10. The secretariat of the informal group on an Alternative Method to assess the vehicle Electronic Vehicle Stability Control system (AMEVSC) introduced GRRF-71-03 supplementing ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/94. The expert from Germany expressed in GRRF-71-21 legal concerns over the general approach of the alternative method to assess ESC as proposed by ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/94. The expert from EC was not of this opinion and proposed to discuss this issue at the European level, and if needed, raise the matter at the WP.29 level. In conclusion, GRRF adopted GRRF-71-03, as reproduced in Annex III, and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1, as amendment to ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2011/94, for consideration at their November 2011 sessions.

11. The AMEVSC Chair reported on the progress made by his group (GRRF-71-20) from the last GRRF session. GRRF noted that the next meeting was scheduled to be held on 18 October 2011 and that a proposal on simulation tools should be submitted to GRRF for consideration at its February 2012 session.

12. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2011/36 clarifying that, for converted vehicles, the ESC test report may only be used with the agreement of the holder of the original vehicle braking approval. The AMEVSC secretariat proposed in GRRF-71-15 that only information to the manufacturer of the original braking system approval should be provided. GRRF agreed to consider again this issue at its next session on the basis of a revised text from CLEPA and OICA combining the two proposals.

13. The expert from OICA presented GRRF-71-17 on ESC exemptions. GRRF agreed in principle to move the ESC exemptions from footnote 12 to the core text of the Regulation. However, GRRF could not reach a final decision on the additional exemptions proposed in GRRF-71-17. GRRF agreed to reconsider the matter at its February 2012 session on the basis of a revised proposal by the expert from OICA.

14. The expert from Australia proposed in GRRF-71-08 to include in Regulation No. 13 the mandatory installation of ESC for N1 vehicles. The preliminary view from GRRF was that Contracting Parties can already apply ESC to N1 vehicles (by virtue of para 5.2.1.33.) or through Regulation R13-H. It was suggested that Australia consider comments and, if necessary, raise this subject again at the February 2012 session.

In reviewing AMEVSC-07-01e in light of the comments, and input from Russia, at the September 2011 session of GRRF the group concluded that it could no longer support GRRF-71-15 or any similar proposals.

The basis for this decision was:

• ● The example used by the vehicle manufacturers as justification (part added to a motor bike) was no longer applicable in today’s legislative environment. The motor bike had been built in 1977, the accident was in 1978, and the decision was made in a German court in 1986 based on health/medical legislation.

• ● Ability to enforce any such requirements

• ● Conflict of interests – the vehicle manufacturer holding the original type approval could also be able to provide the same type of vehicle as that being offered by the converter

The secretary was asked to inform OICA (the originator of GRRF/2011/36) and the Russian representative to GRRF of this decision.

Note: A new proposal (GRRF-72-03e) has been made by OICA for consideration at the February 2012 session of GRRF.