Participants Board Flensburg, 20 September 2011 Herman Grooters (RDW / NL)

1. EUCARIS Developments ERRU, RESPER, CoC Participants Board Flensburg, 20 September 2011 Herman Grooters (RDW / NL) Project Manager EUCARIS

2. EUCARIS ERRU

3. ERRU – Introduction • ERRU: European Registration of Road transport Undertakings • Exchange based on Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 and 1213/2010 • Infringements – Member States communicate information on infringements committed by operators (+ sanctions) 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. • Messages • Infringement notification • Infringement response • Search request regarding the fitness of transport manager • Search response

4. ERRU – System architecture EUCARIS ERRU central system Member State Member State Central hub Member State Member State

5. ERRU – Additional work • EC requires weekly statistics on information exchange • Statistics must include figures on availability and performance • Especially information on penalties resulting from notifications of infringements abroad is interesting (notification response) • EUCARIS has to: • Calculate its own statistics per MS • Consolidate these (anonym) statistics at the secretary state in a weekly ‘report’ • Communicate this weekly report to the central system via a specific message • Consequences for EUCARIS: • Adaptation of the logging (inclusion of performance figures, relation between asynchronous request and response message) • Development of a new service to communicate the weekly statistics with the EC

6. ERRU – Time schedule • 16-12-2010: Publication of Regulation 1213/2010 on interconnection • From April 2011: development broker • July 2011: ERRU technical documentation finalised • From September 2011: development of EUCARIS ERRU services • 04-12-2011: Regulation 1071/2009 will enter into force • National Registers set up; public access organised • NCPs appointed • National legal measures communicated with EC • January 2012: start of deployment EUCARIS ERRU services (release 7.0) • From June 2012: tests EUCARIS MS with central hub • 31-12-2012: Interconnection of registers • 01-01-2013: Start of check good repute by using ERRU

7. EUCARIS RESPER

8. Resper - Introduction • Legal framework: Third Driving Licence Directive (2006/126/EC) • Aims: a.o. stimulation of cross-border exchange of information by realisation of a European network (Resper) • Main goal: to prevent the issue of a DL to an applicant who already has a valid EU Driving Licence • Approach: Check via a search by name and date of birth in case there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant already holds a DL formerly issued in another EU State;

9. Results of further studies • The EC in co-operation with an Expert Group of representatives from the MS has prepared a questionnaire to solve a series of problems: • First issue: ‘reasonable grounds’ • In what situations will MS check in the other countries? Consequently: what load (number of inquiries) may we expect?Outcome: the interpretation of ‘reasonable grounds’ is up to the Member States; NL: applicants who lived outside NL preceding the application; professional drivers; people with an ended sanction (5% of the cases)Expected load: uncertain; EC investigated several scenarios; a peak load of 2 inquiries per second in each state is expected; EC requires that EUCARIS can deal with up to 25 million inquiries in each MS yearly;

10. Resper – Architecture • Second issue: the system architecture: • The EC has indicated to accept the use of EUCARIS. States will have a free choice between EUCARIS and access via a central hub (TACHOnet-like architecture). • EUCARIS and RESPER will be linked by a broker; we will use the same solution as in ERRU • EC has indicated not to install any Central Index

11. EUCARIS – TACHOnet Integrated Architecture High level connection of ‘distributed bus’ and ‘hub and spoke’ models EUCARIS TACHOnet Member State Member State Central hub Member State Member State

12. Resper – Search by name • Third issue: search by name • EC has indicated that probably a phonetic search algorithm will be usedNo final proposal yet! • This algorithm will be mandatory for all • Basic idea:Suppose a country searches for mrs. BlomThen first we calculate a key; e.g. the Phonex key, mainly based on the consonants in the name => B4500Result of the search through Europe could be: • From Sweden: mrs. Bløm => OK, only the diacritical character is different; further investigation necessary • From Italy: mrs. Paolini => quite different, but the same Phonex key! • From NL: we would not get mrs. Blom e/v Jansen (key = B4512) although this is actually the same person, but married meanwhile • Conclusion: we will miss hits (false negatives) but also get false positives causing a lot of manual work

13. Resper – filtering • Proposal: we need a ‘filter’ mechanism indicating the probability that a requested person and a provided person are the same. Example: • Request: Blom; Maria; female; 10-05-1954; Rotterdam; id = 12ab34cd56ef • Sweden: Bløm; Maria; female; 10-05-1954; ?; ? => 96% • Italy: Paolini; Maria; female; 10-05-1954; Rotterdam; ? => 27% • Conclusion: the requesting process will decide based on the calculated probability how to process the results: • A DL issuing process might work with a short list and skip all hits with probability < 95%;consequently this process will automatically skip Paolini and select Bløm for further investigations in a manual procedure (e.g. extra info by email) • A police search might always process the long list and examine all candidates by manual procedure;consequently this process will examine both Paolini and Bløm

14. RESPER filter module Member States DL Index EUCARIS EUCARIS Key ; MCI Requestingprocess Providingprocess Filter Filter Addition of probability DL Reg

15. RESPER time schedule • 1-10-2011: RESPER interface (message specifications) and Network and Security Reference Guide available (delivered by Siemens) • November 2011: EUCARIS documentation available • January 2012 - May 2012: development of the RESPER services within the EUCARIS application; • June 2012: start of implementation of the EUCARIS interface in the MS • October 2011 - June 2012: system adaptations and implementation in the Member States • July - December 2012: Testing with the Central Hub • 19-01-2013: RESPER operational

16. EUCARIS CoC

17. CoC; Summary European legislation (a.o. Directive 2007/46/EC) European Directives and interpretative communications Registration is based on the valid CoC Manufacturers are obliged to deliver a CoC with the vehicle The manufacturer may deliver the CoC info to the Registration Authority via electronic means Member States are only allowed to register a vehicle if a valid CoC is present The CoC should be sufficient to admit the vehicle and to issue a Vehicle Licence Refusal of a CoC is not allowed unless…. New vehicles with a type approval have to be registered based on the valid CoC; MS may not refuse this. 17

18. Other CoC databases MS Vehicle Reg. Manufacturer EUCARIS Manufacturer Manufacturer Internet Present, valid? CoCs Type Approvals Manufacturer Vehicle Registration Registration process Information 18

19. Open issues Concept: Based on market: logically: 1 CoC database per MS; technically: joint effort: some MS might use a common database Based on manufacturers: each manufacturer has 1 database for the entire EU Based on TA Authority: each manufacturer has 1 or several databases, depending on the TAA Communication Manufacturers => CoC database via internet Communication between EU MS no problem => new EUCARIS services If several ‘central’ CoC databases are created (+ CoC registers at some manufacturers) should EUCARIS deal with addressing the right database? Or do we perform a MCI (broadcasting), checking at different places Or do we forward a CoC meant for another country to the CoC database in that country 19

20. Current status Cooperation: EReg participants have gathered in June 2011 on this topic At least eight countries are very much interested in a joint development of a series of distributed CoC databases EReg is now asked to install a new topic-group or a subgroup in one of the existing TGs We will cooperate with the TAAM (association of Type Approval Authories) Approach: Definition of a harmonized CoC XML message; status: first draft almost ready (proposal by KBA and RDW) First reactions of manufacturers are positive EC will be informed and involved; possibly we will ask for adaptation of the legislation; we start on voluntary basis Time schedule: Next meeting: beginning of November Developments EUCARIS next year 20

21. EUCARIS Other developments

22. Other developments • Mileage: • Waiting for development of a national network in Belgium linking DIV and Carpass • Legal framework not decided yet • Luxembourg possibly interested • PTI: • On hold; waiting for development of a decentralised Vehicle Platform in relation to CoC • Could become an extension of the planned exchange of vehicle data (CoC) from manufacturers to RAs, at first registration • No meetings with FSD yet • Crossborder exchange of O/H for the collection of parking fines: • Possibly based on @@@@/EC; legal possibilities investigated • VIN-cube • In development; able to read VINs from all electronic systems of vehicles (e.g. airbags); • it can be checked with the regular EUCARIS vehicle Inquiry by VIN whether one of the systems originates from a stolen vehicle