63. The representative from Germany reported, on behalf of the Chair of IWG on DETA, on the thirty-sixth meeting of IWG on DETA. He mentioned the number of contracting parties that had already notified the secretariat about a DETA Focal Point and have access to the database. He presented the ongoing work and expected timelines. He informed WP.29 that an automated upload functionality was under consideration and that a news area had been added to allow for the exchange of information between approval authorities of contracting parties.

64. The representative from the Russian Federation highlighted the positive developments with DETA, however some technical problems were encountered when introducing new information. The representative from Germany proposed to directly get in contact with their agency, Kraftfahrt Bundesamt, where DETA is currently hosted. The representative of Switzerland reported that when they had experienced similar problems with DETA, they had immediately been solved once they had contacted the German Agency.

65. WP.29 encouraged GRs to review the question raised by IWG on DETA concerning the application of the Unique Identifier (UI) together with markings and to provide guidance on how to proceed based on two options:

• Option 1: Using UI and keep installation marking and information on the part;
• Option 2: Using UI only for the approval marking and providing open access to the communication document, which would also contain the necessary installation marking.

66. The delegate from Finland expressed their support for option 2 that allowed open access to the type approval communication forms in DETA, while the representative from Switzerland supported option 1 as the E-mark including installation marking and information was well known and removed the necessity to retrieve information from DETA, which could not be always feasible. The delegate from Austria supported by the expert from FIA, highlighted the need to have information on the installation of a part during the whole lifetime of the vehicle as this would be important for cases when replacement parts were used as well as for Periodic Technical Inspections (PTI) or individual approvals of vehicles.

67. The representative from ETRTO noted that free access to DETA could lead to misinterpretation of communication forms and therefore the issue needed to be discussed further, which found support from by the representative of OICA, who also noted potential server overload and security issues.

68. The delegate from Germany clarified that DETA was already designed so that different levels of access were provided and that the communication form was different to the Declaration of Conformance (DoC). He proposed that the GRs should identify the content of the communication form to avoid issues of intellectual property rights.