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.