ISO/TR 19639:2015

TECHNICAL ISO/TR
REPORT 19639
First edition
2015-10-01
Electronic fee collection —
Investigation of EFC standards for
common payment schemes for multi-
modal transport services
Perception du télépéage — Recherche sur les normes de perception du
télépéage pour des schémas de paiement communs pour les services
multimodaux de transport
Reference number
©
ISO 2015
© ISO 2015, Published in Switzerland
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior
written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below or ISO’s member body in the country of
the requester.
ISO copyright office
Ch. de Blandonnet 8 • CP 401
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland
Tel. +41 22 749 01 11
Fax +41 22 749 09 47
copyright@iso.org
www.iso.org
ii © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Abbreviations. 3
5 Background and context . 3
5.1 Various EFC systems . 3
5.2 Consideration of EFC architecture and models. 4
5.2.1 General. 4
5.2.2 Role model (ISO 17573:2010) . 4
5.2.3 Comparison . 5
5.3 Consideration of different account type systems . 6
6 Consideration of On-board account EFC . 6
6.1 Role model . 6
6.2 Computational architecture . 7
6.2.1 Central account EFC . 7
6.2.2 On-board account EFC . 7
6.3 EFC system behaviour for On-board account EFC including payment means . 8
6.3.1 EFC Architecture standard (ISO 17573:2010) . 8
7 Consideration for multi-modal transport services .10
7.1 General .10
7.2 System architecture for Payment means issued in EFC regime (Case 1) .11
7.2.1 Computational architecture .11
7.2.2 Architecture of EFC systems for common payment scheme .12
7.3 System architecture for Payment means issued in Public transport regimes (Case 2) .14
7.3.1 Computational architecture .14
7.3.2 Architecture of EFC systems for common payment scheme .14
7.4 System architecture for Payment means issued in Electronic money regimes (Case 3) .16
7.4.1 Computational architecture .16
7.4.2 Architecture of EFC systems for common payment scheme .16
8 Conclusions and recommendations .18
8.1 General .18
8.2 Main findings .18
8.3 Recommendations for the EFC architecture standard (ISO 17573:2010) .19
8.4 Recommendations for new work items.20
8.4.1 Application interface for reloading .20
8.4.2 Information exchange between Toll service provider and Payment
Means Issuer . .20
8.4.3 Requirements of Payment means for EFC use .20
Annex A (informative) Various EFC systems .22
Annex B (informative) Examples of EFC systems using payment means .23
Annex C (informative) Examples of Multi-modal transport services in operation.28
Annex D (informative) Open payment system for common central payment.30
Annex E (informative) Examples of the common usage of payment means .32
Bibliography .34
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www.iso.org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions related to conformity
assessment, as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the WTO principles in the Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) see the following URL: Foreword - Supplementary information
The committee responsible for this document is ISO/TC 204, Intelligent transport systems.
iv © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Introduction
On-board account payment means are used, e.g., in public transport systems and in some electronic fee
collection (EFC) systems. It is expected that the deployment of on-board account payment scheme will
grow, as it has little dependence on the communication network and as it potentially can provide users
with a common payment means for a range of multi-modal transport services.
This Technical Report (TR) provides an analysis of the specific requirements of common payment
schemes within the framework of EFC systems as outlined in the existing EFC standards. The Technical
Report does this by providing more specific information about the Payment means (such as IC cards)
and the interfaces between Payment means and the other parts of an EFC system (see e.g. the previous
edition of the ISO/TS 17573:2003). Payment means and Payment means Issuer are described in
ISO 17573:2010, the latest version of the EFC architecture role model, hence allowing for the usage of
the Payment means of the EFC On-board account for payment for other services. This Technical Report
provides for an additional information (e.g. requirements, descriptions) relevant to the role of Payment
means Issuer and information flows.
The motivation for this Technical Report is as follows:
— On-board account based EFC systems using payment means are widely adopted in many countries
in Asia. In several of these countries, payment means are already used or planned to be used for
both for the EFC and for the public transport services.
— Central account based EFC systems are widely adopted in many European countries and in the USA.
Payment means used in such EFC systems can also be used in the common payment scheme (i.e. for
the payment for other services).
Though there is a description of interaction between Toll charging environment and Financial system
in the ISO 17573:2010, to provide for the On-board account EFC system used in the common payment
schemes, additional information, relevant to the interactions between the Financial system and the Toll
charging environment (i.e. interface between the Toll charging environment and objects outside of this
environment), is required.
The following are the envisaged benefits of the common usage of payment means in ITS and EFC services:
— greater convenience of transport usage both for EFC and for public transport;
— enhanced multi-modal transport, more cost-effective, efficient and environmentally friendly.
TECHNICAL REPORT ISO/TR 19639:2015(E)
Electronic fee collection — Investigation of EFC
standards for common payment schemes for multi-modal
transport services
1 Scope
Common payment scheme for multi-modal transport services, such as toll roads and public transport,
are implemented all over the world. These systems are often based on a common payment medium, e.g.
IC cards, for use in more than one transport service. The aim of this Technical Report is to analyse the
existing set of EFC standards for their suitability for using common payment media for multi-modal
transport services, where applicable identify standardisation gaps and to make proposals for such EFC
standardisation projects. This includes definition of additional information to be exchanged among the
related entities and to define the specific requirements for common payment scheme.
The scope of this Technical Report includes:
— investigation of a suitable model for EFC systems and other transport services;
— identification of the required interface definitions between the EFC and the public transport services
including e-money services;
— identification of additional needs for additional EFC related information exchange among the
related entities;
— provision of guiding information to be considered in revisions of EFC standards.
The scope includes all types of EFC systems, i.e. including both DSRC based EFC and autonomous EFC
systems, and both pre-pay type and post-pay type.
Service related information of both public transport and e-money are outside the scope of this
Technical Report.
2 Normative references
None.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
3.1
central account
payment means, e.g. electronic values or number of passages in an EFC system, stored in a central
system operated by the Toll Service Provider
3.2
clearing house
organisation re-allocating value generated in the payment system between the various actors, enabling
these actors to execute settlement
3.3
EFC architecture
description of the key elements of an EFC system, their functions, and the interrelationships among the
elements
[SOURCE: ISO 22902-1:2006, 3.1.8 modified]
3.4
EFC information exchange
exchange of EFC related information between EFC actors
3.5
electronic-money
value having its equivalence in real money, electronically stored e.g. on a bank account or an IC-card,
which thus can be used by the user for payments
3.6
fare collection regime
set of rules, including enforcement rules, governing the fare system in the public transport domain
3.7
integrated circuit card
IC card
card containing electronic components performing processing or memory functions and with the
capability to communicate with an interrogator
Note 1 to entry: Contact IC cards are specified in the ISO/IEC 7816 suite of standards, contactless proximity
IC cards are specified in the ISO/IEC 14443 suite of standards, contactless near-field communication IC cards
are specified in ISO/IEC 18092 and ISO/IEC 21481, whereas contactless vicinity IC cards are specified in
ISO/IEC 15693 suite of standards.
Note 2 to entry: All references to an IC card are understood to be references to the IC of the card and not to any
other storage on the card (e.g. magnetic stripe).
3.8
issuer
entity responsible for issuing the payment means to the user
3.9
on-board account
payment means, e.g. electronic values, tokens or evidence of passage in an EFC system, stored on-board
the payment media held by the user, such as on-board equipment or an IC card
3.10
payment means
value (e.g. cash or stored electronic values), a reference to a central account or a credit card account
number or a contract (e.g. a ticket) that gives the user access to available services
3.11
payment medium
the carrier of payment means, such as paper ticket, IC-card, smart phone or on-board unit (OBU)
3.12
prebilling operator
entity for clearing of billing data and for informing on payment claims to issuers
3.13
public transport services
shared passenger transport service which is available for use by the general public, such as buses,
trams or trains
2 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

3.14
toll regime
set of rules, including enforcement rules, governing the collection of toll in a toll domain
[SOURCE: ISO 17573: 2010, 3.20]
4 Abbreviations
DSRC Dedicated Short Range Communications
EFC Electronic Fee Collection
ETC Electronic Toll Collection
ERP Electronic Road Pricing
ITS Intelligent Transport Systems
OBU On-Board Unit
ODP Open Distributed Processing
RUC Road User Charging
HGV Heavy Good Vehicle
ICC Integrated Circuit card, IC card
WAN Wide Area Network
5 Background and context
5.1 Various EFC systems
EFC systems have been introduced all over the world and have become one of the fundamental
services of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). Regardless of the same type of the service provided,
the technical and operational aspects across the existing EFC systems vary (e.g. classification of the
charging methods for the DSRC based systems and autonomous systems or account methods for the
Central account and On-board account).
A comparison between European EFC and Asian EFC is provided in Table 1.
— In Europe, both DSRC based and Autonomous systems are in operation. In Asia, currently the EFC
systems deployed are based on DSRC, the introduction of Autonomous systems is being studied.
— The majority of the EFC systems in Asia use an On-board account method, while most of the European
EFC systems use the Central account method.
— An OBU is used as Payment means in EFC systems in Europe, while an IC card in systems in Asia. The
issuer of the Payment means is the issuer of the card. In terms of the systems in Asia, this applies to
banks, credit card companies and road operators.
— In Europe, service providers, banks or the toll road operators issue the OBU to the user, while in Asia
the user usually purchases (and owns) the OBU.
— Interoperability with public transports will be realized by utilizing the common use Payment
means in Asia.
Table 1 — Various EFC systems
Item Region
Europe Asia
1. EFC method DSRC based EFC DSRC based EFC
Autonomous system (Autonomous system - in Future)
2. Account method Central account (mainly) and On-board On-Board account (mainly)
account (Austria and France)
3. Payment method Debit or credit from user’s account in cen- Prepaid card
tral system
and/or
Credit card
4. Payment means issuer Service provision, banks or Transport related institution (Toll
road operator)
toll road operators
and/or
(Payment means=OBU)
Financial related institution (Bank,
Credit card)
5. OBU issuer Service provider, banks OBU dealers
or or
Toll road operators Toll road operator
6. OBU holder Service provision (mainly) User
7. Toll payer Payment means holder, Vehicle owner Payment means holder
8. Common payment with -- YES
public transport
5.2 Consideration of EFC architecture and models
5.2.1 General
In order to consider an On-board-account EFC system for common payment scheme for multi-modal
transport services, an architecture level (i.e. EFC architecture in ISO 17573:2010) has to be considered.
ISO 17573:2010 contains a role model of the EFC architecture including On-board-account, where the
Payment means issuer is an important entity in the On-board-account EFC system. Therefore, the role
of this entity in the EFC architecture should be described in more specific and clear way (especially how
to use the payment means in EFC system including potential interoperability with any of the relevant
transport services).
NOTE The first version of EFC architecture standard was published in 2003. This first version (ISO/TS 17573)
described the conceptual model for EFC. The architecture of the on-board account EFC system could be well
described in this model, which includes the licensed Collection Agent who recharges prepaid cards and the
Clearing operator who will be needed to exchange the transaction data and the claiming data with external
Charging systems when common payment with public transport becomes necessary.
5.2.2 Role model (ISO 17573:2010)
At the time when standardization works for Autonomous EFC systems had progressed, the EFC
architecture was reviewed and a new version established (in ISO 17573:2010). Figure 1 describes a new
model (role model) in the Toll Charging environment of the EFC community. This new role model also
explains the interoperability among multiple service providers and toll chargers which is an important
aspect for cross-border toll services.
4 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Figure 1 — Roles in the Toll Charging environment
5.2.3 Comparison
The relationships between the new role model and the old conceptual model of the EFC are described
in Annex B of ISO 17573:2010. The Issuer role is included in the Provision of the toll service and the
Clearing operator role is considered as being outside of the EFC environment and outside of the EFC
architecture standard.
Figure 2 — Comparison of roles between new and old model
On-board account EFC systems using IC cards as payment means are operational in many Asian
countries (in some of these countries, IC cards are used also for the public transport services).
A generic role model of On-board account EFC is shown in Figure 2 (as the Issuer role) in which the
issuer of payment means has a big role and is an entity with direct interaction with users. Examples of
actual EFC systems using payment means in several countries are shown in Annex A.
5.3 Consideration of different account type systems
There are two types of systems, based on the account type implemented: Central account systems
and On-board account systems. Existing EFC standards do not fully specify how to realize a common
payment scheme in the On-board account system. This is explained in clause 6.
In the case of the central account system, it is feasible to integrate user accounts existing in the central
part of the system through the common central account. E.g. existing payment means for transport
services are designed for individual service, therefore it seems difficult to migrate these devices
into common payment means. The common central account system will have no impact on existing
standards because the modification of the existing systems is not necessary. This concept is described
in Annex D as well as in ISO/TR 14806:2013.
6 Consideration of On-board account EFC
6.1 Role model
As specified in ISO 17573:2010, the overall EFC architecture is defined by 4 main roles (see Figure
1). Some of these main roles are composed of roles, but adding no more interactions with other roles
outside the main role. These definitions constitute the enterprise viewpoint to EFC systems according
to the Open Distributed Processing (ODP) definition, see ISO/IEC 10746-1, clause 6.2.2.
As defined in clause 7.3 of ISO 17573:2010 the description of the roles covers also the interaction
sequences between roles and therefore the overall functionality. These interaction diagrams represent
the ODP information viewpoint of ISO/IEC 10746-1.
However, in case of EFC specific payment means issued by the actor in the EFC environment, in the
2010 version of ISO 17573 there is only the text “providing the payment means”, and no specific
interactions defined including the loading/reloading of the on-board account using payment means
and how to handle the payment claim by the reload operator getting the physical money or value from
the user (however these interactions are included in the phrase “providing the payment meads” in
ISO 17573:2010 essentially).
Therefore, descriptions of these interactions are added in this Technical Report (see Figure 4) which
completes the information viewpoint for the use of on-board account using payment means.
The following clauses of this document are using the roles of Service Provisioning to recommend how
the on-board account using payment means should be used within the overall EFC system configuration.
— payment means issuing
— reload operating
— hot-listing operation
— accepting the payment means
Both on-board account and centralized account payment means are allowed within the EFC regime,
and the payment interactions between the Toll Charger and the Toll Service Provider are specified in
1)
ISO 12855:— . So far, the payment means interactions between user and Toll Service Provider, which
also covers the role of the Payment Means Issuer, are not specified.
1) To be published. (Revision of ISO 12855:2012)
6 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

6.2 Computational architecture
6.2.1 Central account EFC
As discussed in the previous clause, the architecture standard ISO 17573:2010 specifies interoperable
EFC clusters in the ODP enterprise and information viewpoint. Deriving from that, the required
interfaces between information processing devices the ODP computational viewpoint defined in
ISO/IEC 10746-1:1998, clause 6.2.2 is used. However, as shown in Figure 3, which is used in many EFC-
related standards, the actual payment information flow is not only between the Toll Service Provider
and the Toll Charger, but also between the Payment Service Provider and The Toll Service Provider.
However, it is not clear whether the information exchange between the Payment Service Provider and
the Toll Service Provider is in or out of the scope of the EFC architecture standard.
Figure 3 — Computational architecture
Providing on-board account payment means would require including the payment media into the OBE.
6.2.2 On-board account EFC
In Figure 4 the information processing tasks assigned to the actors including the information exchange
for on-board accounts is illustrated. A further decomposition of its information processing devices
at this level of the computational system architecture would have several options depending on the
behaviour and information requirements towards the payment means.
Adding the payment information flows of the on-board account using payment means to the
computational viewpoint diagram requires separating explicitly some actors or roles from the Service
Provisioning main role. This is specified in clause 7.
Figure 4 — Computational architecture for On-board account EFC using payment means
It depends also on the general tolling technology – either DSRC or autonomous charging principles – i.e.
what processing requirements are specified towards the Toll Service Provider.
Furthermore, for DSRC technology and on-board account payment systems the activity of the Toll
Service Provider is reduced to operate the re-loading devices and react on payment claims of the Toll
Charger. And if both these activities are operated by non EFC specific entities the “regular” Service
Provider role - managing the customer relations and transferring the money from the users to the Toll
Chargers – does not exist here.
Clause 8 provides detailed information on how different requirements for different classes of payment
means are solved.
6.3 EFC system behaviour for On-board account EFC including payment means
6.3.1 EFC Architecture standard (ISO 17573:2010)
In order to include payment means for both pre-payment and post-payment on-board accounts in an
EFC regime which should be interoperable with local public transport systems or even general e-money
applications, the overall architecture as specified in ISO 17573:2010 and the additions laid out in this
clause should be used.
NOTE Future revisions of the ISO 17573:2010 may incorporate these additions which will make them
obsolete in this Technical Report.
8 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

6.3.1.1 Action diagrams
(1) Adding (or excluding) a new Payment means issuer
Adding at least one Payment means issuer role to the interoperable EFC scheme is a precondition to
start the overall operation. The candidate for the Payment Means Issuer role initiates such operations
by applying for the certification process at the appropriate managing authority. If the certification is
granted, all of the existing instances of the toll charging role should be informed and the negotiation of
bilateral agreements on common operations should be conducted.
The following Figure 5 shows the relevant action diagram. The actor playing the provision role fulfils
the basic provision responsibilities.
Figure 5 — Adding a new Payment means issuer
(2) Claiming fees from the Payment means issuer
The following Figure 6 depicts the claiming fees process in case of replacing Provision to Payment means
issuer. The involved roles are Management and charging and Payment means issuer. In case one of the
partners complains that the other partner does not fulfil his obligations defined in the certification, the
management will be involved to settle the dispute.
Figure 6 — Claiming fees
7 Consideration for multi-modal transport services
7.1 General
Today, in some parts of the world, the trend for the common use of the Payment means in EFC and
public transport is advancing. In some countries, such schemes are already deployed as shown in Annex
A. There are different forms of the issuer of the Payment means, as summarized below:
— Case 1 (Payment means issued in EFC regime): The Payment means issuer and all the associated
equipment and infrastructure belong to the EFC regime. In this case, the payment means stores EFC
specific applications including payment applications.
— Case 2 (Payment means issued in Public transport regime): The Payment means issuer belongs to
the Public transport regime. The Payment means issued for the Public transport domain can also
be used for EFC. In this case, the payment means stores both EFC specific applications and payment
applications functionally owned by non-EFC actors.
— Case 3 (Payment means issued in Electronic money regime): The Payment means issuer and all the
associated equipment and infrastructure belong to a third party. The Payment means is of the class
e-money and intended to be used for the general-purpose including EFC and Public transport and
does not store EFC specific applications.
In all the cases the IC card used as payment means should achieve compatibility with the OBU interface
according to ISO/TS 25110.
10 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Figure 7 — Computational architecture including common payment scheme
Figure 7 shows the decomposition of the service provider activities and its information exchange with
other information processing entities.
7.2 System architecture for Payment means issued in EFC regime (Case 1)
7.2.1 Computational architecture
As illustrated in Figure 7, the case 1 system configuration assigns the responsibility of all the on-board
account devices and their management to the Toll Service Provider. It is an EFC specific solution.
The IC card itself and its back-end processing may be compatible with one or more public transport
fare management systems. In this case, the IC card must support the toll declaration process of the EFC
system as well as the fare declaration assembling process of the public transport regime. The process
handling the payment claim of the public transport operator to the EFC service provider is out of the
scope of this Technical Report.
The reloading of the IC card should be processed according to one or more of the following options:
— operating a number of teller machines accessible for the road users,
— providing a manual cash reload process at the promises of the EFC service provider,
— providing an on-line reload process for the IC card in the OBE if OBU has a wide area network (WAN)
interface such as Cellular Network,
— or others.
The interface between the IC card and a teller machine as well as the interface between the teller
machine and the Service provider back-end is an internal EFC service provider interface and not
addressed in this Technical Report. This applies also for the other re-load options.
The IC card should support the toll declaration assembling process as specified in ISO 14906 and
2)
. This applies for DSRC as well as for autonomous EFC systems.
ISO 12855:—
7.2.2 Architecture of EFC systems for common payment scheme
According to ISO 17573:2010 as well as to the case 1 definition in clause 7.1 of this Technical Report, all
actors required for on-board account EFC payment are under the responsibility of the Service Provider.
Figure 8 shows the allocation of tasks to operative entities in EFC regimes for a common payment
scheme and explain the relationship between EFC regime and public transport regime.
2) To be published. (Revision of ISO 12855:2012)
12 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Figure 8 — Task Allocation where Payment means issued in EFC regimes are used for common
payment schemes
The Service Provider may be part of an organisation managing more than the associated EFC regime.
This may be a public transport system or other services.
The Service Provider may outsource parts of its operational tasks to other organisations or entities.
This does not relieve him from bearing the responsibility for these activities.
7.3 System architecture for Payment means issued in Public transport regimes (Case 2)
7.3.1 Computational architecture
As illustrated in Figure 7, the case 2 system configuration should allow assigning EFC specific roles
and responsibilities to entities having their main activities outside the EFC environment as specified in
ISO 17573:2010, Clause 5.1.
In this case, the IC card must support the fare declaration process of the public transport system as well
as the toll declaration assembling process of the EFC regime. The process handling the payment claim
of the EFC service provider to the public transport operator is out of the scope of this Technical Report.
This should support the re-use of existing IC card issuers including their infrastructure for reloading
the IC card. It may allow adding EFC specific features to IC cards, such as the vehicle configuration
parameters or EFC specific security means. This should not jeopardize the functionality the IC card
originally was designed for.
These IC cards, when used for tolling and other applications, should be able to be reloaded at locations
close to the tolling road infrastructure.
7.3.2 Architecture of EFC systems for common payment scheme
The public transport organization takes an additional role which was originally specified as part
of the EFC environment. This does not reduce the functions of the none-EFC roles which are played
by the EFC external organization. The Architecture of interoperable fare management system is
described in ISO 24014.
In contrast to case 1, the case 2 configuration of the EFC system will include organizations which
originally were not focusing on EFC but are now performing an additional role within the EFC
environment as specified in ISO 17573:2010, clause 5.1. This reduces the tasks compared to
organizations operating according to the full role allocation of the service provisioning. In case the
selling process of IC cards is also outsourced, then the remaining rest of service provisioning functions
comprises just the payment clearing with the Toll Charger and the customer care.
Figure 9 shows the allocation of tasks to operative entities in EFC and Public transport regimes for
EFC systems for common payment scheme and explain the relationship between EFC regime and public
transport regimes. Both Public transport application and EFC application and common value data are
stored in one IC card and can be used in EFC regime and Public transport regime.
14 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Figure 9 — Task Allocation where Payment means issued in Public transport regimes are used
for common payment schemes
The Payment means issuer should handle the customer care for questions regarding the IC card and the
reloading process.
Payment clearing process of the on-board account payment with the Toll Charger comprises just
forwarding requests and responses from the Toll Charger to the Payment means issuer and back. This
may result in assigning the rest of the customer care role to the local toll operator in addition to his
tasks relevant to the role of a Toll Charger. Therefore, the Payment means issuer (and operator of the
IC card re-load devices – where the money comes from) should directly communicate with the toll
operator for clearing the payment claim.
NOTE 1 This is still strictly according to the ISO 17573 architecture. However, the assignment of roles to
operational entities cuts the main roles differently as in the system configurations according to case 1.
The information exchange between the IC card issuers back office and the EFC operator should be
implemented using one of the following options:
— using the existing interface of the applied public transport system and assigning to the EFC operator
as actor of the service provisioning role the task of converting the toll declarations to financial objects,
3)
— using the interface according to ISO 12855:— and assigning the service provider role task of
converting the toll declarations to financial objects to the IC card issuer. In this case, the IC card
issuer must implement an EFC specific functionality into his back-office system.
3)
NOTE 2 Further investigations will clarify if the currently available ADUs of ISO 12855:— are sufficient for it.
7.4 System architecture for Payment means issued in Electronic money regimes (Case 3)
7.4.1 Computational architecture
As illustrated in Figure 7, the case 3 system configuration should allow assigning EFC specific roles
and responsibilities to entities having their main activities outside the EFC environment as specified in
ISO 17573:2010, Clause 5.1.
In contrast to case 1 and case 2, the case 3 overall system configuration of on-board account tolling
payment allocates (according to ISO 17573:2010) roles to EFC environment external entities which will
not modify their existing concept to make it usable for EFC. Hence, the use of this e-money functionality
will require adapting the EFC system to their existing interfaces. These cover the OBU – IC card interface
including its security policy and key management as well as the IC card issuer – EFC operator interface.
NOTE As already discussed in the case 2 version, the strict role allocation of all service provisioning roles
to a road owner external organization is not necessarily required. In DSRC systems the “remaining” roles (when
allocating the payment means issuer to an external organization) most likely will be allocated to the EFC operator
which carries already the role of the toll charger. With this, the payment means issuer according to the case 3
definition will directly communicate with the EFC operator for the purpose of payment claim clearing.
According to the EFC architecture standard ISO 17573:2010, clause 7.2 and others, the IC card issuer
– EFC operator interaction is actually a service provisioning internal interaction between parts of
the basic provision role (allocated to the payment means issuer) and providing toll declaration, the
conversion of tolling objects to financial objects and vice versa. Hence, implementing this interaction
requires a purely financial interface standard which is out of the scope of the suite of EFC standards.
7.4.2 Architecture of EFC systems for common payment scheme
The allocation of operational tasks to organisations in case 3 is similar to case 2 (see Figure 7). However,
the responsibility for the functionality of the IC card is fully in the hands of the Payment means issuer.
In most cases this will be an existing e-money organisation. It is also fully under the responsibility of
the IC card issuer where and how to implement means for reloading the IC card by users.
Figure 10 shows the allocation of tasks to operative entities in EFC, Public transport and E-money
regime for multi-modal payment service and explains the relationship between EFC regimes and public
transport regime and e-money regime. E-money applications in IC cards can be used in EFC regime and
Public transport regime.
NOTE 1 Payment claim by public transport services and fare information are fully EFC external interfaces which
should be out of the scope of this Technical Report. Similarly, Payment claim by E-money services and E-money
information are fully EFC external interfaces which should be out of the scope of this Technical Report also.
3) To be published. (Revision of ISO 12855:2012)
16 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Figure 10 — Task Allocation where Payment means issued in Electronic money regimes are
used for common payment schemes
The information exchange between the IC card issuers back office and the EFC operator should be
implemented using one of the following options:
— Using the merchant interface of the applied e-money system and assigning to the EFC operator as
actor of the service provisioning role the task of converting the toll declarations to financial objects.
4)
— Using an interface according to ISO 12855:— and assigning the service provider role task
converting the toll declarations to financial objects to the IC card issuer. In this case the IC card
issuer must implement an EFC specific functionality into his back-office system.
4) To be published. (Revision of ISO 12855:2012)
NOTE 2 The merchant interface is the interface between the e-money terminal at the POS and the clearing
operator connected via a WAN aiming on paying the merchant who has delivered the purchased goods to the
customer.
NOTE 3 In the case of using e-money cards in
...