Report
Download
1 / 23

Report ERRU Working Group - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 145 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

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


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