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• ● The example used by the vehicle manufacturers as justification (part added to a motor bike) was no longer applicable in today’s legislative environment.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.

5. The expert from OICA presented GRRF-72-03 on the conversion of vehicles already covered by a type approval on braking. GRRF did not support the proposed conversion of vehicles with an electronic stability function. It was recommended that, in particular, the retrofitting with ESC of vehicles after their first registration should be a matter of national or regional legislation. The expert from OICA volunteered to prepare a revised proposal for consideration at the next session of GRRF.

6. The expert from CLEPA introduced GRRF-72-17 proposing to clarify the use of a test report according to Annex 19 to prove compliance of a vehicle stability function. The expert from OICA proposed to clarify the exemptions listed in footnote 12/ of Regulation No. 13 with respect to the mandatory equipment of vehicles with a stability function (GRRF-72-01 tabled jointly by CLCCR, CLEPA and OICA). GRRF noted a number of concerns. It was agreed to resume consideration of these subjects at its next session on the basis of revised proposals.

7. In the absence of a new proposal, GRRF agreed to remove item 3(a)(iii) from the agenda.