1. Uber submission on amendment of the NLTA Bill
November 2017

2. Proposed Amendments - Introduction of an e-hailing definition
Our Ask
Reasoning
1. Introduction of an e-hailing definition in Section 1 (c) of the Act.
1.Get a standalone definition for e- hailing platforms.
2. An additional Section 66 (A) which is a standalone category for e-hailing services and
3. Standardised terminology - e-hailing technology vs e-hailing software v.s e-hailing platform.
Metered Taxis and e-hailing services operate differently e.g. On demand service vs hailing at a predetermined rank and using a sealed meter vs a predetermined fare based on time and difference. These differences by virtue warrant a standalone category.
This would also allow any other mode of Public transport to use such technologies.
E-hailing as stand alone

3. Proposed Amendments - Amendment of section 50 (4)(5) and Section 66(7)(8)
Our Ask
Reasoning
Amendment of section 50 (4)(5) and section 66 (7)(8)
We propose the deletion of the offence in section 50 and the incorporation of the proposed new section 50(4) in the new section 66(7).
If the offence is to be included in the Bill at all, to locate it in the new section 66A (if our proposal in paragraph 2 above is accepted), or in section 66 (if our proposal is not accepted).
Both sections are addressing the same thing. It is simply going to create confusion if there are two offences, similarly worded, and addressing the same issue.

4. Proposed Amendments - Amendment of section 50 (4)(5) and Section 66(7)(8)
Our Ask
Reasoning
Amendment of section 50 (4)(5) and section 66 (7)(8)
Uber proposes that a proviso be included in the proposed new sections 50(4) and 66(7) excluding from the ambit persons who have submitted fully compliant operating licence applications and who have waited a period of three months or longer for the disposal thereof.
It seems reasonable that all the relevant stakeholders in this process should be held to account. This proposal retains the proposed offence, while at the same time imposing a time obligation on the municipalities and regulatory entities which are required in terms of the NLTA to process operating licence applications timeously.

5. Proposed Amendments - Proposed new section 66A
Our Ask
Reasoning
66A E-hailing services
In the case of an e-hailing service
(a) the entity granting the operating licence may specify an area for picking up passengers;
(b) if the operating licence or permit specifies such an area, the vehicle may leave that area if, on the return journey, it is to carry the same passengers that it carries on the outward journey or if the vehicle is to return empty;

6. Proposed Amendments - Proposed new section 66A
Our Ask
Reasoning
66A E-hailing services
(c) the vehicle may pick up passengers outside of that area if the fare is pre-booked and the passengers will return to such area; and
(d) e-hailing technology may be utilised by any public transport operator provided it complies with the operator's permit conditions. OR
“Any transport operator can use e-hailing technology provided the operator complies with the conditions of their operating license”

7. Proposed Amendments - Proposed new section 66A
Our Ask
Reasoning
66A E-hailing services
(2) The Minister or MEC may make regulations providing for standards or requirements for electronic hailing applications or similar technology, including the following:
prescribing measures to ensure accurate readings of such applications or technology;
prescribing information regarding the driver that must be communicated to the passenger; and
prescribing information that the electronic hailing applications or similar technology must provide to passengers.

8. Proposed Amendments - A Proposed new section 66A
Our Ask
Reasoning
66A E-hailing services
(3) Electronic hailing applications or similar technology must -
have the facility to estimate distances and fares, taking into account distance, time and demand, and communicating such estimate to passengers in advance; and
communicate the fare to the passenger at the conclusion of the journey.

9. Proposed Amendments - Proposed new section 66A
Our Ask
Reasoning
66A E-hailing services
(4) Any person who conducts a business providing or facilitating an e-hailing software application for a vehicle, whether or not such a person is an operator, must -
not in any way allow or facilitate the provision of e-hailing services for that vehicle, unless the operator of the vehicle holds a valid operating licence or permit for the vehicle in compliance with section 50(1); and

10. Proposed Amendments - A Proposed new section 66A
Our Ask
Reasoning
66A E-hailing services
(b) where it comes to the notice of the person providing an e-hailing software application that an operator using that application for a vehicle does not have a valid operating licence or permit for that vehicle, or whose operating licence or permit has lapsed or been cancelled, de- connect the e-hailing application forthwith and keep it disconnected until a valid operating licence has been obtained for the vehicle.

11. Proposed Amendments - Proposed new section 66A
Our Ask
Reasoning
66A E-hailing services
(5) A person who fails to comply with subsection (4) commits an offence;
(6) The provisions of subsection (4) shall not apply in circumstances where an applicant has lodged a fully compliant application for an operating licence with a municipality or the relevant regulatory entity, as the case may be, been issued with a receipt therefor or any similar proof of lodgement, and has not received the outcome of the application within a period of two (2) months from the date of lodgement." OR

12. Proposed Amendments - Proposed new section 66A
Our Ask
Reasoning
66A E-hailing services
The provisions of subsection (4) shall not apply in circumstances shall not apply in circumstances where an applicant has lodged an application for an operating licence with a municipality or the relevant regulatory entity, as the case may be, has been issued with a receipt therefor or any similar proof of lodgement, and has not received a final outcome of the application within a period of two (2) months.

13. Proposed Amendments - Section 8(2)
Our Ask
Reasoning
Section 8(2) of the Act rightly obliges the Minister, before making regulations, to publish a draft for comment we ask that this be extended to MECs.
The new section 10(5).
No objection to the new Section 10(5).
E-hailing as stand alone

14. Proposed Amendments - New section 54(2)(e)
Our Ask
Reasoning
New section 54(2)(e).
Uber proposed that, when applying for an operating license, an applicant should be required to specify the category of vehicle rather than the type of vehicle.
No objection to the new Section 54(2)(e)
E-hailing as stand alone

15. Proposed Amendments - sections 18(3) and 39(1)(b)
Our Ask
Reasoning
2.Uber proposed an amendment to sections 18(3) and 39(1)(b) which deal with the imposition of moratoria on the issuing of operating licenses. Uber proposed a reference to PAJA.
No Objections.
E-hailing as stand alone

16. Proposed Amendments - Section 59(3)
Our Ask
Reasoning
Section 59(3) : We proposed that where no objections have been received on an application, it must be disposed off as opposed to may.
Proposal not accepted and we have no Objection.
E-hailing as stand alone

17. OL Application by Operator
Current OL application process
Uber as a Proxy
CoCT
OL Application by Operator
Registrar’s office/ PREs
Issuance
Cities
30 Day gazette
E-hailing as stand alone

19. Current Challenges with the current OL application process
Operators who lease vehicles cannot uplift an OL.
Currently due to the E-Natis system operators who have leased vehicles are unable to uplift their OLs due to the e-natis system. This affects Uber Driver partners as well as small bus operators.
This is an impediment to compliance as most Driver Partners are unable to buy vehicles initially and rely on lease arrangements.
Section 64 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:"(1) An operating licence may only be issued to and held by— (a) the person registered, in terms of the National Road Traffic Act, as the owner or operator of the vehicle, as defined in that Act, and specified in the operating licence;
National Road Traffic Act:
“'operator' means the person responsible for the use of a motor vehicle of any class contemplated in Chapter VI, and who has been registered as the operator of such vehicle;
Both the Amendment Bill and the RTA allow for Operators with leased vehicles to uplift OLs however in practice this is not the case due to the E-Natis.
E-hailing as stand alone

20. CONCLUSION
We welcome the proposed amendments however Municipalities and Regulatory Entities are not held to account for their inefficiencies. All parties need to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to acquiring or issuing OL and the offence cited in these clauses should be extended to the relevant Authorities.
The current OL application is lengthy and OLs are not issued within a reasonable amount of time.
The process as is makes it difficult for Operators to comply with the NLTA requirements.
We also welcome ongoing discussions with policy makers to develop regulations and policies that are forward looking and that allow for innovation.
TO ADD TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS:
– Type the page number [space] | [space] [SlideTitle]
– Continue these steps until all of the desired sections and slides have been added

21. Questions?