Revised proposal for draft amendments to Rule No. 2
Document PTI-05-05
18 August 2016

Proposal by the Informal Working Group on Periodical Technical Inspections based on the submission from the Russian Federation and of the International Motor Vehicle Inspection Committee (CITA) (document WP.29/2013/133/Rev.1) to harmonize the provisions of Rule No. 2 with those of the latest Regulations annexed to the 1958 Agreement and the European Union (EU) Directives.

Status: IWG working draft
Download document
Previous Documents, Discussions, and Outcomes
7.2. | Update of UN Rules Nos. 1 and 2

89. The representative of the Russian Federation, Co-Chair of the IWG on Periodical Technical Inspection (PTI) updated World Forum on the work of the group. He thanked the Romanian Automotive Register for arranging the fifth meeting of IWG on PTI in Bucharest. He introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/87 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/132/Rev.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2016/88 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/133/Rev.1, by presenting WP.29-170-23.

90. The representatives of Romania and of the Russian Federation informed WP.29 that some Contracting Parties to the 1997 Agreement would not be in the position to vote on these documents at this session, to avoid conflicting dates of entry into force of similar requirements in other regulatory frameworks. WP.29 agreed to not convene the Administrative Committee of the 1997 Agreement (AC.4).

91. The secretariat agreed to provide assistance to the IWG on PTI, to propose transitional provisions addressing the potential issue of conflicting dates of entry into force mentioned above.

22. | Amendments to Rules Nos. 1 and 2
4. | Review of the proposals related to the modification of the Agreement of 1997 and the Rules

The Co-Chair, Mr. Komarov, informed the group, that the revised proposal for Revision 2 to Rule No. 1 and draft amendments to Rule No. 2, developed by the group, were considered by WP.29 at its the 169th session. In result WP.29 requested the IWG on PTI to continue the work on revising UN Rules Nos. 1 and 2 and to submit draft amendments, covering both M1 and N1 vehicle categories for the next session.

The representatives of United Kingdom, Netherland and Japan explained that they have to define their final position regarding the inclusion of light vehicles into the scope of the Rules. Meanwhile they noted that the technical requirements for the vehicles, laid down in the draft amendments to the Rules, could be acceptable. The representative of the Russian Federation supported this conclusion.

Romania and Serbia stated that they preferred to keep light vehicles out of the scope.

ACEA and CITA were in favour of UN Rules Nos. 1 and 2, covering both M1 and N1 vehicle categories, to make them harmonized with the European Directive 2014/45/EU, Customs Union Regulation and other national legislations.
Provided that the task of the IWG on PTI is completing draft amendments to UN Rule 1 and Rule 2 for their possible adoption by AC.4 by voting and following the guidance of WP.29, the group decided to submit the draft amendments to the Rules, covering both M1 and N1 vehicle categories, for the 170-th session of WP.29.

Romania highlighted the importance of having transitional provisions in the amended UN Rules Nos. 1 and 2 to synchronise their enter into force with the Directive 2014/45/EU.

The group agreed that document PTI-05-04 does not require additional modifications except addition of M1 and N1 vehicle categories and their inspection periodicities (item 3). Secretariat of the group volunteered to make necessary corrections and submit the document to WP.29.

The group concluded that document PTI-05-05 shall be added with M1 and N1 vehicle categories and their inspection periodicities (items 2.4 and 3), as well as related to them contents and methods of testing and assessment of deficiencies of vehicles, deleted by the group at previous stages. Secretariat of the group volunteered to make necessary corrections and submit the document to WP.29.

7.2. | Update of UN Rules Nos. 1 and 2

72. The representative of the Russian Federation, Co-Chair of IWG on PTI, presented the revised proposal for Revision 2 to Rule No. 1 and draft amendments to Rule No. 2 developed by the group. He noted that the documents were harmonized with the provisions of the latest Regulations, annexed to the 1958 Agreement, and harmonized with the European Directive 2014/45/EU, Customs Union Regulation and other national legislations.

73. He explained that to ease the conditions for accession to the 1997 Agreement by the majority of Member States of the United Nations, the group proposed to exclude M1 and N1 vehicle categories from the scope of the Rules.

74. He, however, recalled that WP.29 at its 156th session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1095, para 84), had decided to extend the scope of the UN Rules to M1 and N1 vehicle categories, which had been reconfirmed at its 162nd session (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1108) and that the corresponding draft amendments (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/132/Rev.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/133/Rev.1) had been developed by the Russian Federation and CITA. He noted that a limited number of the Contracting Parties attended IWG on PTI and asked, therefore, for guidance by WP.29 on the subject.

75. The representative of Finland proposed to keep M1 and N1 vehicle categories in the scope of the Rules.

76. The representative from Hungary confirmed that for his country UN Rules covering M1 and N1 vehicle categories, harmonized with EU legislation, would be necessary.

77. WP.29 requested the IWG on PTI to continue the work on revising UN Rules Nos. 1 and 2 and to submit draft amendments, covering both M1 and N1 vehicle categories for the next session.

23. | Amendments to Rules Nos. 1 and 2
7.2. | Update of Rules Nos. 1 and 2

78. The representative of the Russian Federation introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/132/Rev.1 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2013/133/Rev.1 proposing amendments to UN Rules No. 1 and 2. The representatives of Finland and the Netherlands indicated that the documents would need further amendments to be fully aligned with the corresponding EU directives. WP.29 noted that six out of the twelve Contracting Parties to the Agreement were EU member States and that any divergence between the UN Rules and the corresponding EU Directive would be unacceptable. WP.29 agreed not to hold the session of the Administrative Committee of the 1997 Agreement (AC.4).

24. | Amendments to Rules Nos. 1 and 2
Related and Previous Documents
WP.29/2013/133/Rev.1
WP.29-169-08
PTI-05-07
WP.29/2016/88
Relates to Rule No. 2 |