RKVY/PKVY/CHC Scheme & FMTTI Test Report Rules

The question we're asked most

When a manufacturer or a dealer comes to us about a Custom Hiring Centre (CHC) application, or about getting a machine listed for RKVY or PKVY-linked subsidy, the conversation almost always lands on the same point: does this machine have a valid FMTTI test report, and is it still current?

That's the general pattern across these schemes. Subsidy and procurement guidelines for farm machinery routinely ask buyers, dealers or implementing agencies to show that a machine has been tested at a recognised government institute before it's eligible to be purchased with scheme support. A test report from one of the four FMTTIs — or from one of the identified testing centres working to the same framework — is usually the document that satisfies that requirement.

We want to be precise about what we can tell you here: the exact eligibility wording differs from scheme to scheme, year to year, and sometimes state to state, so we're not going to invent a specific RKVY or PKVY clause. What we can walk through is what "a valid FMTTI test report" actually means in practice, because that part is consistent regardless of which scheme is asking for it.

What "valid" actually means

An FMTTI report isn't valid forever. It carries a fixed validity period that depends on machinery category — an Initial Commercial Test (ICT) report is good for a set number of years, after which a Batch Test is needed to keep the machine eligible.

If a scheme or a CHC tender asks for "a valid FMTTI report," this is the table that answers it. A report that's within its ICT window, or has a current Batch Test behind it, is current; one that's lapsed needs re-testing before it can be used to support a new application.

Getting the report the application will point to

Because the report itself is the qualifying document, it's worth getting the application right the first time. The institutes work to a fixed documentation list — the application form, technical specification, operator's and service manuals, parts catalogue, photographs and drawings, all submitted in multiple sets, plus (for power tillers) a valid CMVR certificate and emission certificate. An application missing any of that is rejected outright rather than held pending correction, so it pays to have everything assembled before you file.

From there the process runs through the institute's own portal: application, scrutiny, correction if needed, fee payment, allocation of a test officer, the physical test itself, a draft report, your comments on it, and a final report released once those comments are addressed. Every stage generates an alert to the applicant, so there's no guessing where things stand.

Where we fit in

This is where AgPro's work sits. We guide manufacturers and dealers through exactly that documentation and process — getting the specification format right for the machine category, coordinating the application and fee steps, and liaising with the institute on timing. We don't test the machine. The physical testing, the readings, the draft and final report are entirely FMTTI's own engineers' work, done at the institute. Our job is making sure nothing in the paperwork or process stands between a manufacturer and the report their CHC or RKVY/PKVY application needs.

If you're not sure whether your machine's existing report is still inside its validity window, or what format a particular scheme wants it submitted in, that's worth checking against the scheme's own current guidelines — they do vary — before you plan a procurement timeline around it.