produktionsstandorte in Deutschland schließen müssen. Ein\r\nausgewogenes Maßnahmenpaket verhindert eine weitere Vergrößerung der Kostenlücke, wirkt\r\neiner fortschreitenden Deindustrialisierung entgegen und stärkt Deutschland als Produktions- und\r\nForschungsstandort.\r\nPirelli setzt auf den Industriestandort Deutschland und bittet sich entsprechend für realistische\r\nGrenzwerte einzusetzen.\r\nDarüber hinaus hat die Europäische Kommission im Zuge der laufenden Verhandlungen über die\r\nPrüfmethoden einen Äquivalenzansatz vorgeschlagen, der die Anwendung sowohl von\r\nStraßenabriebs- als auch von Trommelprüfverfahren in geschlossenen Räumen ermöglicht.\r\nObwohl das Ziel, beide Methoden beizubehalten, geteilt wird, wirft der vorliegende Vorschlag eine\r\nReihe ungeklärter Fragen auf, die über technische Details hinausgehen und direkte Auswirkungen\r\nauf Fairness, Umsetzbarkeit innerhalb des Euro-7-Zeitplans, technische Robustheit und\r\nVerhältnismäßigkeit hinsichtlich Prüfaufwand und verfügbarer Kapazitäten haben. Aus Sicht der\r\nIndustrie sind diese Prinzipien unerlässlich und sollten die Grundlage jeder endgültigen Lösung\r\nbilden, die die Anwendung beider Prüfmethoden ermöglicht, um eine zeitnahe Umsetzung,\r\nregulatorische Glaubwürdigkeit und effektive Durchsetzung zu gewährleisten.\r\n\r\nA Balanced Approach for C1 Tyre Abrasion Limits and Test Method\r\nThe Tyre Industry’s Position – Executive Summary\r\n\r\nContext\r\n• Timeline: The establishment of C1 (passenger car) tyre abrasion limits is under discussion in the UNECE Working\r\nParty on Noise and Tyres (GRBP) and a decision on C1 tyres needs to be taken in February’s meeting.\r\n• What is being discussed: A decision needs to be taken on the limits for C1 tyres, their phased tightening over time,\r\nthe allowances needed for specific tyres and the testing methods allowed for the type approval of C1 tyre abrasion.\r\n• Competitiveness check: while abrasion requirements will apply equally to all tyres placed on the EU market,\r\nEuropean tyre manufacturers face structurally higher production costs than competitors in other regions, which\r\nlimits their ability to absorb the additional development and industrialisation costs associated with over-ambitious\r\nrequirements.\r\nIndustry Proposal\r\n• Acceptance of the proposal by the UNECE GRBP Task Force Tyre Abrasion (TFTA) Co-chairs of a two-stage\r\nintroduction of abrasion limits: Stage 1 (Year 0) and Stage 2 (after 5 years).\r\n• Balanced approach between environmental benefits and realistic technology evolution.\r\n• Allowances for specific tyre categories to preserve safety and consumer choice.\r\n• On the test methods the tyre industry supports both outdoor open-road and indoor drum methods, with a “transfer\r\nfunction” safeguard for consistency between them, to be reviewed over time. A provisional, conservative\r\ninter‑method alignment factor will safeguard against uncertanties due to the methods variability and will be\r\nprogressively improved as methodological accuracy improves.\r\nWhy This Approach Works\r\n• Environmental impact: the removal rates of the industry proposal(the tyres that would be removed from the\r\nmarket and redesigned) are significant and higher than other regulated tyre performances when they were first\r\nintroduced. The industry proposal will lead to a progressive phase‑out of approximately 37% of lower‑performing\r\nproducts over a five‑year period. Stricter limits would only bring Marginal environmental gains (~2–3%) combined\r\nwith exponential high industrial and consumer costs.\r\n• Consumer choice and safety: stricter limits would reduce the product range offered by European manufacturers,\r\nresulting in less choice, higher prices, and potential safety trade-offs as well as the discontinuation of niche tyres.\r\n• Regulatory credibility: Dual test methods ensure enforceability, efficiency and sustainability.\r\nCall to Action\r\n• The European tyre manufacturing industry calls on the Contracting Parties to support agreement at GRBP 83 on\r\nstaged abrasion limits, category-specific allowances, and balanced test methods implementation.\r\n• This ensures timely Euro 7 delivery, environmental objectives, and industry competitiveness.\r\n\r\nPosition of the European Tyre Industry on\r\nTyre Abrasion Limits\r\n\r\nIntroduction\r\nThe European tyre manufacturing industry supports the introduction of performance requirements\r\non tyre abrasion and has invested significant resources to make them possible. Manufacturers have\r\njointly developed and assessed tyre abrasion using both open-road vehicle and indoor drum test\r\nmethods, and completed a wide, resource‑intensive market assessment to quantify realistic\r\nremoval rates. Building on this work, the industry argues for an ambitious yet feasible package that\r\ndelivers measurable reductions in abrasion, safeguards road safety and consumer choice, and\r\npreserves Europe’s industrial competitiveness.\r\nThis proposal reflects a majority industry view and represents the maximum level of ambition that\r\ncan realistically be achieved if all elements are adopted together as a coherent package.\r\nOverview of industry position\r\n1. The urgency of achieving an agreement in the 83rd session of the Working Party on Noise\r\nand Tyres (GRBP)\r\nReaching agreement at the February session of the UNECE GRBP is critical to ensure a coherent and\r\ntimely implementation of Euro 7 tyre abrasion requirements.\r\n• UN Regulation provides the only effective framework for a global industry such as tyres:\r\nagreeing at UN level avoids regulatory fragmentation and the risk that different regions\r\ndevelop divergent limits and test methods, undermining environmental effectiveness and\r\nincreasing compliance costs.\r\n• An early decision is essential to allow sufficient time for implementation, including the\r\nestablishment of type-approval procedures, the designation of Type Approval Authorities, and\r\nthe accreditation of testing laboratories and technical services, all within the particularly\r\ndemanding Euro 7 timeline.\r\n• Agreement in February does not preclude further refinement: the adopted framework will\r\nbe progressively consolidated through the 2026 workplan of the Task Force on Tyre Abrasion\r\n(TFTA), which will address technical improvements and updates as needed.\r\n• And finally, providing early regulatory certainty is key to enabling manufacturers and\r\nauthorities to plan investments, resources and testing capacity, ensuring that Euro 7\r\nobjectives are delivered effectively rather than delayed by procedural bottlenecks.\r\n\r\n2. The limits/timeline/allowances package\r\nThe table below summarises the industry proposal on tyre abrasion limits, including staged values,\r\ncategory-specific allowances and the corresponding redesign rates, demonstrating how ambitious\r\nreductions can be delivered within the Euro 7 timeline in a proportionate and enforceable manner.\r\nIts feasibility depends on adopting all elements together and maintaining them across both stages.\r\n2.1. Two stages, five years apart.\r\n• The proposal is coherent with tyre technical development cycles and consistent with other UN\r\ntyre regulations.\r\n• It provides sufficient time for redesign, validation and industrial adaptation.\r\n2.2. Quantified removal rates.\r\nThe proposed limits correspond to quantified removal rates, i.e. the share of tyres currently on the\r\nEU market that would no longer comply with a given abrasion limit and would therefore need to be\r\nredesigned or withdrawn.\r\n• Stage 1: 23% removal rate;\r\n• Stage 2: overall 36.5% removal rate.\r\nThese levels go beyond the first steps taken when other tyre performances (rolling resistance, wet\r\ngrip) were initially regulated.\r\n2.3. Allowances for defined categories.\r\nTargeted allowances are proposed for specific tyre categories with structural characteristics—such\r\nas winter tyres, high-load tyres and ultra-high-performance tyres—that lead to systematically\r\ndifferent abrasion behaviour under testing.\r\nThese allowances are necessary to avoid unintended safety or availability impacts, and should be\r\nintegrated in the main text of the Regulation to ensure clarity and legal certainty across both stages.\r\n\r\nIt is noted that proposals to remove certain allowances in the second stage would affect tyre\r\ncategories representing only a very limited share of the EU market, while creating disproportionate\r\ndisruption for highly specific applications without delivering commensurate environmental gains.\r\n2.4. Test methods and correlation.\r\nBoth open-road vehicle and indoor drum test methods are currently being developed and assessed,\r\nand the Regulation must address the use of both methods while ensuring that their application\r\nleads to consistent compliance outcomes.\r\n• Market assessment in 2024 using both open-road vehicle and indoor drum methods shows\r\nthat a correlation between the two methods exists, but that it is currently not sufficiently\r\nrobust and requires further work.\r\n• The industry-supported solution therefore entails the introduction in the UN Regulation of a\r\ntechnically conservative transfer function, defined as a regulatory adjustment coefficient\r\napplied to indoor drum test results to ensure consistent compliance outcomes between the two\r\nmethod.\r\n• In practice, this transfer function would act as a variability margin applied to drum test results\r\nand limits the risk of inversions of compliance outcomes during type approval, i.e. situations\r\nwhere tyres could be assessed as compliant using one method while not being compliant when\r\nassessed using the other. This approach applies until the indoor drum method is further\r\ndescribed and a more robust transfer function can be properly assessed, as foreseen in the\r\n2026 workplan of the Task Force on Tyre Abrasion (TFTA).\r\n• Within this framework, the European tyre industry supports the application of a\r\nconservative transfer function coefficient of 1.5 for the indoor drum method. This\r\ncoefficient is intended to prevent situations where tyres that would not comply when assessed\r\nusing the open-road vehicle method could pass instead the indoor drum testing. At the same\r\ntime, the selected value is designed to avoid an excessive number of false negative outcomes,\r\nwhereby tyres that would be compliant with the road method could be unduly excluded when\r\nassessed with the drum method. The value of 1.5 therefore represents a balanced and\r\nprecautionary approach, identified on the basis of quantitative analyses of the available test\r\ndata (see the table below).\r\n• The workplan 2026 aimed to lead to a new Regulation supplement in September 2026. This\r\nwould also assess the correlation of the two improved methods and will consequently also\r\nbring to a new Transfer Function’s update.\r\n\r\nWhy This Proposal Is the Right Outcome for Europe\r\n1. Environmental performance.\r\n• The proposal delivers significant reductions in tyre abrasion in support of the EU’s\r\nmicroplastic emission reduction objectives.\r\n• The difference in overall emission reduction between this proposal and the co‑chairs’ higher\r\nremoval rates is modest (≈3 percentage points in Stage 1; ≈2 percentage points in Stage 2).\r\n2. Safety and consumer mobility.\r\n• Tyres are safety‑critical products. Certain categories cannot meet lower thresholds without\r\ncompromising essential requirements.\r\n• Whilst limited independent testing (e.g. the ADAC tyre ranking study) has so far shown no\r\nclear tradeoffs between abrasion and wet grip.Tyres cannot yet be optimised simultaneously\r\nfor all performances. If regulation requires redesigning tyres primarily to minimise abrasion,\r\nthis may come at the expense of other critical performances, including safety. Until now,\r\nconsumers have been able to choose products based on their own priorities — for example,\r\nfavouring safety or rolling resistance. A regulation that forces optimisation for abrasion risks\r\nnarrowing these choices. More importantly, the full consequences for safety performance are\r\nnot yet known and may only become apparent once the transition has already taken place.\r\n\r\n3. Predictability and regulatory coherence.\r\n• A five‑year interval between stages reflects real‑world development cycles for tyres and\r\nvehicles.\r\n• This mirrors other UN tyre regulations and gives manufacturers legal certainty to invest,\r\nredesign, and industrialise responsibly.\r\n4. Competitiveness and resilience.\r\n• European production costs are already significantly higher (around double than those in Asia\r\nand one‑third more than in the US).\r\n• A balanced package avoids widening the cost gap, prevents further de‑industrialisation, and\r\nsustains Europe’s manufacturing and R&D base.\r\nThe solution identified to allow the use of both the outdoor open-road and indoor drum methods\r\noffers the following benefits:\r\n• In line with the EU simplification agenda, it limits regulatory complexity and avoids the need\r\nto establish specific governance arrangements to manage equivalence between test methods\r\nand testing facilities.\r\n• It ensures that tyres type-approved using the indoor drum method will also be compliant\r\nwhen assessed with the outdoor vehicle (open-road) method.\r\n• It allows for further technical improvements within the existing implementation timeline, by\r\nupdating the transfer function on the basis of the 2026 workplan through a new supplement\r\nto UN R[XXX].\r\nConsequences of More Stringent Limits\r\nMore stringent tyre abrasion limits than those proposed by the industry would have\r\ndisproportionate impacts relative to the limited additional environmental benefits they would\r\ndeliver.\r\n• Product redesign/withdrawal: almost one in two tyres on today’s market would need to be\r\nredesigned or withdrawn by Stage 2; this is particularly acute for winter applications, with\r\npotential consequences for road safety.\r\n• Escalating development costs: re‑engineering expenses would rise sharply, especially for\r\nOriginal Equipment (OE) tyres. OE development cycles are longer, vehicle‑specific and involve\r\nextensive validation, often costing over ten times that of replacement tyres.\r\n• Portfolio shrinkage and consumer choice: niche, regional or special‑use tyres risk\r\ndiscontinuation, reducing consumer choice and potentially affecting safety in specific\r\nconditions.\r\n• Distorted competition: if only a small set of tyre designs or a few manufacturers can\r\nconsistently meet stricter limits, competition would narrow, with negative effects on prices,\r\nquality and safety.\r\n• Price pressure: increased development and industrialisation costs would pass through to\r\nconsumers and fleets.\r\n\r\nCompetitiveness loss and industrial risk: Europe’s tyre sector is transforming under\r\nunprecedented cost pressure and global competition. Production costs in Europe are around\r\ndouble those in Asia and roughly one‑third higher than in the US. EU‑based production has\r\nbeen losing ground year after year, import penetration is rising, and several plants have\r\nalready closed. In this context, regulatory ambition must be calibrated to feasibility and the\r\npace of implementation to safeguard industrial sustainability and competitiveness. Some may\r\nargue that higher performance thresholds create a “ticket to entry” that filters out lowerquality\r\ntyres. In reality, manufacturers in markets with much lower production costs can\r\nabsorb development expenses more easily and quickly redesign tyres to meet regulatory\r\nrequirements. By contrast, European producers face structurally higher costs, making them\r\ndisproportionately exposed to over-ambitious targets. The proposal must therefore be\r\nambitious, but not excessive — delivering real environmental progress without penalising\r\nEurope’s industry.\r\nTest Methods: outdoor open-road and indoor drum as essential complementary\r\ntesting strategies\r\nThe industry recognises the open-road vehicle method as the historical reference for abrasion\r\nmeasurement. However, relying exclusively on this approach would create long-term challenges:\r\nEnvironmental impact: road tests themselves generate Tyre and Road Wear Particles (TRWP),\r\ncontradicting the very objective of reducing emissions.\r\nThe order of magnitude for the open road vehicle testing is approximately 2500 kg/year for testing\r\nC1 tyres in Europe for type approval and COP testing.\r\nEconomic burden: road testing is expensive (around 15.000 euro/tyre type approval test),\r\nresource-intensive and climate condition dependant, adding unnecessary compliance costs for\r\nmanufacturers.\r\nCapacity and repeatability: exclusive reliance on road campaigns would make routine checks more\r\ncumbersome and limit throughput, especially as the regulation matures.\r\nAllowing a validated indoor drum method will ensure that compliance remains credible, efficient\r\nand consistent with sustainability goals. It also provides a practical tool for ongoing surveillance\r\nand innovation, strengthening rather than weakening the robustness of the framework.\r\nCall to Action\r\nContracting Parties are invited to support agreement at the February session of the Working Party\r\non Noise and Tyres (GRBP) on the proposed UN Regulation on tyre abrasion, including the staged\r\nlimits, defined allowances and the framework for the use of open-road and indoor drum test\r\nmethods. Reaching agreement at this stage is essential to maintain the Euro 7 timeline, enable\r\ntimely preparation by authorities and industry, and provide a stable regulatory basis that can be\r\nfurther refined through the 2026 workplan of the Task Force on Tyre Abrasion. This approach\r\nensures credible environmental outcomes while preserving safety, enforceability and industrial\r\nfeasibility.\r\n"},"recipientGroups":[{"recipients":{"parliament":[],"federalGovernment":[{"department":{"title":"Bundeskanzleramt (BKAmt)","shortTitle":"BKAmt","url":"https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de","electionPeriod":21}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMUKN)","shortTitle":"BMUKN","url":"https://www.bmuv.de/","electionPeriod":21}},{"department":{"title":"Bundesministerium für Verkehr (BMV)","shortTitle":"BMV","url":"https://bmdv.bund.de/DE/Home/home.html","electionPeriod":21}}]},"sendingDate":"2026-02-06"}]}]},"contracts":{"contractsPresent":false,"contractsCount":0,"contracts":[]},"codeOfConduct":{"ownCodeOfConduct":true,"codeOfConductPdfUrl":"https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/46/10/697988/GL-2-GER-Code-of-Conduct-04-2016.pdf"}}