The minutes were unanimously approved without amendments.

Draft proposal to amend the 1997 Vienna Agreement (PTI-02-01)
UK specified several editorial mistakes in the text to be corrected (PTI-02-05). It was proposed to add “appeals and complaints” as an item to be covered by rules for Supervising bodies (Appendix 6, para 3). The proposals were accepted.

FIN (PTI-02-08) supposes that the 1997 Agreement should not contain very detailed requirements for training of inspectors and supervision of testing centres. The training and supervision systems should be made possible to be adapted to local needs. In FIN opinion, the 1997 Agreement should have only general requirements and let the Contracting Parties follow the best way to arrange PTI.

RU noted that the existence of satisfactory arrangements and procedures for ensuring the objectivity and the high quality of the technical inspections, undertaken in accordance with the recommended methods specified in the Rules, is the basis for the mutual recognition of the international technical inspection certificate issued by the Contracting Parties.
If satisfactory requirements for the conformity of PTI process are excluded from the 1997 Agreement, they shall be placed in another UN documents (Rules, guidelines, consolidated resolutions etc.).

The group shall find a balance between the PTI result and strictness and scope of the requirements for the PTI process.

FIN proposes to make electronic PTI certificates permitted as an option. The 1997 Agreement does not explicitly prevent this, but it would be better to specify it clearly in the Agreement. The certificate needs to be available for supervision purposes – for instance, Police or Customs inspection. FIN suggests to amend item 4 in Appendix 2 to read:
“[…] The certificate may also be in electronic form, provided it is accessible whenever needed”.
FIN proposes to amend item 3.1 in Appendix 3, to read:
“3.1. Contracting Parties shall ensure that technical inspections are carried out by inspectors fulfilling the minimum competence and training requirements laid down by the Contracting Party.”
Items 3.2 to 3.5, 4.2 and 4.3 in Appendix 3 can be deleted following to FIN concept.

FIN invited to discuss whether item 2 is necessary in Appendix 4.
These proposals are accepted.

FIN prefers to delete Appendix 5 and 6.
The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RU recalled, that the group has not yet completed the discussion about the form for introduction of requirements for the PTI process. There are at least three kinds of documents: the 1997 Agreement, Rules, annexed to the 1997 Agreement, , or another UN document. RU support the amendments to the 1997 Agreement, since the scope of Rules is not covers the subject and conformity of PTI process is the basis for mutual recognition of ITIC.

The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting). Co-Chairs will prepare a document on the subject for the next session. (Action Co-Chairs)
RO (PTI-02-09) states that the introduction of Appendix 3 to the 1997 Agreement is in line with the new requirements of the Directive 2014/45/EU and it is acceptable. But for the European Union Member states (EU MS) Directive 2014/45/EU requirements will come into force after 20 May 2018. These requirements could be too strict for some countries, making the 1997 Agreement non attractive for them.

In RO opinion, IWG PTI shall discuss three possible scenarios:
1. to keep the Directive’s provisions (as proposed);
2. to introduce the principles of these provisions, but not as strict as in the Directive;
3. to delete these new provisions or introduce them later.

The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RO supposes that definition of “approval” is not appropriate in the 1997 Agreement. Since CPs can apply different Regulations and national/regional standards the definition shall be amended to read:
“approval means a procedure whereby can be certified that a vehicle satisfies the relevant administrative provisions and technical requirements referred to in the national/regional legislation”. The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RO specified that the items of the international technical inspection certificate (Appendix 1) shall be discussed and compared with the roadworthiness certificate provided in directive 2014/45/EU). Several paragraphs of Article 8 of the Directive could be adapted and introduced into the 1997 Agreement.
The group is awaiting RO proposals on this subject. (Action RO)

RO and RS proposed to use the term “authorised” instead of “accredited” in Appendix 2. The proposal was supported in principle.

In Appendix 2, item 1, RO suggested to replace the word “approval” with similar one, since there is definition of the term “approval”. The group is awaiting exact proposals on the subject. (Action all)

RO supposes, that there shall be transitional provisions or exceptions regarding the inspectors that are working in the system before the date of the introduction of these competence and training requirements (Appendix 3) as it was made in item 3 of Article 13 of the Directive.

RS (PTI-02-10) suggested to add “adaptation to technical progress” as additional goal for the 1997 Agreement. It could be added to the end of the second subparagraph of the Preamble.
The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (agenda next meeting)

In Appendix 5, item 1 (a), RS proposed instead of term “combustion engines” to apply term “powertrain”, covering internal combustion engine, electric machine (electric motor, electric generator, electric motor-generator), fuel cell, etc.
The proposal was accepted.

Comments from the UK proposing new text for the 1997 Agreement on Periodical Technical Inspections for consideration at the 2nd PTI informal group session.

Draft proposal to amend the 1997 Vienna Agreement (PTI-02-01)
UK specified several editorial mistakes in the text to be corrected (PTI-02-05). It was proposed to add “appeals and complaints” as an item to be covered by rules for Supervising bodies (Appendix 6, para 3). The proposals were accepted.

FIN (PTI-02-08) supposes that the 1997 Agreement should not contain very detailed requirements for training of inspectors and supervision of testing centres. The training and supervision systems should be made possible to be adapted to local needs. In FIN opinion, the 1997 Agreement should have only general requirements and let the Contracting Parties follow the best way to arrange PTI.

RU noted that the existence of satisfactory arrangements and procedures for ensuring the objectivity and the high quality of the technical inspections, undertaken in accordance with the recommended methods specified in the Rules, is the basis for the mutual recognition of the international technical inspection certificate issued by the Contracting Parties.
If satisfactory requirements for the conformity of PTI process are excluded from the 1997 Agreement, they shall be placed in another UN documents (Rules, guidelines, consolidated resolutions etc.).

The group shall find a balance between the PTI result and strictness and scope of the requirements for the PTI process.

FIN proposes to make electronic PTI certificates permitted as an option. The 1997 Agreement does not explicitly prevent this, but it would be better to specify it clearly in the Agreement. The certificate needs to be available for supervision purposes – for instance, Police or Customs inspection. FIN suggests to amend item 4 in Appendix 2 to read:
“[…] The certificate may also be in electronic form, provided it is accessible whenever needed”.
FIN proposes to amend item 3.1 in Appendix 3, to read:
“3.1. Contracting Parties shall ensure that technical inspections are carried out by inspectors fulfilling the minimum competence and training requirements laid down by the Contracting Party.”
Items 3.2 to 3.5, 4.2 and 4.3 in Appendix 3 can be deleted following to FIN concept.

FIN invited to discuss whether item 2 is necessary in Appendix 4.
These proposals are accepted.

FIN prefers to delete Appendix 5 and 6.
The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RU recalled, that the group has not yet completed the discussion about the form for introduction of requirements for the PTI process. There are at least three kinds of documents: the 1997 Agreement, Rules, annexed to the 1997 Agreement, , or another UN document. RU support the amendments to the 1997 Agreement, since the scope of Rules is not covers the subject and conformity of PTI process is the basis for mutual recognition of ITIC.

The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting). Co-Chairs will prepare a document on the subject for the next session. (Action Co-Chairs)
RO (PTI-02-09) states that the introduction of Appendix 3 to the 1997 Agreement is in line with the new requirements of the Directive 2014/45/EU and it is acceptable. But for the European Union Member states (EU MS) Directive 2014/45/EU requirements will come into force after 20 May 2018. These requirements could be too strict for some countries, making the 1997 Agreement non attractive for them.

In RO opinion, IWG PTI shall discuss three possible scenarios:
1. to keep the Directive’s provisions (as proposed);
2. to introduce the principles of these provisions, but not as strict as in the Directive;
3. to delete these new provisions or introduce them later.

The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RO supposes that definition of “approval” is not appropriate in the 1997 Agreement. Since CPs can apply different Regulations and national/regional standards the definition shall be amended to read:
“approval means a procedure whereby can be certified that a vehicle satisfies the relevant administrative provisions and technical requirements referred to in the national/regional legislation”. The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RO specified that the items of the international technical inspection certificate (Appendix 1) shall be discussed and compared with the roadworthiness certificate provided in directive 2014/45/EU). Several paragraphs of Article 8 of the Directive could be adapted and introduced into the 1997 Agreement.
The group is awaiting RO proposals on this subject. (Action RO)

RO and RS proposed to use the term “authorised” instead of “accredited” in Appendix 2. The proposal was supported in principle.

In Appendix 2, item 1, RO suggested to replace the word “approval” with similar one, since there is definition of the term “approval”. The group is awaiting exact proposals on the subject. (Action all)

RO supposes, that there shall be transitional provisions or exceptions regarding the inspectors that are working in the system before the date of the introduction of these competence and training requirements (Appendix 3) as it was made in item 3 of Article 13 of the Directive.

RS (PTI-02-10) suggested to add “adaptation to technical progress” as additional goal for the 1997 Agreement. It could be added to the end of the second subparagraph of the Preamble.
The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (agenda next meeting)

In Appendix 5, item 1 (a), RS proposed instead of term “combustion engines” to apply term “powertrain”, covering internal combustion engine, electric machine (electric motor, electric generator, electric motor-generator), fuel cell, etc.
The proposal was accepted.

UK comments on UN Rule No. 1 for discussion during the 2nd PTI informal group session.

Draft proposal to amend the 1997 Vienna Agreement (PTI-02-01)
UK specified several editorial mistakes in the text to be corrected (PTI-02-05). It was proposed to add “appeals and complaints” as an item to be covered by rules for Supervising bodies (Appendix 6, para 3). The proposals were accepted.

FIN (PTI-02-08) supposes that the 1997 Agreement should not contain very detailed requirements for training of inspectors and supervision of testing centres. The training and supervision systems should be made possible to be adapted to local needs. In FIN opinion, the 1997 Agreement should have only general requirements and let the Contracting Parties follow the best way to arrange PTI.

RU noted that the existence of satisfactory arrangements and procedures for ensuring the objectivity and the high quality of the technical inspections, undertaken in accordance with the recommended methods specified in the Rules, is the basis for the mutual recognition of the international technical inspection certificate issued by the Contracting Parties.
If satisfactory requirements for the conformity of PTI process are excluded from the 1997 Agreement, they shall be placed in another UN documents (Rules, guidelines, consolidated resolutions etc.).

The group shall find a balance between the PTI result and strictness and scope of the requirements for the PTI process.

FIN proposes to make electronic PTI certificates permitted as an option. The 1997 Agreement does not explicitly prevent this, but it would be better to specify it clearly in the Agreement. The certificate needs to be available for supervision purposes – for instance, Police or Customs inspection. FIN suggests to amend item 4 in Appendix 2 to read:
“[…] The certificate may also be in electronic form, provided it is accessible whenever needed”.
FIN proposes to amend item 3.1 in Appendix 3, to read:
“3.1. Contracting Parties shall ensure that technical inspections are carried out by inspectors fulfilling the minimum competence and training requirements laid down by the Contracting Party.”
Items 3.2 to 3.5, 4.2 and 4.3 in Appendix 3 can be deleted following to FIN concept.

FIN invited to discuss whether item 2 is necessary in Appendix 4.
These proposals are accepted.

FIN prefers to delete Appendix 5 and 6.
The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RU recalled, that the group has not yet completed the discussion about the form for introduction of requirements for the PTI process. There are at least three kinds of documents: the 1997 Agreement, Rules, annexed to the 1997 Agreement, , or another UN document. RU support the amendments to the 1997 Agreement, since the scope of Rules is not covers the subject and conformity of PTI process is the basis for mutual recognition of ITIC.

The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting). Co-Chairs will prepare a document on the subject for the next session. (Action Co-Chairs)
RO (PTI-02-09) states that the introduction of Appendix 3 to the 1997 Agreement is in line with the new requirements of the Directive 2014/45/EU and it is acceptable. But for the European Union Member states (EU MS) Directive 2014/45/EU requirements will come into force after 20 May 2018. These requirements could be too strict for some countries, making the 1997 Agreement non attractive for them.

In RO opinion, IWG PTI shall discuss three possible scenarios:
1. to keep the Directive’s provisions (as proposed);
2. to introduce the principles of these provisions, but not as strict as in the Directive;
3. to delete these new provisions or introduce them later.

The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RO supposes that definition of “approval” is not appropriate in the 1997 Agreement. Since CPs can apply different Regulations and national/regional standards the definition shall be amended to read:
“approval means a procedure whereby can be certified that a vehicle satisfies the relevant administrative provisions and technical requirements referred to in the national/regional legislation”. The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RO specified that the items of the international technical inspection certificate (Appendix 1) shall be discussed and compared with the roadworthiness certificate provided in directive 2014/45/EU). Several paragraphs of Article 8 of the Directive could be adapted and introduced into the 1997 Agreement.
The group is awaiting RO proposals on this subject. (Action RO)

RO and RS proposed to use the term “authorised” instead of “accredited” in Appendix 2. The proposal was supported in principle.

In Appendix 2, item 1, RO suggested to replace the word “approval” with similar one, since there is definition of the term “approval”. The group is awaiting exact proposals on the subject. (Action all)

RO supposes, that there shall be transitional provisions or exceptions regarding the inspectors that are working in the system before the date of the introduction of these competence and training requirements (Appendix 3) as it was made in item 3 of Article 13 of the Directive.

RS (PTI-02-10) suggested to add “adaptation to technical progress” as additional goal for the 1997 Agreement. It could be added to the end of the second subparagraph of the Preamble.
The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (agenda next meeting)

In Appendix 5, item 1 (a), RS proposed instead of term “combustion engines” to apply term “powertrain”, covering internal combustion engine, electric machine (electric motor, electric generator, electric motor-generator), fuel cell, etc.
The proposal was accepted.

The agenda was unanimously approved without amendments.

Draft proposal to amend the 1997 Vienna Agreement (PTI-02-01)
UK specified several editorial mistakes in the text to be corrected (PTI-02-05). It was proposed to add “appeals and complaints” as an item to be covered by rules for Supervising bodies (Appendix 6, para 3). The proposals were accepted.

FIN (PTI-02-08) supposes that the 1997 Agreement should not contain very detailed requirements for training of inspectors and supervision of testing centres. The training and supervision systems should be made possible to be adapted to local needs. In FIN opinion, the 1997 Agreement should have only general requirements and let the Contracting Parties follow the best way to arrange PTI.

RU noted that the existence of satisfactory arrangements and procedures for ensuring the objectivity and the high quality of the technical inspections, undertaken in accordance with the recommended methods specified in the Rules, is the basis for the mutual recognition of the international technical inspection certificate issued by the Contracting Parties.
If satisfactory requirements for the conformity of PTI process are excluded from the 1997 Agreement, they shall be placed in another UN documents (Rules, guidelines, consolidated resolutions etc.).

The group shall find a balance between the PTI result and strictness and scope of the requirements for the PTI process.

FIN proposes to make electronic PTI certificates permitted as an option. The 1997 Agreement does not explicitly prevent this, but it would be better to specify it clearly in the Agreement. The certificate needs to be available for supervision purposes – for instance, Police or Customs inspection. FIN suggests to amend item 4 in Appendix 2 to read:
“[…] The certificate may also be in electronic form, provided it is accessible whenever needed”.
FIN proposes to amend item 3.1 in Appendix 3, to read:
“3.1. Contracting Parties shall ensure that technical inspections are carried out by inspectors fulfilling the minimum competence and training requirements laid down by the Contracting Party.”
Items 3.2 to 3.5, 4.2 and 4.3 in Appendix 3 can be deleted following to FIN concept.

FIN invited to discuss whether item 2 is necessary in Appendix 4.
These proposals are accepted.

FIN prefers to delete Appendix 5 and 6.
The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RU recalled, that the group has not yet completed the discussion about the form for introduction of requirements for the PTI process. There are at least three kinds of documents: the 1997 Agreement, Rules, annexed to the 1997 Agreement, , or another UN document. RU support the amendments to the 1997 Agreement, since the scope of Rules is not covers the subject and conformity of PTI process is the basis for mutual recognition of ITIC.

The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting). Co-Chairs will prepare a document on the subject for the next session. (Action Co-Chairs)
RO (PTI-02-09) states that the introduction of Appendix 3 to the 1997 Agreement is in line with the new requirements of the Directive 2014/45/EU and it is acceptable. But for the European Union Member states (EU MS) Directive 2014/45/EU requirements will come into force after 20 May 2018. These requirements could be too strict for some countries, making the 1997 Agreement non attractive for them.

In RO opinion, IWG PTI shall discuss three possible scenarios:
1. to keep the Directive’s provisions (as proposed);
2. to introduce the principles of these provisions, but not as strict as in the Directive;
3. to delete these new provisions or introduce them later.

The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RO supposes that definition of “approval” is not appropriate in the 1997 Agreement. Since CPs can apply different Regulations and national/regional standards the definition shall be amended to read:
“approval means a procedure whereby can be certified that a vehicle satisfies the relevant administrative provisions and technical requirements referred to in the national/regional legislation”. The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (Agenda next meeting)

RO specified that the items of the international technical inspection certificate (Appendix 1) shall be discussed and compared with the roadworthiness certificate provided in directive 2014/45/EU). Several paragraphs of Article 8 of the Directive could be adapted and introduced into the 1997 Agreement.
The group is awaiting RO proposals on this subject. (Action RO)

RO and RS proposed to use the term “authorised” instead of “accredited” in Appendix 2. The proposal was supported in principle.

In Appendix 2, item 1, RO suggested to replace the word “approval” with similar one, since there is definition of the term “approval”. The group is awaiting exact proposals on the subject. (Action all)

RO supposes, that there shall be transitional provisions or exceptions regarding the inspectors that are working in the system before the date of the introduction of these competence and training requirements (Appendix 3) as it was made in item 3 of Article 13 of the Directive.

RS (PTI-02-10) suggested to add “adaptation to technical progress” as additional goal for the 1997 Agreement. It could be added to the end of the second subparagraph of the Preamble.
The group decided to return to the subject at the next session. (agenda next meeting)

In Appendix 5, item 1 (a), RS proposed instead of term “combustion engines” to apply term “powertrain”, covering internal combustion engine, electric machine (electric motor, electric generator, electric motor-generator), fuel cell, etc.
The proposal was accepted.

Proposal to modify item 3 of the Annex to Rule No. 1.

Proposal to amend the Annex to UN Rule No. 2.

Mr Raph Schröder sent a mail after the draft minutes were distributed to state that he was not participating on behalf of Germany, but as an expert.

Since any decision is to be taken by the AC.4 by official representatives of the Contracting Parties, the group considered that the mention of the countries of the attendees is purely given as information.

The minutes of the previous meeting has been unanimously approved.

Draft text to amend the agreement on vehicle technical inspections based on discussions during the February informal group session.

Draft text regarding the UN Rule on in-use vehicle roadworthiness pursuant to the February discussions of the PTI informal group

Draft text to amend the UN Rule on in-use vehicle environmental performance inspections based on discussions held during the third PTI informal group session.

The agenda was unanimously adopted.

Revised proposals for draft amendments to Rule 2

The document PTI-04-02 with the proposal of the organization Glass for Europe was discussed. The group preferred not to include the suggestions of this document to keep the Rule 2 as in line as possible with the Directive 2014/45.

The document PTI-04-09 contains the output of the meeting regarding the proposals for draft amendments to Rule 2. It was agreed to send it to the WP.29 as an informal document for the meeting on June 2016.

Provisions for conformity of periodical technical inspection process

The document PTI-04-03 has been discussed by the group according to the following:

• Appendix 2: inclusion of a new item 6 with the text “[Odometer reading in the moment of the inspection]” was discussed. Subsequent numbering and references should be adapted in accordance. This subject will be decided during next meeting.
• Appendix 2: the IWG studied the proposal including a reference on the deficiencies found in the vehicle within the inspection certificate. Although the general feeling was not positive, it was agreed that this subject will be discussed in the next meeting. UK mentioned that it may be useful to have the list of minor deficiencies.
• Appendix 2: NL proposed to have the same numbering in the inspection certificate that the Directive 2014/45/EU. This is as well to be dealt with in the next meeting. RO reminded that countries may issue their national certificate.
• Contracting parties have right to decide which Rules they apply. RO stated that all Rules are to be fulfilled and the NL highlighted the importance of having a clear view on what is actually within the scope of every inspection certificate. JAP understand that both Rules are to be adopted at the same time. RS stated that this is out of the ToR and proposed to ask WP. 29 about guidance. The group showed its support to apply all Rules at the same time.
• JAP stated that their inspection report contains more information than the template of the Appendix 2. They can accept this situation since this is only for circulation, and not for registration in that country.
• Appendix 3: RO proposes to delete “quality assurance” from the 2nd paragraph
• Appendix 3, item 1.2. It was agreed to include the last part of the paragraph in square brackets, to be discussed during next meeting.
• Appendix 3: the word “accredited” is changed by “authorized” in all the text.

Overview of European Commission deliberations on accession to the 1997 Agreement. The Commission has determined that the European Community cannot join the agreement in its present form due to incompatibility with the “acquis communautaire”. Important divergences exist regarding both its technical aspects and its scope of application, rendering the efforts required to align EU and 1997 Agreement provisions prohibitive in light of anticipated benefits.

Discussion about the document PTI-04-04: Accession by the European Community to the UNECE 1997 Agreement (WP.29-145-11)

The group studied the document PTI-04-04 (Informal Document No. WP.29-145-11) containing the evaluation made by the European Commission regarding the accession of the 1997 Agreement.
It seems that the obstacles impeaching the EU to join the 1997 Agreement may be reduced with the current approach and taking into consideration that when that document was issued, the 1997 Agreement only had the Rule 1.

FIN highlighted that including M1 and N1 vehicle categories into the scope of the Rules may facilitate the accession of the EU. The NL considered that talking about other categories like motorcycles or light trailers may add further difficulties.

RS draw the attention to the fact that including new categories is out of the scope of the ToR.
RO expressed that, according to their view, the most important obstacle for the EU to join is the item 2.2 of the document, underlining that the 1997 Agreement is only applicable to international traffic.

Schedule

Mr. Komarov presented the document PTI-04-05 with the schedule of the activities of the IWG.
It was agreed that:

<liRevised proposals for revision 2 to Rule 1 and draft amendments to Rule 2 will be sent to the WP.29 in June;
• Provisions for conformity of periodical technical inspection process shall be completed till November 2016.
• The provisions for conformity of periodical technical inspection process will incorporate amendments to the 1997 Vienna Agreement text and draft Mutual Resolution to cover the subjects listed in the item 8 of the ToR.
• CITA will upload its proposals for Electric/hybrid-electric vehicles and LPG/CNG vehicles inspection to be included in the discussion in next meetings. JAP would like that the Rule on Electric/hybrid vehicles is included in current Rule 2, whereas RUS prefers an independent one. GB suggest to decide on whether it has to be an independent Rule after discussing about the draft.

The performance of automotive systems in conditions other than those tested in the framework of type-approval or self-certification (document WP29-168-15).

The document PTI-04-06 (WP.29-168-15) “The performance of vehicle systems in conditions other than those tested in the framework of type-approval or self-certification” was discussed.

The group agreed to consider this mater once the activities specified in the ToR are fulfilled.

Before closing the meeting, Mr. Komarov thanked all the attendees for such fruitful meeting, and all attendees acknowledged AMSS-CSV for hosting the meeting and for their hospitality.

Representative of the Russian Federation, Co-Chair of the group presented the draft Mutual Resolution of the 1997 Agreement concerning the administrative and technical provisions required for carrying out the technical inspections according to the technical prescriptions specified in Rules (document PTI-05-03). The provisions were harmonized with ones prescribed in the Directive 2014/45/EU and other national legislations.

The draft was generally supported.

It was agreed to amend the title of the document to read “Special Resolution”, since it refers to only Agreement.

RUS noted that term “roadworthiness” is not used in the 1997 Agreement, but mentioned in Rule 1 & 2 and in the draft Special Resolution. It was requested whether the term shall be defined. The group decided to put “roadworthiness” in square brackets and formulate position next meeting.

The results of revision of the draft Special Resolution were reproduced in document PTI-05-09, incorporating inputs from Romania (document PTI-05-07).

It was agreed to submit the revised draft Special Resolution for the 170th session of WP.29.

The results of revision of the draft amendments of the 1997 Agreement (document PTI-04-08) were reproduced in document PTI-05-10.

It was agreed to submit the revised draft amendments of the 1997 Agreement for the 170th session of WP.29.

The documents PTI-05-01 and PTI-05-02, containing the requirements for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles and Gas Propelled Vehicles were presented by CITA and the Russian Federation.

The group agreed that Contracting Parties shall keep the right to apply those prescriptions, and, therefore, the proposal is to have them as additional Rules. It was agreed that reasons for failure should be univocally defined, and those aspects already contained in Rule 1 and 2 shouldn’t be repeated.

Secretariat of the group volunteered to make necessary corrections and submit the documents to the next session.

Representative of the Russian Federation, Co-Chair of the group presented the draft Mutual Resolution of the 1997 Agreement concerning the administrative and technical provisions required for carrying out the technical inspections according to the technical prescriptions specified in Rules (document PTI-05-03). The provisions were harmonized with ones prescribed in the Directive 2014/45/EU and other national legislations.

The draft was generally supported.

It was agreed to amend the title of the document to read “Special Resolution”, since it refers to only Agreement.

RUS noted that term “roadworthiness” is not used in the 1997 Agreement, but mentioned in Rule 1 & 2 and in the draft Special Resolution. It was requested whether the term shall be defined. The group decided to put “roadworthiness” in square brackets and formulate position next meeting.

The results of revision of the draft Special Resolution were reproduced in document PTI-05-09, incorporating inputs from Romania (document PTI-05-07).

It was agreed to submit the revised draft Special Resolution for the 170th session of WP.29.

The results of revision of the draft amendments of the 1997 Agreement (document PTI-04-08) were reproduced in document PTI-05-10.

It was agreed to submit the revised draft amendments of the 1997 Agreement for the 170th session of WP.29.

The documents PTI-05-01 and PTI-05-02, containing the requirements for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles and Gas Propelled Vehicles were presented by CITA and the Russian Federation.

The group agreed that Contracting Parties shall keep the right to apply those prescriptions, and, therefore, the proposal is to have them as additional Rules. It was agreed that reasons for failure should be univocally defined, and those aspects already contained in Rule 1 and 2 shouldn’t be repeated.

Secretariat of the group volunteered to make necessary corrections and submit the documents to the next session.

PTI informal working group draft proposal 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.

PTI informal working group proposal to harmonize the provisions of Rule No. 1 with those of the latest Regulations annexed to the 1958 Agreement and the European Union (EU) Directives.

Revised proposals for draft amendments to Rule 2

The document PTI-04-02 with the proposal of the organization Glass for Europe was discussed. The group preferred not to include the suggestions of this document to keep the Rule 2 as in line as possible with the Directive 2014/45.

The document PTI-04-09 contains the output of the meeting regarding the proposals for draft amendments to Rule 2. It was agreed to send it to the WP.29 as an informal document for the meeting on June 2016.

Draft text to amend the agreement on vehicle technical inspections based on discussions during the May 2016 informal group session.

Revised proposals for revision 2 to Rule 1

Since not all countries identify the emission requirements with “Euro” levels (Roman and Arabic numbering), the group decided to include the words “or equivalent” after the corresponding references. The group decided ask GRPE for support, in the case a more appropriate wording may be used.

The document PTI-04-08 contains the output of the meeting regarding the proposal for revision of Rule 1. It was agreed to send it to the WP.29 as an informal document for the meeting on June 2016.

Proposal for a resolution to establish minimum requirements for a regime of periodic technical inspections of vehicles used on public roads. The resolution details specific administrative and technical provisions for PTI.

Representative of the Russian Federation, Co-Chair of the group presented the draft Mutual Resolution of the 1997 Agreement concerning the administrative and technical provisions required for carrying out the technical inspections according to the technical prescriptions specified in Rules (document PTI-05-03). The provisions were harmonized with ones prescribed in the Directive 2014/45/EU and other national legislations.

The draft was generally supported.

It was agreed to amend the title of the document to read “Special Resolution”, since it refers to only Agreement.

RUS noted that term “roadworthiness” is not used in the 1997 Agreement, but mentioned in Rule 1 & 2 and in the draft Special Resolution. It was requested whether the term shall be defined. The group decided to put “roadworthiness” in square brackets and formulate position next meeting.

The results of revision of the draft Special Resolution were reproduced in document PTI-05-09, incorporating inputs from Romania (document PTI-05-07).

It was agreed to submit the revised draft Special Resolution for the 170th session of WP.29.

The results of revision of the draft amendments of the 1997 Agreement (document PTI-04-08) were reproduced in document PTI-05-10.

It was agreed to submit the revised draft amendments of the 1997 Agreement for the 170th session of WP.29.

The documents PTI-05-01 and PTI-05-02, containing the requirements for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles and Gas Propelled Vehicles were presented by CITA and the Russian Federation.

The group agreed that Contracting Parties shall keep the right to apply those prescriptions, and, therefore, the proposal is to have them as additional Rules. It was agreed that reasons for failure should be univocally defined, and those aspects already contained in Rule 1 and 2 shouldn’t be repeated.

Secretariat of the group volunteered to make necessary corrections and submit the documents to the next session.

Revised proposal by the Informal Working Group on Periodical Technical Inspections based upon the proposal (document WP.29/2013/132/Rev.1) submitted by the Russian Federation and the International Motor Vehicle Inspection Committee (CITA) to harmonize the provisions of Rule No. 1 with those of the latest Regulations annexed to the 1958 Agreement and the European Union (EU) Directives.

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.

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.

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.

The agenda was unanimously adopted. It was decided to start the discussion with the amendments or Rule 1 and Rule 2 to send them to the Secretariat of the WP.29.

Special Resolution No. [x] of the 1997 Agreement concerning the administrative and technical provisions required for carrying out the technical inspections according to the technical prescriptions specified in Rules

Representative of the Russian Federation, Co-Chair of the group presented the draft Mutual Resolution of the 1997 Agreement concerning the administrative and technical provisions required for carrying out the technical inspections according to the technical prescriptions specified in Rules (document PTI-05-03). The provisions were harmonized with ones prescribed in the Directive 2014/45/EU and other national legislations.

The draft was generally supported.

It was agreed to amend the title of the document to read “Special Resolution”, since it refers to only Agreement.

RUS noted that term “roadworthiness” is not used in the 1997 Agreement, but mentioned in Rule 1 & 2 and in the draft Special Resolution. It was requested whether the term shall be defined. The group decided to put “roadworthiness” in square brackets and formulate position next meeting.

The results of revision of the draft Special Resolution were reproduced in document PTI-05-09, incorporating inputs from Romania (document PTI-05-07).

It was agreed to submit the revised draft Special Resolution for the 170th session of WP.29.

The results of revision of the draft amendments of the 1997 Agreement (document PTI-04-08) were reproduced in document PTI-05-10.

It was agreed to submit the revised draft amendments of the 1997 Agreement for the 170th session of WP.29.

The documents PTI-05-01 and PTI-05-02, containing the requirements for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles and Gas Propelled Vehicles were presented by CITA and the Russian Federation.

The group agreed that Contracting Parties shall keep the right to apply those prescriptions, and, therefore, the proposal is to have them as additional Rules. It was agreed that reasons for failure should be univocally defined, and those aspects already contained in Rule 1 and 2 shouldn’t be repeated.

Secretariat of the group volunteered to make necessary corrections and submit the documents to the next session.