Proposal for amendments to Rule No. 2 on periodical technical inspections of vehicles with regard roadworthiness
Download in .pdf format Download in .doc format

Proposal to harmonize the provisions of UN Rule No. 2 with those of the latest UN Regulations annexed to the 1958 Agreement and the EU Directives.

Reference Number: WP.29/2013/133/Rev.1
Origin: Russia and CITA
Date: 29 August 2014
Proposal Status: Superseded
Related Documents:
PTI-04-10 | Proposal for amendments to UN Rule No. 2
PTI-05-05 | Revised proposal for draft amendments to Rule No. 2
WP.29-169-08 | Revised proposal for draft amendments to Rule No. 2
WP.29/2013/133 | Proposal for draft amendments to Rule No. 2 on uniform provisions for periodical technical inspections
WP.29/2016/88 | Revised proposal for amendments to Rule No. 2
Discussion(s):
World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations | Session 164 | 11-14 Nov 2014

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.

74. The representative of the Russian Federation, co-Chair of the Informal Working Group on Periodic Technical Inspection (IWG on PTI) reported on the continuation of the update of Rules Nos. 1 and 2 where good progress had been made. He expected the finalised proposals to be ready for vote in AC.4 at its June 2016 session.

77. The World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item, awaiting the outcome of the work of IWG on PTI.

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).

World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations | Session 167 | 10-13 Nov 2015

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.

74. The representative of the Russian Federation, co-Chair of the Informal Working Group on Periodic Technical Inspection (IWG on PTI) reported on the continuation of the update of Rules Nos. 1 and 2 where good progress had been made. He expected the finalised proposals to be ready for vote in AC.4 at its June 2016 session.

77. The World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item, awaiting the outcome of the work of IWG on PTI.

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).

World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations | Session 168 | 8-11 Mar 2016

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.

74. The representative of the Russian Federation, co-Chair of the Informal Working Group on Periodic Technical Inspection (IWG on PTI) reported on the continuation of the update of Rules Nos. 1 and 2 where good progress had been made. He expected the finalised proposals to be ready for vote in AC.4 at its June 2016 session.

77. The World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item, awaiting the outcome of the work of IWG on PTI.

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).

World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations | Session 169 | 21-24 Jun 2016

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.

74. The representative of the Russian Federation, co-Chair of the Informal Working Group on Periodic Technical Inspection (IWG on PTI) reported on the continuation of the update of Rules Nos. 1 and 2 where good progress had been made. He expected the finalised proposals to be ready for vote in AC.4 at its June 2016 session.

77. The World Forum agreed to defer consideration of this item, awaiting the outcome of the work of IWG on PTI.

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).