Working text for revisions to the 1958 Agreement in order to enable the use of the electronic data exchange system for type approvals under development.

Dutch discussion paper arguing that the DETA system unique identifier should not be mandatory under IWVTA.

Proposal from the Netherlands on behalf of the Database for the Exchange of Type Approval information (DETA) informal group. Similar to the decision to delete Commercial Name from the Document of Conformance (DoC), the DETA group proposes to remove the “Make” (i.e., trade name) and “Location of VIN”.

Revision 3 of the 1958 Agreement allows for a Unique Identifier (UI) under the DETA system as an alternative to the current approval mark. In the case of child restraint systems, the approval mark contains important information for users. Therefore, this proposal would prohibit replacement of the approval mark by the UI.

E-mail from RDW (DETA informal group chair) conveying questions and comments from ETRTO to GTB.

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to remove the prohibition on use the Unique Identifier per the WP.29 decision to change the default application of the UI from a requirement (requiring prohibition in cases where UI does not apply) to a permission (requiring an affirmative statement that UI may be used under a Regulation).

Proposal to delete the Unique Identifier (UI) marking provisions.