130. The expert from the Russian Federation presented GRVA-16-20, introducing GRVA 16-19 and informing GRVA on the outcome of the assessment of UN Regulations under the purview of GRVA with regards to the use of the Unique Identifier (UI). He stated that the review was done, assuming that the concept of UI would be realized and activated in the Database for the Exchange of Type Approval documentation (DETA).

131. The expert from the Netherlands recalled their position and their doubts regarding the UI concept.

132. The expert from CITA presented GRVA-16-44 in response to GRVA-16-20, recalling the initial justification for using the concept of UI, i.e. issues related to space on automotive products which was not always sufficient to put multiple markings. He stated that there was no benefit of using UI for any of the regulations under the purview of GRVA, as there were no space issues. He concluded that using UI as an alternative to the current approval marking would not support harmonization of providing information.

133. The Chair recalled the underlying idea of UI, being to replace the current approval marks in a long-term perspective to achieve global harmonization of information sharing in the future.

134. The expert from the Russian Federation agreed that UI did not have many benefits for the time being. He stated that, to date, it was not foreseeable how much time the implementation of UI in DETA would take. He mentioned the potential UI benefits in the future. He stated that he neither supported nor objected to the use of UI.

135. The Secretary informed GRVA of the possible procedures that could be used to translate the positions expressed into concrete action, e.g. amending Schedule 5 of the 1958 Agreement accordingly.

136. The expert from OICA agreed with CITA and stated that there was mainly a benefit of UI for small parts, not for the whole vehicle. He welcomed the option presented by the Secretary and suggested to put UI on hold for the moment.

137. The expert from CLEPA supported the statement by the Chair and suggested to devote more time for evaluating benefits and problems of UI, which were not foreseen at the time of drafting Schedule 5, before the practical implementation of UI. He stated that CLEPA did not support nor object putting UI on hold.

138. The expert from UK highlighted that GRVA should consider the long-term benefits and should not be concerned about the current circumstances.

139. GRVA agreed to approach WP.29 and AC.2 for guidance on how to proceed and to inform them about the different views and difficulties presented.