slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Report ERRU Working Group

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Report ERRU Working Group - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 150 Views
  • Uploaded on

Report ERRU Working Group. Brussels, 11 November 2009 Rapporteurs: Cathy Jenkins UK / Department for Transport Idske Dijkstra NL / Vehicle and Driving Licence Reg. Auth. Content. Introduction Results meeting 3 July 2009 Results meeting 23 September 2009 Work to do. Introduction.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Report ERRU Working Group ' - hollye


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Report

ERRU Working Group

Brussels, 11 November 2009

Rapporteurs:

Cathy Jenkins UK / Department for Transport

Idske Dijkstra NL / Vehicle and Driving Licence Reg. Auth.

content
Content
  • Introduction
  • Results meeting 3 July 2009
  • Results meeting 23 September 2009
  • Work to do
introduction
Introduction
  • One of the new elements in the “Road Package” is the creation of ERRU
  • European Register of Road Transport Undertakings
    • To enhance cooperation and communication between MS
    • To better monitor undertakings and their transport managers
    • To take into account serious infringements in other MS than MS of establishment
  • On 10 June 2009 CATP Committee confirmed creation of ERRU Working Group
    • To ensure a timely introduction of ERRU
    • To monitor its functioning once it is up and running
  • Work under auspices of the Advisory committee according to Article 25 of Regulation …../2009 [access to profession]
  • First meeting 3 July 2009
  • Basis for discussion
    • Terms of Reference ERRU Working Group as submitted to Committee
    • Feasibility Study carried out by EC with assistance of TUNER
    • Draft Regulations
introduction terms of reference
Introduction / Terms of Reference
  • Working Group overall objectives
    • To ensure a timely introduction of ERRU
    • To monitor its functioning once it is up and running
  • Working Group Specific objectives, tasks and scope
    • To establish common understanding on the Regulation’s provisions
    • To develop a user friendly, practicable and reliable network
      • Potential further developments should be taken into account
      • Possible synergies with other exchange systems should be used
    • To support the Commission in preparing implementing measures
      • Preparation of the decision on the minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the electronic registers of Member States (Art. 16(1))
      • Preparation of the common rules in the implementation of the interconnection of the registers, e.g. on the format of data, logging and monitoring (Art. 16(6))
    • Setting of a timetable and milestones for Commission and Member States
meeting 3 july 2009
Meeting 3 July 2009

Agenda

  • Objective, working method and work program
  • Presentation on the legal background
  • Responsible national authorities
  • Outcome of the Tuner Study
    • Review of user and business requirements
    • Discussion of message structure
    • Technical concept
  • Presentation of draft Commission decision on minimal structure
  • Project time line and appointment of rapporteur(s) – Idske Dijkstra NL / RDW and Cathy Jenkins (UK DfT)
4 tuner study information exchange
4. TUNER Study / Information Exchange

Based on the proposed Regulation  two sorts of information exchange

  • Infringements – Member States communicate information on infringements committed by operators and any sanctions they have imposed back to the Member State which issued their licence
  • Good repute - Member States consult relevant information held by all other States to assist them in deciding whether or not to issue or renew an operator’s licence.
4 tuner study recommendations
4. TUNER Study / Recommendations
  • None of the existing systems studied are able to support the ERRU functionality without further modification.
  • The recommended architectural design is similar to that used by TACHOnet (client / server, intelligent router, centralised).
4 tuner study points raised on 3 july
4. Tuner Study / Points raised on 3 July
  • Requirements about enforcement ignored
  • Results Gartner on EUCARIS appear to have been ignored
  • Outcome TUNER different from outcome Gartner
  • Not all architecture options have been studied to same detail - EUCARIS wrongly considered as peer-to-peer architecture
  • Costs and benefits give overview of scale but all options not studied to same detail – particularly EUCARIS
  • Considerable discussion around reasons for TUNER recommending TACHOnet architecture as the most optimal – some MS not convinced
  • Commission decides to come back on the technical concept in the next meeting
slide12

5. Draft Commission Decision on minimal structure

  • Transport undertaking
  • Address
  • Authorisation
  • Transport manager
  • Legal representative of transport manager
  • Infringement
  • Loss of good repute disproportionate response
  • Unfit person
6 project time line
6. Project Time Line
  • 03.07.09: First meeting of ERRU WG .
  • 01.09.09: Comments for the preparation of next meeting
  • 23.09.09: Second meeting of ERRU WG  Decision minimum requirements for data to be entered in register, Structure of messages, Data protection issues
  • Sep/Oct 09: Probable publication of road package legislation
  • Oct 09: Committee meeting
  • Nov 09: Third meeting of ERRU WG
  • 31.12.09: Decision on minimum requirements for register
  • Jan 10: Start of Complementary study on technical specifications  External contractor
  • Jun 10: Rules on interoperability ready
  • Oct 10: Committee meeting (vote)
  • Dec 10: Start Test phase (18 to 24 months)
  • 31.12.10: Adoption of rules on interoperability
  • Oct 11: Application of road package: register has to be implemented
  • 31.12.12: Interconnection of registers + assessing fitness of manager
  • 31.12.15: All serious infringements in register
homework next meeting
Homework next meeting
  • To comment message structure
  • To comment draft decision
  • To consult national data protection officers about ERRU
  • To keep Commission informed about possible national issues in this
  • To discuss minimal response times
  • To find solutions for the name search problem
meeting 23 september 2009
Meeting 23 September 2009

Agenda

  • Recording of vehicle registration numbers / Presentation by the UK
  • Discussion of draft Commission Decision on minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the national electronic register of road transport undertakings
    • Discussion of comments submitted by Member States
  • Discussion of the message structure
    • Discussion of comments submitted by Member States
  • Discussion on the technical concept for ERRU
1 recording of vehicle registration number
1. Recording of vehicle registration number
  • Presentation by UK of benefits of the inclusion of the vehicle registration marks in the national ERRU
  • Conclusion Commission:
    • Registration number is vital for UK
    • Responsibility of each MS on the most appropriate national system
    • Registration number is included as a data field to be included in national registers but completion included as optional in Commission Decision on minimum requirements for the data to be entered in the national ERRU
2 discussion draft commission decision on minimum requirements
2. Discussion draft Commission Decisionon minimum requirements
  • Decision has to be adopted before the end of the year
  • Discussion of comments submitted by Member States
  • New version
  • Changes
    • Derived data not necessary
    • IT, DK, NL, DE  prefer only absolutely minimum set of data
    • Start and expiry date of the licence publicly accessible
    • Inclusion of executed administrative penalties  still to be concluded
3 discussion on the message structure
3. Discussion on the message structure
  • Messages to be concluded at the end of next year
  • Discussion of comments submitted by Member States
  • New versions
    • Infringement notification
    • Infringement response
    • Search request
    • Search response
    • Acknowledgement
3 discussion on the message structure1
3. Discussion on the message structure
  • Outcome
    • IT, DK, NL, DE  prefer only absolutely minimum set of data
    • Necessity “Infringement response message” was disputed but Regulation provide explicitly for such a feedback
    • Use of Community licence serial number for the identification of the transport undertaking
    • For the “Search request” use the serial number of the certificate of professional competence + country + date of issuance
    • In the “Search response” include number of vehicles and number of undertakings managed  verify compliance Art. 4.2.c. of the operator regulation
    • New version to be circulated by Commission
    • MS should check number of Community licence and CPC  double numbering
4 discussion on the technical concept for erru
4. Discussion on the technical concept for ERRU
  • Technical concept needs to be clear in June 2010
  • Different options  EUCARIS and TACHOnet
  • TACHOnet
    • used in 31 MS
    • for exchange of TACHOcard information
  • EUCARIS
    • is used in 18 MS
    • for exchange of vehicle-, owner/holder-, driver licence- and insurance information
    • from August 2011 in all MS
4 discussion on the technical concept for erru1
4. Discussion on the technical concept for ERRU
  • Currently Commission is discussing solution together with EUCARIS for the exchange of driving licence information

Guiding principles ERRU

  • Proportionate to needs of all MS
  • No duplication of existing systems
  • Commission has its responsibility

Conclusions

  • For ERRU Member States have a choice between EUCARIS or TACHOnet
  • MS can communicate directly with each other via EUCARIS or indirectly via TACHOnet
  • MS ask for information on both systems
work to do
Work to do
  • By the end of the year: Draft decision minimum requirements
  • Distribution of information on TACHOnet / EUCARIS
  • June 2010: Elaboration technical concept TACHOnet /EUCARIS
  • By the end of next year: Message structure
ad