[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30830-30853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14471]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 86
[FRL-6992-7]
RIN 2060-AG13
Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines; Revisions to Regulations Requiring Availability of
Information for use of On-Board Diagnostic Systems and Emission-Related
Repairs on 1994 and Later ModelYear Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty
Trucks and 2005 and Later Model Year Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Engines
Weighing 14,000 Pounds Gross Vehicle Weight or Less
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action proposes modifications to EPA's Service
Information regulations for light-duty vehicles and trucks, including
requiring vehicle manufacturers to; make full text emissions-related
service information and training information available via the World
Wide Web; provide equipment and tool companies with information that
allows them to develop equipment with pass-through reprogramming
capabilities; make available enhanced diagnostic information to
aftermarket scan tool manufacturers; make available manufacturer-
specific diagnostic tools for sale to interested parties; and make
available additional OBD technical information that manufacturers must
provide. In addition, today's proposal requests comment on extending
the availability of emission-related service information to heavy-duty
engines and vehicles weighing 14,000 pounds or less beginning in the
2005 model year.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2001. A public
hearing will be held on July 25, 2001. Requests to present oral
testimony must be received on or before July 2, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Holly Pugliese, Certification
and Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
The public hearing will be held at the Holiday Inn North Campus,
3600 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m.
and continue until all testimony has been presented.
Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in EPA Air
Docket No. A-2000-49. The docket is located at The Air Docket, 401 M.
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, and may be viewed in room M1500
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. The telephone
number is (202) 260-7548 and the facsimile number is (202) 260-4400. A
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, Certification and
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, Telephone 734-214-4288, Internet
e-mail ``[email protected],'' or Christine Mikolajczyk, 734-214-
4403, Internet e-mail ``mikolajczyk. christine@ epamail.epa.gov.''
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which
manufacturer new motor vehicles and engines. Regulated categories
include:
[[Page 30831]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS SIC
Category Codes Codes Examples of potentially regulated entities
(1) (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................ 336111 3711 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers.
336112
336120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
(2) Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities EPA is now aware could potentially
be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated. To determine whether your product is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 86.099-17 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular product, consult the person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Obtaining Rulemaking Documents Through the Internet
The preamble, regulatory language and regulatory support document
are also available electronically from the EPA Internet Web site. This
service is free of charge, except for any cost you already incur for
Internet connectivity. The official EPA version is made available on
the day of publication on the primary Web site listed below. The EPA
Office of Transportation and Air Quality also publishes these notices
on the secondary Web site listed below.
(1) http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/ (either select desired
date or use Search feature)
(2) http://www.epa.gov/OTAQ/ (look in ``What's New'' or under the
specific rulemaking topic)
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.
Table of Contents
I. What is the Important Background Information for this Proposal?
II. What are the Details of This Proposal?
A. How Do Vehicle Manufacturers Disseminate Information Under
This Proposed Rulemaking?
B. What Provisions are Proposed for Service Information for
Third Party Information Providers?
C. What Requirements Are Proposed for the Availability of
Training Information?
D. What Requirements Are Proposed for Reprogramming?
E. What Requirements Are Proposed for the Availability of
Enhanced Information for Diagnostic Scan Tools and OEM-Specific
Diagnostic Scan Tools?
F. What are the Cost Provisions Proposed for Service
Information?
G. Which Reference Materials are Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference?
H. What Requirements Are Proposed for Heavy-Duty Service
Information?
I. Are Formats for Service Information Proposed?
III. What is the Cost of this Proposal?
IV. What are the Opportunities for Public Participation?
A. Comments and the Public Docket
B. Public Hearing
V. What are the Administrative Requirements for this Proposal
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
B. Impact on Small Entities
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
I. What Is the Important Background Information for This Proposal?
Section 202(m)(5) of the CAA directs EPA to promulgate regulations
requiring vehicle manufacturers to provide to:
Any person engaged in the repairing or servicing of motor
vehicles or motor vehicle engines, and the Administrator for use by
any such persons, * * * any and all information needed to make use
of the [vehicle's] emission control diagnostic system * * * and such
other information including instructions for making emission-related
diagnoses and repairs.
Such requirements are subject to the requirements of section 208(c)
regarding protection of trade secrets; however, no such information may
be withheld under section 208(c) if that information is provided
(directly or indirectly) by the manufacturer to its franchised dealers
or other persons engaged in the repair, diagnosing or servicing of
motor vehicles.
On August 9, 1995, EPA published a final rulemaking (60 FR 40474)
which set forth the Agency's service information regulations. These
regulations, in part, required each Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM) to do the following: (1) List all of its emission-related service
and repair information on a Web site called FedWorld (including the
cost of each item and where it could be purchased); (2) either provide
enhanced information to equipment and tool companies or make its OEM-
specific diagnostic tool available for purchase by aftermarket
technicians, and (3) make reprogramming capability available to
independent service and repair professionals if its franchised
dealerships had such capability. These requirements were intended to
ensure that aftermarket service and repair facilities have access to
the same emission-related service information, in the same or similar
manner, as that provided by vehicle manufacturers to their franchised
dealerships.
In order to meet Congress' intent that consumers have freedom of
choice in where to have their vehicles serviced, it is essential for
independent technicians to have access to timely and accurate emission-
related service and repair information. Industry estimates indicate
that independent technicians perform up to 80% of all vehicle service
and repairs. Further, independent technicians perform more repairs on
older vehicles (which are more likely than newer vehicles to have
higher emissions) than technicians in franchised dealerships. These
conclusions are the result of statistics issued from the Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Association (Automotive Industry Status Report,
1999. EPA Air Docket A-2000-49, item II-F-05) that (1) the level of
excess emissions increases as a vehicle's mileage increases, and (2)
the percentage of non-dealer repairs increased and dealer repairs
decreased as a vehicle's mileage increased and warranty coverage is no
longer an issue.
In addition, OEM comments submitted during the comment period for
the prior service information proposal (56 FR 48278, September 24,
1991) spoke to the integral role aftermarket technicians play in
servicing the approximately 200 million vehicles in use. Many OEMs
indicated that the number of service bays in their franchised
dealerships are inadequate to service their fleets of vehicles and that
[[Page 30832]]
they depend on aftermarket technicians to provide service for their
customers' vehicles, especially for those vehicles out of warranty.
This further highlights the need for independent technicians to have
access to timely and appropriate emission-related repair and service
information.
Since 1995, the Agency has gained experience in the implementation
of the service information requirements. Additionally, changing
technology has made it necessary to revisit the current requirements to
take advantage of advanced technology.
II. What Are the Details of This Proposal?
A. How Would Vehicle Manufacturers Disseminate Information Under This
Proposed Rulemaking?
In the prior service information proposal (56 FR 48272, September
24, 1991), we proposed the dissemination of the required information by
electronic format. However, after extensive comments from the
automotive industry and our concerns at that time about the capability
of the World Wide Web to handle the information and its limited use by
the general public, we elected to use NTIS' FedWorld as the means of
making information available. Rather than being a full text data base,
the FedWorld data base is best characterized as a card catalog of
required information, i.e., it lists the title, price, and purchasing
instructions for each item.
As we have implemented the 1995 requirements, a variety of issues
have been raised about the effectiveness of the information
distribution requirements. First, several issues have been raised
related to the effectiveness of FedWorld in making the required
information available in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Input
from both OEMs and aftermarket technicians indicates that it is often
difficult to find specific items in the FedWorld data base. This is due
to various factors, including the lack of common terminology among OEMs
for the same or similar items and the failure of OEMs to provide
descriptions of each item, e.g., documents are often listed by part
number with no indication of what they contain. Additionally, EPA has
been made aware that the information listed in FedWorld often was not
available to be shipped from an OEM's designated distributor within one
business day of an order being placed, as required by the regulations.
OEMs have also complained about the administrative costs they were
charged by NTIS and the lack of technicians accessing the data base.
EPA agrees that there appears to be a limited number of technicians
accessing the FedWorld database. We believe this is due to a variety of
factors, including the following: (1) A lack of awareness about its
existence; (2) the model years applicable to the information listed are
just now coming out of the original manufacturer warranty; and (3) the
inability to receive the information in a timely manner. Based on
recent communications to the Agency, it appears that technicians are
beginning to use FedWorld as the models contained in the database are
appearing in larger numbers at aftermarket repair facilities. However,
the database is still cumbersome to search and does not result in the
information being provided in a timely manner. Finally, over the past
year, several OEMs have sought the Agency's opinion as to whether they
could opt-out of the FedWorld requirement if they made available the
required information on their own Internet sites.
As a result of these requests and the issues cited above, we
concluded that changes to the existing regulations are necessary to
ensure that emission-related service and repair information is
available in a timely manner to all persons who service and repair
motor vehicles.
Therefore, today's rulemaking proposes that within 6 months of
publication of the Final Rule, each OEM shall launch individual World
Wide Web Internet sites and up-load on its Web site the full text of
all emission-related service and repair documents,\1\ in English, for
all OBD equipped 1996 and later model year vehicles. We are aware that
OEMs may be at different points in their Web site development. We are
also aware that some OEM information for 1996 through 2000 model years
may not be readily converted for use on the World Wide Web and the cost
of doing so may be prohibitive. Therefore, EPA requests comment on the
need for a short phase-in period for making available full-text service
information as required in this proposal for 1996 through 2000 model
year vehicles. Additionally, we are aware that service information for
the 1994 and 1995 model years poses even greater technological
challenges for conversion to full-text for use on the World Wide Web.
For example, several OEMs have indicated to us that their service
manuals and technical service bulletins for some of these model years
are no longer available to them in electronic format. As a result,
large volumes of information would need to be electronically scanned
and converted for Web-based access. Therefore, we will propose
alternative requirements for these two model years. For a discussion of
service information requirements for 1994 and 1995 model years, please
see section II(A)(2). OEMs will not be required to simultaneously
maintain their indexes on the FedWorld database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This requirement does not apply to indirect information.
Indirect information means any information that is not specifically
contained in the service literature, but is contained in items such
as tools or equipment provided to franchised dealerships (or
others).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OEMs may choose to have a third party (e.g., FedWorld, an
information intermediary, or another entity) establish and maintain
their full-text Web sites. However, OEMs would remain responsible for
ensuring accuracy and completeness of information as well as compliance
with the regulations.
1. Required Information
In the original Service Information requirements finalized in
August of 1995 (60 FR 40475), we required manufacturers to make
available ``any and all'' information needed by the aftermarket to make
use of the OBD system and such other information, including
instructions for making emission-related repairs, excluding trade
secrets. The 1995 regulations defined emission-related information as
including, but not limited to, any information regarding any system,
component or part of a vehicle that controls emissions and any system,
component and/or part associated with the powertrain system, including,
but not limited to, the engine, the fuel system and ignition system.
The existing regulations also require that information must be provided
for any system, component or part that is likely to affect emissions,
such as transmission systems.
Specifically, EPA required an index of emissions-related documents
available for ordering to be up-loaded on the FedWorld database. The
required information included, but was not limited to, manuals,
technical service bulletins (TSBs), diagrams, charts, training
materials (instructor manuals), and videos.
While we believe that the definition of ``emissions-related'' as
described above is fairly comprehensive, we have received input from
aftermarket technicians suggesting that there is additional information
needed by the aftermarket to diagnose and complete emissions-related
repairs that is not readily available across all
[[Page 30833]]
manufacturers. To address these concerns we are providing additional
clarification and examples of the types of information that we believe
is consistent with the statutory intent to provide ``any and all''
information needed to make use of the OBD system. These examples, which
include pages from several OEM service manuals and a generic logic flow
diagram for a repair procedure, can be found in EPA Air Docket A-2000-
49 items II-F-02, and II-F-04. To the extent that manufacturers do not
already make this information available to their dealerships, we are
proposing that this information be developed for both their dealerships
and aftermarket service providers. We also believe that the level of
information being sought by the aftermarket and proposed in today's
action is not proprietary and should therefore be included in the scope
of the required information. This belief is based in part upon the
increasing number of manufacturers who are voluntarily providing a
wider scope of OBD information to aftermarket service providers without
any expressed concerns to EPA regarding the release of proprietary
information. To further ensure manufacturers that we do not intend to
require proprietary information, we have provided specific examples of
the increased level of information that is currently being made
available by some manufacturers that we believe should be consistently
required from all manufacturers to ensure the diagnosis and repair of
OBD equipped vehicles.
We are proposing that manufacturers make available in full-text on
their respective Web sites OBD system operational information which
describes functional characteristics of the OBD system and emission-
related components necessary to accurately diagnose and repair
emissions-related problems. In particular, aftermarket and dealership
service providers have indicated that OBD system operational
information such as generic drive cycles, component operating ranges
and system logic flow diagrams are valuable pieces of information
needed for accurate diagnosis and repair of emissions-related problems.
We also believe that this type of information will be needed for use in
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs. Currently some I/M programs
have voluntarily incorporated checks of the OBD system into their
programs. Additionally, within the next one to two years, EPA will
require a check of the OBD system in Inspection and Maintenance
programs. EPA has been working with the voluntary I/M programs and they
have expressed the need for information such as generic drive cycles to
assist them in successfully implementing OBD checks into their
programs.
As an example of the type of general OBD information that EPA
believes is required to make emission-related repairs, and thus is
proposing to require OEMs to make available, the most recent Advanced
Engine Performance Specialist Test (L1) Preparation Guide developed by
the organization Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) includes a
reference booklet that has been placed in EPA Air Docket A-2000-49,
item II-F-01. The ASE L1 Preparation Guide provides generic examples of
various operating parameters for OBD components and sensors (e.g. a
properly functioning engine coolant temperature sensor will show values
ranging from -40 deg.F to 248 deg.F). This information is provided for
those taking the test as an example of a diagnostic procedure a
technician would utilize when servicing an emissions-related problem.
We believe that the ASE L1 Preparation Guide is an effective example of
the types of information we believe should be more readily available
for all OEMs. To further analyze the availability of this level of
service information, we conducted a literature search of a variety of
service manuals from a cross-section of manufacturers. We looked at
service manuals ranging from model years 1996-2000 for randomly chosen
diagnostic trouble code PX300 (random misfire). A search of the service
manuals was conducted to evaluate if information such as component
operating ranges, logic flow diagrams, or generic drive cycles was
available to assist technicians in trouble-shooting this particular
code. Our research indicated that this type of information is not
consistently made available by all manufacturers. Our analysis is
contained in EPA Air Docket A-2000-49, item II-B-01, ``Technical
Memorandum from Shannon Elliot to Holly Pugliese and Arvon Mitcham,
March 10, 2000''.
We are aware of at least one manufacturer who makes this
information available only via their manufacturer-specific diagnostic
scan tool. For manufacturers who currently utilize this approach, we
propose that this information also be included in full-text on their
respective Web site(s). For manufacturers who make this information
available in publications other than service manuals (e.g., training
materials) that are not otherwise subject to the proposed full-text
requirements, we propose that this information be readily accessible in
full text on manufacturer Web sites as well. For all manufacturers,
this information should be formatted and appear in a clear, consistent,
and readily accessible manner (e.g., tables or logic flow diagrams).
Although the information should be as vehicle specific as possible, we
understand that a manufacturer's system may be consistent across
vehicle lines and, therefore, the information may be consolidated to
make it as generic as is appropriate.
Additionally, vehicle systems are evolving in such a way that there
is an increased likelihood of all vehicle systems, including the anti-
theft system, affecting the electronic control unit (ECU). Therefore,
we believe it is necessary and appropriate to ensure that information
reflecting and affecting these inter-relationships is also provided to
the aftermarket.
With today's action, we propose that the full-text documents to be
up-loaded and available for viewing on OEM Web sites include, but not
be limited to, the following items:
(a) Manuals, technical service bulletins (TSBs), diagrams, charts,
training materials (see Section IIB for further detail) and videos.
(b) OBD system operational information that describes functional
characteristics of the OBD system and emission-related components. OBD
system operational information includes, but is not limited to, OBD
generic drive cycle information, component operating ranges, and system
logic flow diagrams. OEMs are not required to provide algorithms, look-
up tables, or any values associated with look-up tables.
In addition, it is proposed that OEMs provide emission-related
diagnostic procedures on their respective Web sites and that access to
these procedures not require connection to the vehicle to access this
information.
(c) Documents such as component and subsystem manuals provided to
OEMs or franchised dealerships by suppliers or other parties that have
agreements with OEMs. We understand that OEMs are increasingly using
third party contractors and suppliers to design and develop parts and
other vehicle subsystems. We believe that this information is critical
for the diagnosis and service of emissions-related problems and needs
to be made available to aftermarket service providers. Thus, the fact
that information is not provided directly by an OEM to its franchised
dealerships should not preclude the OEM from making non-propriety
service and repair
[[Page 30834]]
information available to the aftermarket. EPA believes that it is
appropriate for this information to be made available on OEM Web sites
but also requests comment on alternative mechanisms for making this
information available to the aftermarket.
(d) Any information on other systems that can directly effect the
emission system within a multiplexed system (including how information
is sent between emission-related system modules and other modules on a
multiplexed bus),
(e) Any information regarding any system, component, or part of a
vehicle monitored by the OBD system that could in a failure mode cause
the OBD system to illuminate the malfunction indicator light (MIL).
(f) Any other information relevant to the diagnosis and completion
of an emissions-related repair. This information includes, but is not
limited to, information needed to start the vehicle when the vehicle is
equipped with an anti-theft or similar system that disables the engine.
This information also includes any manufacturer-specific emissions-
related diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) and any related service
bulletins, trouble shooting guides, and/or repair procedures associated
with these manufacturer-specific DTCs.
With regard to anti-theft systems, it appears that some OEMs have
incorporated systems into their vehicles which, when the ECU is
replaced or reprogrammed as part of an emissions-related repair,
prevent the vehicles from being started without the use of an OEM-
specific tool and codes. Additionally, some OEMs have incorporated
anti-theft systems into their vehicles that disable the engine when the
vehicle is brought in for service. In both of these instances, an
aftermarket service provider would not be able to complete the repair
for the customer without otherwise having to take the vehicle to a
dealership to complete the repair. We believe that an emissions-related
repair cannot be considered complete if the owner is not able to drive
the vehicle away from the repair shop. Therefore, we are proposing that
OEMs make this information directly available to the aftermarket.
EPA appreciates that vehicle manufacturers spend considerable
resources to prevent vehicle theft and we do not want to jeopardize
this security by allowing illegal disablement of the vehicle security
system. Given the sensitive nature of the anti-theft system
information, we believe it is reasonable to allow manufacturers some
additional lead-time to incorporate additional appropriate security
measures as needed by each OEM. EPA requests comment on this issue.
Information for making emission-related repairs does not include
information used to design and manufacture parts, but may include
manufacturer changes to internal calibrations. However, a manufacturer
need only provide such information to the extent it has provided such
information to its dealerships.
Finally, we believe that manufacturers are accountable for the
accuracy of their service information, for both their dealerships and
the aftermarket repair industry. Moving toward Internet-based delivery
of service information should increase the ability of OEMs to more
quickly respond to errors in their service information and provide
updates to the required information for all interested parties in a
timely manner.
2. Pre-1996 Model Years
The primary focus of this proposal is on service information for
vehicles equipped with complete OBD systems , i.e. 1996 and newer model
year vehicles. However, we believe that it is important for aftermarket
service providers to have access to service information for older
models as well, particularly since the aftermarket services a majority
of older vehicles. To address this need, EPA is proposing that OEMs
either continue to maintain their databases of information on FedWorld
or transfer information from FedWorld onto their Web sites and continue
to make information available for sale as it currently is in FedWorld
for 1994 and 1995 model year vehicles. Alternatively, OEMs could elect
to provide full text information on their Web site for vehicles for
model years 1994 and 1995.
3. Other Media
Currently, OEMs can choose to simultaneously provide information
through a variety of media, such as print or CDs. However, EPA will not
propose to require OEMs to maintain multi-media formats with this rule.
Some manufacturers have expressed an interest in moving away from print
and other media in the future and are concerned about having to
maintain multiple media formats to meet the EPA requirements. We
believe that it is reasonable for manufacturers who wish to do so to
provide service information to the aftermarket via the Internet only
and are not proposing to require manufacturers to make available
information in multiple media formats.
However, we are also sensitive to the fact that a majority of
repairs performed by the aftermarket are on older vehicles.
Additionally, the useful lives of vehicles continue to increase. Thus,
aftermarket service providers need access to service information for a
wide range of model years. In Section II(A)(5), we discuss our proposal
that OEMs maintain the required information in full-text available on
their Web 2001model years to address this issue. We are requesting
comment on this proposed length of time and are also requesting comment
on the mechanisms that would be used by the aftermarket to obtain
information that is no longer available in full-text format from OEM
Web sites.
4. Small Volume Provisions
Because of the small U.S. sales volumes of some OEMs and the
relatively small demand for the service information for these
manufacturers, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose some
flexibility for small volume manufacturers. It is proposed that OEMs
with annual sales of less than five thousand vehicles be given 12
months after the effective date of the final rule to comply with the
Web site requirements. We also propose that OEMs be exempt from the
Internet requirements if they modify or manufacture less than one
thousand vehicles annually, provided they present to the Administrator
and obtain approval for an alternative method by which emission-related
information can be obtained.
5. Timeliness and Maintenance of Information
We believe that for information to be effective, it must be
provided in a timely manner. For aftermarket technicians this means
having access to needed information when the vehicle is brought in for
service. In the past, OEMs have argued that the aftermarket service
industry seldom perform emission-related service during the first two
or three years of ownership (during the 24,000 or 36,000 mile warranty
period), and therefore don't need to have immediate access to new model
service information. However, we believe that aftermarket service
providers have, at least, a limited need for service information for
new vehicles. Dealership service may not always be convenient for a
customer and there are customers who prefer aftermarket service even
though a vehicle is still under warranty. Further, EPA believes that it
does not place undue burden on the OEMs to provide information that is
already being made available to the dealerships. To ensure that
aftermarket technicians have the required information when needed, we
propose that OEMs upload the required information on their Web site
within
[[Page 30835]]
three months of model introduction. After this three month period, we
propose that the required information for each model be available and
updated on the OEM Web site at the same time it is available by any
means to their dealers.
EPA is also proposing that, beginning with the 1996 model year,
manufacturers maintain the required information in full text for at
least 15 years after model introduction. After this fifteen-year
period, we propose that manufacturers can archive the required service
information, but that it must be made available upon request, in a
format of the manufacturer's choice (e.g., CD-ROM). We are proposing
this requirement to account for the increasing useful life of vehicles
and the fact that the aftermarket services a majority of older vehicles
as discussed above. However, we also believe it is not necessary to
over-burden OEM Web servers with service information that is still
needed by the aftermarket, but not on as regular a basis as service
information for newer models. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate
to allow some flexibility for the distribution of service information
for older vehicles. We request comment on the proposed length of time
that manufacturers will be required to maintain full text information
on their Web sites.
6. Accessibility and Performance Requirements
(a) Accessibility Requirements. We propose that each OEM Web site
allow end-users to search its database of emission-related service
information by various topics. These topics include, but are not
limited to, model, model year, key words and phrases, diagnostic
procedures, scheduled maintenance, and vehicle identification number
(VIN). Additionally, we propose that manufacturers must provide
information to allow for readily identifying the latest calibration.
Further, while the VIN may be offered as one means of conducting a
search, OEMs may not require the use of a VIN to initially access the
data base. We further propose that the use of proprietary hardware,
software, viewers, browsers and formats for accessing information be
prohibited. In other words, manufacturers must develop their service
information, and provide access to it, in such a way that it can be
viewed using software such as Adobe Acrobat Reader that is readily
available to Internet users. The manufacturer's Home Page must be
accessible to anyone and contain instructions on how to access the
information. Instructions should include, but not be limited to,
minimum hardware and non-proprietary software needed by the end-user
and associated costs for accessing and purchasing information.
Finally, we propose that OEMs not limit the modem speed by which
aftermarket service providers can access OEM Web sites. In other words,
OEMs may not limit access to modem speeds of 28k or 56k. As more and
more computer users invest in digital subscriber lines (DSL) and cable
modems to access the Internet, we are concerned that limiting access at
these relatively slower speeds will impact the ability to access
information from OEM Web sites in a timely manner.
Feedback from aftermarket service providers has indicated that
there are three primary ways to generally categorize the aftermarket.
First, many aftermarket shops service a wide variety of makes, models,
and model years and are likely to rely on consolidated information such
as Mitchell or All Data and do not generally need access to
manufacturer-specific information on a daily basis. There are also
aftermarket shops who specialize by categories such as European or
Asian makes and models. There are also shops that further specialize by
a specific manufacturer. Additionally, other parties such as
Inspection/Maintenance lanes and do-it-yourself mechanics may be
interested in accessing OEM Web sites. Because of the potential for a
wide variety of OEM Web site usage, we are proposing that manufacturers
develop a three-tiered approach for the access to and cost structure of
their Web-based service information to provide maximum flexibility and
access to aftermarket service providers. We propose that these options
include, but not be limited to short-term, mid-term, and long-term
access to the required information.
(1) Short-Term Access. We propose that manufacturers provide short
term access for a set price. Under this scenario, manufacturers would
set up a short time frame of approximately 24 hours whereby an
aftermarket service provider would be able to access that OEM's Web
site, search for the piece of information they need, and purchase,
download and/or print it for a set fee. EPA believes that a reasonable
fee for short term access can be as little as $0, but should be no
greater than $20.
(2) Mid-term Access. We are proposing that manufacturers provide
mid term access for a set price. Under this scenario, aftermarket
service providers would be able to access to the OEM Web site for a 30
day time frame and purchase, download and/or print information under
this option for a set fee. EPA believes that a reasonable fee for mid
term access can be as little as $0, but no greater than $300.
(3) Long-term Access. We are proposing that manufacturers provide
long term access for a set price. Under this scenario, aftermarket
service providers would have access to the OEM Web site for a 365 day
time frame, including the ability to purchase, download and/or print
the information for a set fee. EPA believes that a reasonable fee for
long term access can be as little as $0, but no greater than $2500.
We believe that establishing this tiered approach will serve as a
reference point for manufacturers to develop and implement access to
their Web sites that allow maximum flexibility for aftermarket service
providers, and others who engage in the service and diagnosis of
vehicles given the varying needs for access to manufacturer specific
information. Additionally, EPA is significantly concerned that some
OEMs will develop pricing structures for access to their sites in such
a way that will prevent the purchase of information. Because of this
concern and to help reduce the possibility that inappropriate pricing
will occur, we believe that it is appropriate for EPA to establish
specific pricing parameters that each manufacturer must follow when
determining access fees for the three tiers described above. In
determining the pricing parameters described above, we took into
consideration feedback we have received thus far from some aftermarket
service providers on what they believe the appropriate pricing
parameters are for each of the three tiers. We also took into
consideration other factors such as the current cost to the aftermarket
for purchasing information from OEMs and the potential costs to OEMs
for developing, implementing, and maintaining OEM Web sites. We have
not received specific feedback from a majority of manufacturers on
their intended pricing structures, mainly due to the fact that most
manufacturers are still in the development stages of their sites and
are not in a position to comment on the issue at this time. We
understand that the cost of service information is a significant issue
for both the OEMs and aftermarket service providers. To this extent, we
request comment on this proposed tiered structure, the pricing
parameters established by EPA for each of the tiers, and what other
factors should be considered by EPA when evaluating whether
manufacturers are making their information available via the Internet
at
[[Page 30836]]
a reasonable cost. For a more complete discussion of cost for all of
the provisions contained in today's proposal, see Section II(F).
(b) Performance Requirements. The availability of service
information also relies heavily on the ability of OEM Web sites to
perform in such a way that service information can be delivered via the
Internet to potentially thousands of users at any given time without
significant delay. This is particularly important given the complexity
of the service information being transmitted (e.g., wiring diagrams,
electrical circuit diagrams, etc). The transmission of information via
the Internet depends on a complex array of server, database, network,
and other Web-based infrastructures that impact a Web site's ability to
transmit at maximum efficiency. While manufacturers cannot be held
accountable for issues such as end-user hardware and software or the
type of connectivity utilized by the end-user, (e.g., standard modem,
cable modem, or digital subscriber line), we believe it is necessary
for manufacturers to measure the parameters that are within their
control.
To this end, we are proposing that manufacturers submit to the
Administrator on an annual basis a report that provides detailed,
monthly measurements of the OEM's Web site. Each OEM report is to be
submitted to the Administrator beginning one year after the required
launch date of manufacturers' Web sites (i.e., one year and 6 months
after the final rule is issued), or upon request by the Administrator.
The parameters to be measured include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(1) Total successful requests (measured in number of files
including graphic interchange formats (GIFs) and joint photographic
expert group (JPEG) images, i.e. electronic images such as wiring or
other diagrams or pictures). This is defined as the total successful
request counts of all the files which have been requested, including
pages, graphics, etc.
(2) Average successful requests per day (measured in number of
files). This is defined as reports of the average successful requests
per day of all files which have been requested, including pages,
graphics, etc.
(3) Total successful requests for pages [report on number of pages
(including graphic interchange formats (GIFs) and joint photographic
expert group (JPEG) images, i.e. electronic images such as wiring or
other diagrams or pictures). This is defined as the total successful
requests counts all the documents that were returned or where the
document was requested but was not needed because it had not been
recently modified and the user could use a cached copy.
(4) Total failed requests (measured in number of files). This is
defined as the total failed request counts of all the files which were
requested but failed requests because they could not be found or were
read-protected. This includes pages, graphics, etc.
(5) Total redirected requests (measured in number of files). This
is defined as redirected requests that indicate that the user was
directed to a different file instead.
(6) Number of distinct files requested (measured in number of
files). This is defined as the number of different file types that were
requested (i.e., html, pdf, txt).
(7) Number of distinct hosts served (measured in number of files).
This is defined as reports on the number of different computers where
requests have come from.
(8) Corrupt logfile lines (measured in number of lines). This is
defined as the lines in the logfile that were unreadable by the
computer.
(9) Total data transferred (measured in bytes). This is defined as
the total amount of data transferred from one place to another.
(10) Average data transferred per day (measured in bytes). This is
defined as the average amount of data transferred per day from one
place to another.
(11) Daily Summary (measured in number of files/pages by day of
week). This is defined as the total number of requests in each day of
the week, over the time period given at the very top of the report.
(12) Daily Report (measured in number of files/pages by day of
month). This is defined as how many requests there were in each day of
a specific month.
(13) Hourly Summary (measured in number of files/pages by hour of
day). This is defined as the total number of requests for each hour of
the day, over a specific time period.
(14) Request Report (measured in number of files/pages by
individual URL). This is defined as which files were downloaded.
(15) Referrer Report (measured in number of files/pages by
individual referring URL). This is defined as which pages linked to
your files.
(16) Browser Summary (measured in number of files/pages by browser
type, i.e., Netscape, Internet Explorer). This is defined as the
versions of browsers by vendor.
(17) Browser Report (measured in number of files/pages by browser
type, i.e., Mozilla 4.0). This is defined as a list of the detailed
versions of browsers used.
This list will be periodically reviewed by the Administrator to
address changes in technology and any potential compliance issues.
Manufacturers would have the option of conducting their own
performance measurements or contracting with companies who specialize
in Internet performance measurement (e.g. Keynote Systems, Inc.).
However, we intend to work with OEMs to develop a standard format that
all manufacturers would use to submit the required information to the
Administrator and issue the required format via a manufacturer guidance
letter.
We believe that manufacturers are likely to evaluate at least some
aspects of the performance of their Web sites regardless of any
requirement do so. As a result, we believe that this requirement places
minimal burden on OEMs to meet the proposed requirements for
performance evaluation. The proposed requirements to assess Web site
performance serve to outline a consistent level of information to be
provided to the Administrator to assist in evaluating compliance with
Internet-based access to service information.
7. Hyperlinking
To facilitate the search for emission-related information on the
Internet, we propose that OEMs allow direct simple hyperlinking to
their Web sites from government Web sites and from all automotive-
related Web sites, such as aftermarket service providers, educational
institutions, and automotive associations. For example, an association
such as the Service Technician's Society (STS) may want to have a
section of their Web site that will allow an aftermarket technician to
access a complete listing of all the OEM Service Information Web sites.
Hyperlinking will allow individuals to connect directly to the OEM Web
home page of their choice directly from the STS Web site.
8. Administrator Access to OEM Web Sites
The Administrator shall have access to each OEM Web site at no
charge to the Agency. The Administrator shall have access to to the
site, reports, records and other information as provided by sections
114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act and other provisions of law.
[[Page 30837]]
B. What Provisions Are Proposed for Service Information for Third Party
Information Providers?
Currently, many aftermarket service and repair facilities depend on
consolidated service information purchased from third party providers
such and Mitchell and All-Data. These companies primarily consolidate
and repackage OEM service manuals and technical service bulletins
(TSBs) for purchase by the aftermarket. Currently, OEMs often provide
their service manuals and TSBs to these third parties in hardcopy.
Given the trend in the electronic exchange of information, we believe
that it is reasonable for OEMs to provide information electronically to
third party providers. While we are proposing to require that OEMs
provide full-text access to their information via the Internet for
aftermarket service providers and that this is the same information
needed by third party information intermediaries, we do not believe
that it is a practical option for these third party information
providers to download this information directly from the OEM Web sites.
There are numerous manufacturers with tens of thousands of pages of
service information. For third parties to access service information
directly from the each OEM Web site could result in unreasonably long
Internet connectivity times for third party service providers. More
importantly, we are concerned that third party access directly from the
OEM Web sites could impact the overall performance of those sites given
the large volumes of information that would be accessed by third party
information providers. We believe that this could impede the ability of
aftermarket service providers to access the relatively smaller bits of
information they need to diagnose and repair vehicles. Finally,
manufacturers will already have developed this information in
electronic format for uploading onto their individual Web sites and we
are not proposing to require manufacturers to develop special formats
to meet this proposed requirement. Because of these factors, we believe
it does not place undue burden on OEMs to provide the information
required by this regulation in electronic formats directly to third
party service information providers, rather than utilizing individual
OEM Web sites to access the required information. To this end, we
propose that OEMs provide information directly to third party
information intermediaries with all emission-related information in
electronic format in English that utilizes nonproprietary software. In
the alternate, OEMs may provide access to third party information
intermediaries to a Web site other than the Web site provided for
aftermarket service providers to meet this proposed provision if they
choose. OEMs are not responsible for the accuracy of the information
distributed by third parties. However, it is proposed that where OEMs
charge information intermediaries for information, whether through
licensing agreements or other arrangements, OEMs be responsible for
inaccuracies contained in the information they provide to third party
consolidators. We propose that manufacturers begin providing their
information electronically directly to third party service providers
with whom they license this material beginning with the 2002 model
year.
We propose this requirement because, in spite of recent trends of
moving toward electronic access to information, we believe that there
is likely to be a market for third party service information providers,
particularly for aftermarket service providers who service numerous
makes, models, and model years. This proposed requirement does not
apply to the 1996 through 2001 model years because service information
for these model years has already been supplied by manufacturers to
third party service providers.
C. What Requirements Are Proposed for the Availability of Training
Information?
In our 1995 Final Rule on Service Information, manufacturers were
required to make available to the aftermarket ``any and all''
information needed to make use of the OBD system, including any
instructions, for emission-related repairs. All training materials
(including notices of OEM sponsored classroom training) were also to be
made available for purchase from FedWorld at the same time this
information was made available to dealerships. OEMs supported a
provision that would require them to make available the training
material they provided to their dealerships, but indicated they could
not offer classroom training to the aftermarket because of limited
classroom space and other resource limitations. Likewise, the
aftermarket indicated that sending their technicians to offsite
training would also be very resource intensive in terms of training
cost, loss of technician work time, and potential loss of business. EPA
agreed that it would be overly burdensome to require manufacturers to
open their classrooms and instead finalized provisions that required
the availability of training information through the medium of their
choice (e.g. printed manuals, videotapes, CDs, etc.) and made available
for purchase from FedWorld.
Since that time, EPA has been in discussions with the aftermarket
indicate that complex OBD technology requires an even greater access to
OEM-specific training than is available to the aftermarket today. A
recent survey conducted by the Service Technicians Society, (EPA Air-
2000-49, item II-F-03) indicates that one of the greatest concerns of
the aftermarket remains the availability of OEM-specific training and
repair information. Aftermarket service providers generally believe
that OEM-specific training provides a more comprehensive level of
critical information that is necessary to perform some of the most
complex emission-related repairs as compared to some of the generic
training that is currently available to the aftermarket.
Additionally, we have become aware that several of the larger
manufacturers are revising the mechanisms used to deliver training to
their franchised dealerships. In particular, some manufacturers are
moving toward consolidating their training facilities and beginning to
offer training courses to the dealerships via satellite and the World
Wide Web. Computer and satellite technologies are also becoming more
accessible and affordable for aftermarket service providers and the
general public. We believe that these trends, which are likely to
continue, provide an opportunity for aftermarket technicians to have
access to OEM-specific training that may be delivered via the Internet
and satellite without placing burden on OEMs to provide training
directly to the aftermarket. In other words, we believe that technology
is evolving in such a way that will allow aftermarket shops to receive
OEM training directly from Internet sources or via satellite downlinks
right on their own personal computers and/or from satellite
transmissions.
In today's action, we propose to expand the training information
availability requirements to include any training courses offered by
OEMs to their franchised dealerships via satellite, Internet, Extranet,
or other means that contain, in whole or part, emission-related
information. To achieve this, we are proposing two provisions: (1)
availability of OEM training material for purchase from OEM Web sites,
and (2) availability of OEM Internet and satellite training materials
for third party re-packaging and re-distribution.
[[Page 30838]]
1. OEM Training Material for Purchase on OEM Web Sites
We are proposing that OEMs make available for purchase on their Web
sites the following items: training manuals, training videos, and
interactive, multimedia CD's or similar training tools available to
franchised dealerships. Additionally, we are proposing that OEMs who
transmit emissions-related training via satellite or the Internet must
tape these transmissions and make them available for purchase on their
Web sites within 30 days after the first transmission to franchised
dealerships. It is proposed that all of the items included in this
provision be shipped within 24 hours of the order being placed and are
to be made available at a reasonable price as described in Section
II(F). We also request comment on a provision that would require OEMs
to tape the emissions-related class room training provided to
dealerships and making those tapes available for sale on OEM Web sites.
We propose that these requirements apply for 1996 and later model
year vehicles starting 6 months following the effective date of the
Final Rule. For subsequent model years, it is proposed that the
required information be made available for purchase within three months
of model introduction, and then be made available at the same time it
is made available to franchised dealerships.
2. Third Party Access to OEM Training Material
OEMs have expressed that the current state of Internet and
satellite technologies and aftermarket demand for direct access via
satellite or the Internet do not support a need for providing direct
access of these training courses to the aftermarket in these formats.
We recognize that there is some uncertainty with the technology as it
exists today, but we believe, contrary to arguments made by OEMs, that
computer hardware and software technology is evolving in such a way
that advanced technologies such as cable modems, digital subscriber
lines (DSL) and streaming video will become increasingly prevalent and
affordable within the next 2-5 years. Additionally, the equipment
needed to access satellite transmissions is also becoming increasingly
affordable. We believe it is realistic that access to training for the
aftermarket and other information directly on the Internet or via
satellite is an attainable goal and will go a long way to meeting some
of the concerns of the aftermarket on their ability to acquire
training, OEM or otherwise. OEMs have also argued that it is
unreasonable that OEMs be burdened with providing training directly to
aftermarket service providers. While we recognize that advances in
Internet and satellite technology will reduce some of the
administrative issues that OEMs would face in delivering training to
the aftermarket, it may still be a burden for OEMs themselves to
deliver automotive training courses (e.g., Chrysler's OBDII Student
Workbook and General Motors' OBDII manuals) to the aftermarket.
Therefore, we are also proposing that OEMs make available to entities
who develop or deliver training all emissions-related training courses
transmitted via satellite or Internet training courses offered to
franchised dealerships. This type of training information can then be
repackaged and made available for transmission to the aftermarket by
third party training providers at a later date or as market forces
demand. OEMs may not charge unreasonable up-front fees to third party
training providers for this access, but they may require a royalty,
percentage or other arranged fee based on a per-use or enrollment/
subscription basis.
While we are not requiring third party training entities to deliver
training to the aftermarket in any format, there is a large market of
third party training providers who currently provide both generic and
some OEM-specific training to the automotive aftermarket in a variety
of formats including training manuals, CDs and class room training. We
are also specifically aware of several training providers who have
developed, or in are in the process of developing, Web-based training
programs for aftermarket service providers. To this end, we believe
that requiring direct access to OEM Internet and satellite
transmissions for third party training providers is simply expanding
upon the training delivery mechanisms that can be utilized to deliver
training to the aftermarket. To the extent that OEMs expand their usage
of the Internet and/or satellite technology to deliver OEM-specific
training to their franchised dealerships, we believe this proposed
provision will increase the availability of OEM-specific training to
aftermarket service providers.
EPA proposes that this requirement be effective for 1996 and later
model year vehicles starting 6 months following the effective date of
the Final Rule.
D. What Requirements Are Proposed for Reprogramming?
Under the existing service information regulations, if their
franchised dealerships have the ability to reprogram the electronic
control unit (ECU), OEMs are required to provide reprogramming
capability to the aftermarket. The existing regulations allow OEMs to
meet this requirement by providing information to equipment and tool
companies that allows them to incorporate reprogramming into their
tools or by making available to the aftermarket the manufacturer-
specific reprogramming system or tool that performs reprogramming
events. All but one manufacturer has satisfied this requirement through
the latter option.
As a result, aftermarket shops that want to provide reprogramming
services to their customers and that service multiple makes of vehicles
have been faced with costly and time consuming barriers to performing
reprogramming services for their customers. Because manufacturers have
opted to meet the current requirement by making their OEM-specific
reprogramming tools available for sale, an aftermarket service provider
who wishes to perform reprogramming events has to purchase a different
reprogramming tool or system for each vehicle manufacturer. This has
imposed significant costs on aftermarket shops. Several manufacturers
incorporate reprogramming capabilities into their manufacturer specific
diagnostic scan tool. An aftermarket technician who otherwise uses a
generic diagnostic scan tool, which ranges in cost from approximately
$300 to $3000, to perform most diagnoses and repair would need to
purchase multiple manufacturer-specific diagnostic scan tools or
systems, which generally range in cost from $1600 to several thousand
dollars each, not including the cost of purchasing the re-calibration
or re-programming event itself or the software and software updates
needed to use the diagnostic scan tool. For example, an aftermarket
shop who wanted to perform reprogramming events just for Ford, GM and
Chrysler would have to purchase 3 separate OEM-specific diagnostic
tools that would cost a total of approximately $6000 to $10,000.
Additionally, EPA is aware of at least three larger manufacturers who
intend to move toward reprogrammable OBD computers within the next few
model years. This trend underscores the need to work with manufacturers
and aftermarket scan tool companies to develop cost effective
reprogramming alternatives for aftermarket repair facilities. As a
point of comparison, we estimate that diagnostic scan tools capable of
reprogramming multiple makes and models will cost approximately $1500
to $2500.
Aftermarket shops who want to perform this advanced diagnostic
[[Page 30839]]
service for their customers short of investing in multiple
manufacturer-specific diagnostic scan tools must then rely on a
dealership to perform this service. This option can impose significant
burden on aftermarket service providers and consumers in several ways.
First, the service provider must purchase the service from the
dealership with dealer mark-up, which could result in potentially
higher cost for the consumer who chooses to have service performed by
aftermarket shops. Second, having to bring a vehicle in need of a
reprogramming event to a dealership can add significant additional time
needed to complete an emissions-related repair. There is no guarantee
that the dealership will be willing to perform this service for the
aftermarket in a timely fashion and we have received complaints from
aftermarket service providers indicating that they have had to wait
days, or even weeks, to have reprogramming service provided by a
dealership. We believe that these factors place the aftermarket in a
non-competitive position in the marketplace for performing
reprogramming services, which ultimately impacts a consumer's freedom
of choice for who services their vehicle.
At the time the 1995 regulations were being developed, OEMs
expressed concern that making reprogramming capabilities widely
available to the aftermarket would result in a significant increase in
tampering or misuse of calibrations and re-calibrations. Though neither
EPA nor the OEMs could substantiate how much of a problem this would
be, we believed a cautious approach regarding misuse of this new
technology was appropriate at that time. We therefore finalized a
provision that allowed manufacturers the options described above.
Since that time, neither EPA nor the manufacturers have been made
aware of significant instances of the misuse of the information needed
to develop aftermarket scan tools with reprogramming capabilities, or
misuse of the actual calibrations or re-calibrations themselves. We are
also not aware of any confidentiality issues encountered by the one
manufacturer who makes their information available to the aftermarket
scan tool company that develops their aftermarket reprogramming tool.
Further, we are not aware of any confidentiality issues regarding the
information that manufacturers do provide to aftermarket scan tool
companies to develop generic aftermarket diagnostic tools. We are aware
that individual manufacturers currently have confidentiality agreements
in place with individual aftermarket scan tool companies to protect any
information provided to scan tool companies by OEMs and that
information can be labeled as confidential business information by the
OEM. Under these confidentiality agreements, OEMs have recourse to
revoke or pursue other legal remedies for violations of these
agreements. We are not aware of any such instances and believe that
requirements proposed today will not impact the ability of OEMs to
retain control of any information they label as confidential.
Additionally, none of the information required by aftermarket scan tool
companies to incorporate reprogramming capabilities into aftermarket
scan tools reveals calibration or re-calibration specifications.
Finally, technology known as pass-through reprogramming has evolved in
such a way that allow for increased protection of calibrations and re-
calibrations that the OEMs make available for the completion of
reprogramming events. The manufacturer calibration software remains
resident and accessible through the manufacturers Web site as opposed
to the current CD-ROM distribution to the aftermarket. This allows the
OEM more control of distribution and better tracking of distribution.
In addition, the pass-through device does not have hardware interface
or additional ports for software re-direction similar to an OEM or
aftermarket scan tool which are currently used to transfer data between
the PC and the vehicle ECU. An aftermarket diagnostic scan tool with
pass-through reprogramming capability that can reprogram multiple
manufacturers is expected to cost approximately $1500-$2500.
Taking into consideration all of these factors, we believe that it
is necessary to propose changes for access to reprogramming
capabilities in this proposed rulemaking. In order to make
reprogramming capabilities available to the aftermarket for the
broadest range of model years possible, we are proposing a two-tiered
approach. First, for MY1994 through MY2002 OBD equipped vehicles with
reprogramming capability, we are proposing that manufacturers make
available all emissions-related reprogramming information to
aftermarket tool and equipment companies in a similar manner to the
information that manufacturers currently make available for enhanced
diagnostics. This would include the following information necessary for
programming the Electronic Control Unit (ECU):
(a) the physical hardware requirements including communication
network specifications for reprogramming events or tools (e.g., system
voltage requirements, cable terminals/pins, connections such as RS232
or USB, wires, etc.),
(b) ECU data communication including message format and data
encoding (e.g., serial data protocols, transmission speed or baud rate,
bit timing requirements, etc.),
(c) information on the application physical interface (API) or
layers (descriptions for procedures such as connection, initialization,
performing and verifying programming/download, and termination),
(d) vehicle application information or any other related service
information (which interfaces or combination of interfaces are used on
each vehicle system for each make/model year) such as special pins and
voltages for reprogramming events or additional vehicle connectors that
require enablement and specifications for the enablement. This is not a
new information requirement for the vehicle manufacturers. This is the
same information that is currently used to produce the same diagnostic
functionality in dealership scan tool equipment. See EPA Air Docket #A-
2000-49, item II-F-06 for complete New Product Information Guidelines
(NPIG) developed by the Equipment and Tool Institute.
We believe that the information being proposed does not require
manufacturers to make any hardware or software changes. Rather,
manufacturers must only make the information available to aftermarket
tool and equipment companies. We are proposing that this information be
made available within 6 months of publication of the Final Rule. After
that, this information shall be released when it is first provided to
franchised dealerships.
Second, for MY2003 and later OBD equipped vehicles with
reprogramming capabilities, we are proposing that manufacturers comply
with SAE Standardized Practice J2534 for ``pass-through
reprogramming.'' Pass-through reprogramming is a process that allows
the programming or reprogramming of a vehicle's computer without
revealing proprietary information to the end user. EPA has seen
multiple demonstrations of this technology and is aware that several
large manufacturers use this process for dealership reprogramming. In
light of the success of pass-through reprogramming and the cost burden
associated with the purchase of multiple tools under the existing
regulations, we
[[Page 30840]]
believe that the aftermarket should not be required to use OEM-specific
tools for emission-related reprogramming. Additionally, SAE J2534 was
developed with extensive cooperation between the OEMs and aftermarket
tool and equipment companies. We believe that this standardized
practice addresses a vast majority of the technological issues raised
by both parties and will ultimately provide a cost-effective means for
aftermarket reprogramming while still protecting the proprietary
information of the OEMs. This SAE Standard Practice is proposed to be
Incorporated by Reference in Section II(G). SAE J2534 is currently
undergoing final review and approval. A draft of J2534 is available for
inspection in EPA Air Docket A-2000-49. While it has not been finalized
in time for this proposal, we believe it will finalized in time for the
final rule. Upon final approval of this standard, EPA will issue a
notice of document availability at which time the finalized version
will be placed in EPA Air Docket A-2000-49 for inspection. The final
version of J2534 will also be available directly from the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE).
We are aware that some manufacturers use manufacturer specific
diagnostic link connectors for reprogramming that are placed in
locations other than those which are currently required by SAE Standard
Practice J1962. To standardize reprogramming capability for the
aftermarket, we also propose that manufacturers must comply with SAE
Standard Practice J1962, ``Diagnostic Link Connector'' for the purposes
of pass-through reprogramming, beginning with the 2003 model year.
J1962 has already been approved for Incorporation by Reference in EPA's
On-Board Diagnostic regulations (58 FR 9468). EPA requests comment on
the lead-time necessary for manufacturers to comply with this proposed
requirement.
We also propose that manufacturers make available the necessary OEM
software applications needed to initiate pass-through reprogramming
events to the aftermarket at a reasonable cost. Initiation software can
be described as the transport method used to transmit the OEM
calibrations from storage to the pass-through device. In other words,
the initiation software serves as a mechanism to transmit calibrations
from where they are stored (Internet, BBS, or CD-ROM) to the ECU.
Manufacturers must also make available the necessary calibrations
or reprogramming events via CD-ROM, diskette, or the Internet. We also
propose that this be stand-alone software that can be run on a standard
PC and must use a WIN-32 operating system. In other words, EPA expects
that manufacturers will not simply bundle the pass-through
reprogramming software with other OEM software, re-package this OEM-
specific software as an aftermarket version and charge a price that is
not reasonable for the aftermarket.
Finally, we propose that manufacturers continue to make
reprogramming services available to aftermarket service providers in a
timely manner and a reasonable cost via their dealerships. We propose
this provision to ensure wide-spread availability of reprogramming
capability for aftermarket service providers.
E. What Requirements Are Proposed for the Availability of Enhanced
Information for Scan Tools and OEM-Specific Diagnostic Scan Tools?
The service information regulation published August 9, 1995 (60 FR
40474) required OEMs to make certain generic service information
available to tool manufacturers. Enhanced service information was also
required to be made available. However, OEMs had the option of either
making their OEM enhanced diagnostic tools available for sale to
independent technicians at a reasonable cost or making available to
aftermarket tool and equipment companies the information needed to
develop and manufacture enhanced aftermarket diagnostic tools. This
requirement did not achieve the CAA directive to make available all
information needed to make use of the emission control diagnostic
system to any person engaged in repairing or servicing of motor
vehicles or motor vehicle engines for several reasons.
First, because many manufacturers opted not to provide enhanced
information to the equipment and tool companies, the aftermarket tools
that are manufactured and sold often do not provide the comprehensive
information needed by aftermarket technicians to perform more advanced
emissions-related repairs. We believe that aftermarket shops who
service numerous makes and models are placed at a competitive
disadvantage regarding the level of service they can provide for their
customers. Second, aftermarket service providers who wish to perform
more advanced diagnoses and repairs must purchase an enhanced
diagnostic tool for the majority of OEMs in order to be able to perform
advanced OBD diagnoses. OEM-specific diagnostic scan tools range in
cost from $1600 to approximately $5000. We are also aware of at least
one OEM who makes their OEM-specific diagnostic tool available for sale
for approximately $20,000. With the average cost of approximately
$3000, aftermarket shops who want to be reasonably equipped to provide
advanced diagnostic and repair services for the 6 or 7 largest
manufacturers would have to invest tens of thousands of dollars in
diagnostic equipment on top of the several thousands of dollars per
year that aftermarket shops must invest each year for service
information. On the other hand, OEM dealerships generally serve just
one manufacturer and can make relatively smaller investments in tools
and equipment. We believe that this is cost prohibitive and creates a
substantial competitive disadvantage for independent shops who
generally run much smaller businesses than OEM dealerships. We also
believe that the large investments that need to be made in OEM-specific
tools prevents independent shops from performing services that dealers
are able to perform, placing them at a competitive disadvantage in the
level of services they can provide, ultimately making it difficult for
some aftermarket service providers to even stay in business.
Ultimately, we believe that the option most manufacturers have
chosen under the existing requirements results in customers being
denied freedom to choose where to have their vehicles serviced. To
eliminate these inequities and to ensure that all aftermarket service
providers have access to the diagnostic tools essential for the
diagnosis and repair of OBD systems, we propose two requirements.
First, we propose that manufacturers provide generic and enhanced
information as described below to aftermarket tool and equipment
companies to develop aftermarket diagnostic scan tools. Second, we
propose that OEMs make available for sale their manufacturer-specific
diagnostic scan tools at a fair and reasonable price.
(1) Description of Enhanced Diagnostic Information. We propose to
require an increased level of enhanced information to be made available
to aftermarket tool and equipment companies to develop more functional
aftermarket diagnostic scan tools.
We propose that within 30 days of publication of the final rule
OEMs make available to companies who develop aftermarket scan tools all
generic and enhanced service information for MY 1996 and later needed
to manufacture diagnostic tools that can be used by aftermarket
technicians to diagnose, service and repair emission-related components
and systems. Enhanced information is defined as information that is
necessary to implement an on-
[[Page 30841]]
board diagnostic service interface. In general it encompasses
information that describes each of the various diagnostic communication
interfaces (communication protocol, message, timing and any information
which identifies which interface is applicable to each particular my/
model/engine combination). This information must cover both generic and
enhanced information. Enhanced information includes, but is not limited
to:
(a) All serial data stream information
(b) Bi-directional controls (e.g., operation of actuators,
initiation of self-checks, etc.) Including any safety precautions
necessary prior to invoking the controls.
(c) descriptions of non-proprietary logic and performance limits
and specifications used in the OEM specific tools to perform diagnostic
routines or sub-routines (E.g., injector or cylinder balance tests,
etc.)
(d) the physical hardware requirements for reprogramming events or
tools (e.g. system voltage requirements, cable terminals/pins,
connections such as RS232 or USB, wires, etc.);
(e) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) data communication (e.g. serial
data protocols, transmission speed or baud rate, bit timing
requirements, etc);
(f) information on the application physical interface (API) or
layers (i.e., processing algorithms or software design descriptions for
procedures such as connection, initialization, performing and verifying
programming/download, and termination);
(g) vehicle application information or any other related service
information such as special pins and voltages for reprogramming events
or additional vehicle connectors that require enablement and
specifications for the enablement;
In addition, we propose that manufacturers provide information that
describes which interfaces or combination of interfaces, from each of
the categories in the sections above are used on each vehicle. This may
be organized by application, system or a combination of both provided
the information identifies which interfaces are used on each vehicle's
system/model/model year. Manufacturers may use the New Product
Information Guideline (NPIG) created by the Equipment and Tool
Institute (ETI) to meet this requirement or provide a substitute matrix
approved by the Administrator. The NPIG is a standard format already
used by a majority of manufacturers when submitting information to ETI.
An example of the NPIG is available in EPA Air Docket A-2000-49, item
II-F-06. OEMs are not required to release the underlying computer codes
that make up calibrations and recalibrations.
(2) Distribution of Enhanced Diagnostic Information. Currently, all
but one of the manufacturers who make available scan tool information
use the Equipment and Tool Institute (ETI) as the primary distribution
mechanism for scan tool information. In particular, ETI maintains the
``TEK-NET Library'', which is administered through a secure Web site
that ETI has developed to gather and re-distribute diagnostic scan tool
information to its member companies as agreed through licensing and
other contractual arrangements. This arrangement has been developed
independently between the OEMs, ETI, and ETI member companies (e.g.
Snap-On, SPX, etc) and has been in use for several years. However,
since the 1995 regulations were finalized, we have become aware of
several instances where manufacturers have submitted the information
required by the regulations to ETI and/or their member companies in
either unmanageable formats (e.g. reams of paper) or in languages other
than English. These inconsistencies can affect the ability of
aftermarket scan tool companies to provide timely updates and/or
introduce new products to aftermarket service providers. Because
aftermarket service providers rely heavily on the diagnostic scan tools
they purchase from ETI member companies to diagnose and repair
emissions-related problems, we believe it is imperative that the
required information be provided to ETI and/or their member companies
in a timely and manageable manner. Therefore, we propose that the
required information be provided to aftermarket tool and equipment
companies in English via the Internet to a secure Web site as arranged
through necessary licensing, contractual, and confidentiality
agreements between the OEMs, ETI, and/or their member companies. We
propose that this information be uploaded in electronic format using
common document formats such as MicroSoft Excel, Adobe Acrobat,
MicroSoft Word, etc as preferred by the manufacturer. At this time, we
believe that ETI's TEK-NET library meets the intent of this proposed
requirement and we encourage manufacturers to continue the on-going,
cooperative relationship. We also propose that the Administrator have
free unrestricted access to this Web site in order to assist EPA in the
verification that all required information is being made available as
required by these regulations.
Finally, ETI must provide information to aftermarket scan tool
companies who are not members of ETI involved in the manufacture and
sale of scan tool type devices for use on vehicles sold in the United
States if the non-members have arranged for the appropriate licensing,
contractual and confidentiality agreements with the OEMs and ETI.
(3) Availability of Manufacturer-Specific Diagnostic Scan Tools.
The current regulations give manufacturers the option of either
making information available to aftermarket diagnostic tool companies
so that they can develop generic aftermarket diagnostic scan tools or
making available for sale their OEM-specific diagnostic scan tools. As
discussed above, a majority of manufacturers already make their OEM-
specific tools available for sale rather than making available
information available for the development of generic aftermarket tools.
While we are proposing to require that all OEMs provide an increased
level of information for the development of more sophisticated generic
aftermarket scan tools, we believe there will continue to be a demand
for OEM-specific tools as well. For example, we are aware that many
aftermarket shops specialize in European or Asian models or exclusively
in one manufacturer such as BMW or Mercedes-Benz. These aftermarket
shops are likely to make the investment in manufacturer-specific
diagnostic tools even though they are priced higher than generic
diagnostic tools in order to provide more specialized services for
their customers. In order to ensure that OEM-specific tools continue to
be available to aftermarket service providers, we propose that vehicle
manufacturers make available for sale their own manufacturer-specific
diagnostic tools. OEMs may elect to develop different versions of one
or more of their diagnostic tools, but emission-related service
information must be made available to the aftermarket. In addition to
making their diagnostic tools available for sale, OEMs must provide
support for those tools or have a third party do so. If a third party
does so, the OEM is responsible for availability and accuracy. We
propose that OEMs make their OEM-specific tools available for sale to
the aftermarket at a reasonable cost. With a few exceptions, we believe
that most manufacturers who currently make their OEM-specific tools
available meet the intent of reasonable cost. We expect that the cost
of OEM-specific
[[Page 30842]]
tools should not change significantly as a result of this proposed
provision.
(4) Decontenting of OEM-specific Tools. Some OEM-specific
diagnostic tools contain information that is not emission-related. If
OEMs decide to delete the non-emission related information
(``decontent'') from the tool before offering it for sale to the
aftermarket, we expect that the cost of the tool will be adjusted to
reflect its decreased value. It is proposed that the emission-related
information in the tool be identical to that contained in the tool
offered to the dealers. In such cases, it is proposed that OEMs obtain
approval from the Administrator following demonstration that the
emission-related functions of the dealer tool and the decontented tool
are the same.
(5) Availability of Special Tools. Some manufacturers currently
require the use of a special tool to extinguish the MIL. It is our
understanding that these tools are not always available to the
aftermarket. To address this issue, EPA is proposing that OEMs be
precluded from using such systems beginning with model year 2002. For
model years 1994-2001, today's rulemaking proposes that OEMs who
require such tools to extinguish the MIL make the necessary information
available to equipment and tool companies to design a comparable
generic tool. It is proposed that this information be made available no
later than 3 months following the effective date of the Final Rule.
F. What Are the Cost Provisions Proposed for Service Information?
As discussed in the 1995 Service Information regulations, we
believe that cost is an integral factor influencing the availability of
service information. At that time, we were concerned that manufacturers
could have priced their service information and OEM-specific diagnostic
scan tools in such a way that would preclude their purchase and
subsequent use, therefore rendering the information and/or tools
unavailable. While we believe that a majority of manufacturers have
made a good faith attempt to meet the ``reasonable cost'' provisions
finalized in 1995, we believe it is necessary to revisit the issue of
cost of service information and diagnostic scan tools and the Agency's
position on this issue. Additionally, full-text access to information
via the Internet introduces additional parameters that must be
evaluated in order to ensure that the information required by these
regulations can be considered available. As a result, we are proposing
revisions to the regulations governing ``reasonable cost'' to reflect
the proposed move from FedWorld to the World Wide Web.
The 1995 regulations establish parameters for OEMs on what factors
should be considered by manufacturers when developing the pricing
structures for the required information. We also received substantive
comments from OEMs and aftermarket service providers on what those
factors should be and incorporated many of them into the 1995 final
rule. As a result, we required manufacturers to make emission-related
service information available at a reasonable cost. Reasonable cost was
described as a fair and reasonable price taking into consideration
factors such as the cost to the manufacturer of preparing and/or
providing the information, the type of information, the format in which
it is provided, the price charged by other manufacturers for similar
information, the differences that exist among manufacturers (e.g. the
size of the manufacturer), the quantity of material contained in a
publication, the detail of the information, the cost of the information
prior to finalization of the 1995 rule, volume discounts and inflation.
One of the factors that was finalized as a reference point for
evaluating the cost of service information allows OEMs to recover the
costs incurred for preparing and/or providing the information. Since
manufacturers will be moving to the World Wide Web as a primary means
of distribution for their information, we propose that one of the
factors to be considered in determining whether the price charged for
the access to the information on the World Wide Web is reasonable is
the cost incurred by OEMs for developing their Web sites. Section
II(6)(a) also discusses some of the feedback we have received from the
aftermarket on what some aftermarket service providers consider as
reasonable costs for access to information on OEM Web sites. We solicit
comment on the general pricing structure as it is discussed in this
section.
While we have discussed some specific aspects of the cost of
service information for Web access to the required information, we
expect that all of the information and diagnostic scan tools covered by
this proposal to be made available at a reasonable cost in such a
manner that ensures its availability. Manufacturers who develop pricing
structures for the required information in a manner that renders it
unavailable to the aftermarket will be considered in violation of the
regulations and subject to fines of $25,000 per day per violation.
G. Which Reference Materials Are Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference?
Also being proposed is the adoption of SAE Recommended Practice
J1930, ``Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions,
Abbreviations, and Acronyms.'' This standardized procedure was proposed
in the September 1991 (56 FR 48272) proposal, but was not finalized due
to a variety of issues on the standardization of the electronic format
of service information. It is proposed that manufacturers comply with
J1930 beginning with the 2003 model year. EPA believes that most
manufacturers have already adopted J1930 in the development of their
service information. However, the Agency believes that it is important
for all manufacturers to adopt J1930 definitions and terminology given
the increasing complexity and volume of service information. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to require that all manufacturers comply with
J1930 beginning with the 2003 model year.
Today's action also proposes the incorporation of SAE Recommended
Practice J2284, ``High Speed CAN (HSC) for Vehicle Applications at 500
KBPS.'' This recommended practice was finalized in February of 1999 and
defines a level of standardization in the implementation of a 500 KBPS
vehicle communication network using the Controller Area Network (CAN)
protocol. It is proposed that manufacturers comply with J2284 beginning
with the 2003 model year. EPA also believes that most manufacturers are
moving toward the adoption of J2284 with model year 2003 and that there
will be little objection from the manufacturers on this requirement.
As discussed above in section II(D), we are also proposing to
Incorporate by Reference SAE Recommended Practice J2534 and SAE
Recommended Practice J1962. All of these items with the exception of
J2534 are available for inspection in EPA Air Docket A-2000-49. SAE
J2534 will be made available for inspection in the docket once it has
been finalized. A draft of SAE J2534 has been placed in EPA Air Docket
A-2000-49 for inspection. All SAE recommended practices can be obtained
from the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, or at www.sae.org.
[[Page 30843]]
H. What Are the Proposed Requirements for Heavy-duty Service
Information?
Section 202(m)(5) of the Clean Air Act applies service information
availability requirements to all motor vehicles equipped with emission-
control diagnostic systems, including heavy-duty vehicles and engines.
We are proposing that all of the requirements proposed today apply to
manufacturers of all heavy-duty vehicles and engines weighing 14,000
pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and lower beginning in model year
2005, which is the first year that such engines and vehicles are
subject to OBD requirements. Today's proposal applies only to engines
and vehicles subject to the OBD requirements during the phase-in of
those requirements. EPA is proposing the same requirements for these
engines and vehicles as it is proposing for light-duty vehicles and
trucks. However, we recognize that certain aspects of these proposed
regulations may need to be reviewed to ensure that they accurately
reflect how the aftermarket service industry can be best assured of
receiving the information necessary to make use of the OBD system and
to make emissions-related diagnosis and repairs. We request comment on
the appropriateness of the proposed requirements for this sector.
I. Are Formats for Service Information Proposed?
The Agency is not proposing any requirements that specify the
format that manufacturers must use to organize or display the required
information on their Web sites. In particular, we are not requiring
manufacturers to comply with SAE Standardized Practice J2008
``Recommended Organization of Service Information''. In the August 1995
final rule, the Agency could not finalize the incorporation of J2008
because the standard had not yet been finalized. At that time, the
Agency was optimistic that J2008 would be finalized in time to allow
manufacturers to adopt it voluntarily or give EPA the option of
incorporating it into the service information requirements. However,
J2008 was not finalized until October of 1998. By that time, several
large OEMs were well into the development of their Web sites and some
manufacturers were already conducting pilots within their dealerships.
While the Agency is supportive of providing information in formats that
are user-friendly and readily accessible to the end-user, we are
reluctant to implement requirements that would require manufacturers to
redesign existing service information that has already been developed.
The Agency has put forth minimum performance requirements that we
believe will allow us to monitor manufacturer Web site performance
while allowing manufacturers maximum flexibility and creativity in the
development of their service information for access on the Internet.
Finally, we believe that the learning curve for aftermarket service
industry will level off relatively quickly given the ever increasing
dependence on computers and the Internet to conduct business. EPA
requests comment on the need for J2008 or another format for service
information.
III. What Is the Cost of This Proposal?
This proposed rulemaking alters existing provisions by revising the
current service information regulations. The provisions proposed in
today's rulemaking require OEMs to make available information and tools
that have already been developed for use by their dealerships.
Therefore, EPA believes that the changes proposed today put little or
no new additional requirements on OEMs beyond administrative costs for
providing access to existing information and tools, which are
recoverable to the OEM as discussed above in IIF.
IV. What Are the Opportunities for Public Participation?
A. Comments and the Public Docket
EPA welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed rulemaking.
Commenters are especially encouraged to give suggestions for changing
any aspects of the proposal. All comments, with the exception of
proprietary information should be addressed to the EPA Air Docket
Section, Docket No. A-2000-49 (see ADDRESSES).
Commenters who wish to submit proprietary information for
consideration should clearly separate such information from other
comments by 1) labeling proprietary information ``Confidential Business
Information'' and 2) sending proprietary information directly to the
contact person listed (see FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and not to the
public docket. This will help insure that proprietary information is
not inadvertently placed in the docket. If a commenter wants EPA to use
a submission labeled as confidential business information as part of
the basis for the final rule, then a nonconfidential version of the
document, which summarizes the key data or information, should be sent
to the docket.
Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed
by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40
CFR Part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission
when EPA receives it, the submission may be made available to the
public without notifying the commenters.
B. Public Hearing
Anyone wishing to present testimony about this proposal at the
public hearing (see DATES) should, if possible, notify the contact
person (see For Further Information Contact) at least seven days prior
to the day of the hearing. The contact person should be given an
estimate of the time required for the presentation of testimony and
notification of any need for audio/visual equipment. Testimony will be
scheduled on a first come, first serve basis. A sign-up sheet will be
available at the registration table the morning of the hearing for
scheduling those who have not notified the contact earlier. This
testimony will be scheduled on a first come, first serve basis to
follow the previously scheduled testimony.
EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or
material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to
the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an
advanced copy of any statement or material to be presented at the
hearing at least one week before the scheduled hearing date. This is to
give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before the
hearing. Such advanced copies should be submitted to the contact person
listed.
The official records of the hearing will be kept open for 30 days
following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary
testimony. All such submittals should be directed to the Air Docket
Section, Docket No. A-2000-49 (see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be
conducted informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. A
written transcript of the hearing will be placed in the above docket
for review. Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of the transcript should
make individual arrangements with the court reporter recording the
proceedings.
V. What Are the Administrative Requirements for This Proposal?
A. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of this Executive Order. The Order defines
[[Page 30844]]
a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in
a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
EPA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally
requires federal agencies to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis
of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements
unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and
small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
the regulated entities impacted by this rulemaking would not be
considered small entities.
Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 0783.41) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail
at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at
epamail.epa.gov">farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
EPA is proposing that manufacturers subject to the proposed
requirements for Web based delivery of service information be required
to submit to the Administrator on an annual basis an electronic report
that contains measurements of the various performance parameters as
outlined in Section II(A)(6) of this preamble. The information proposed
to be collected will allow the Agency to assess compliance with the
regulations.
It is estimated that the cost of collecting this information will
be $250 per month, or $3000 per year for each of the approximately 45
manufacturers subject to this proposed information collection
requirements. Initial start-up costs are expected to be approximately
$1000 with approximately $100-$200 per year for maintenance. The 400
burden hours are estimated to cost $11,628.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 8, 2001, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 9, 2001.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory action on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgation an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before we establish any regulatory requirement that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, we must develop, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
our regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental
mandates. The plan must also provide for informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA believes this proposed rule contains no federal mandates for
state, local, or tribal governments. Nor does this rule have federal
mandates that may result in the expenditures of $100 million or more in
any year by the private sector as defined by the provisions of Title II
of the UMRA. Nothing in the proposed rule would
[[Page 30845]]
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule will impose no direct compliance costs on
states. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The requirements proposed by this action impact private sector
businesses, particularly the automotive and engine manufacturing
industries. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rule incorporates by reference technical standards
adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). We believe these
standards are well accepted by industry.
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
H. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA believes this proposed rule is not subject to the Executive
Order because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
as defined by Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Gasoline, Incorporation by reference, Motor
vehicles, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 30, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 86--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR
VEHICLES AND NEW AND IN-USE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES: CERTIFICATION
AND TEST PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 86.094-38 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph
(g)(21) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.094-38 Maintenance instructions.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(21) In lieu of meeting the requirements of paragraphs (g)(5)
through (g)(9) of this section, manufacturers may upload the required
information in full text on its manufacturer-specific Web site as
required in Sec. 86.096-38(g)(3). In the alternative, manufacturers may
upload an index of the required information on its Web site consistent
with paragraphs (g)(5), (g)(6), and (g)(9) of this section.
3. Section 86.096-38 is proposed to be added to subpart A to read
as follows:
Sec. 86.096-38 Maintenance instructions.
(a)-(f) [Reserved]
(g) Emission control diagnostic service information.
(1) Manufacturers are subject to the provisions of this paragraph
(g) beginning in the 1996 model year for manufacturers of light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks, and beginning in the 2005 model year
for manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines
weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that are
subject to the OBD requirements of this part.
(2) General requirements. (i) Manufacturers shall furnish or cause
to be furnished to any person engaged in the repairing or servicing of
motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines, or the Administrator upon
request, any and all information needed to make use of the on-board
diagnostic system and such other information, including instructions
for making emission-related diagnosis and repairs, including but not
limited to service manuals, technical service bulletins, recall service
information, data stream information, bi-directional control
information, and
[[Page 30846]]
training information, unless such information is protected by section
208(c) as a trade secret. No such information may be withheld under
section 208(c) of the Act if that information is provided (directly or
indirectly) by the manufacturer to franchised dealers or other persons
engaged in the repair, diagnosing, or servicing of motor vehicles or
motor vehicle engines.
(ii) Definitions. The following definitions apply for this
paragraph (g).
(A) Aftermarket service provider means any individual or business
engaged in the diagnosis, service, and repair of a motor vehicle or
engine who is not directly affiliated with a manufacturer or
manufacturer franchised dealership.
(B) Bi-directional control means the capability of a diagnostic
tool to send messages on the data bus that temporarily overrides the
module's control over a sensor or actuator and gives control to the
diagnostic tool operator. Bi-directional controls do not create
permanent changes to engine or component calibrations.
(C) Data stream information means information (i.e., messages and
parameters) originated within the vehicle by a module or intelligent
sensors (i.e., a sensor that contains and is controlled by its own
module) and transmitted between a network of modules and/or intelligent
sensors connected in parallel with either one or two communication
wires. The information is broadcast over the communication wires for
use by other modules (e.g., chassis, transmission, etc.) to conduct
normal vehicle operation or for use by diagnostic tools. Data stream
information does not include engine calibration related information.
(D) Emissions-related information means any information related to
the diagnosis, service, and repair of emissions-related components.
(E) Emissions-related training information means any information
related training or instruction for the purpose of the diagnosis,
service, and repair of emissions-related components. Emissions-related
information includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Manuals, including subsystem and component manuals, technical
service bulletins (TSBs), recall service information, diagrams, charts,
and training materials;
(2) OBD system operational information that describes functional
characteristics of the OBD system and emission-related components. OBD
system operational information includes, but is not limited to, OBD
generic drive cycle information, component operating ranges, and system
logic flow diagrams. Algorithms, look-up tables, or any values
associated with look-up tables are not required to be made available;
(3) Emission-related diagnostic procedures. Manufacturers who
utilize their manufacturer-specific scan tool to provide emissions-
related diagnostic procedures cannot require connection to the vehicle
to access this information. Additionally, manufacturers shall also make
any emissions-related diagnostic procedures incorporated into their
manufacturer-specific scan tools available to aftermarket service
providers on their respective manufacturer Web sites;
(4) Any information on other systems that can directly effect the
emission system within a multiplexed system (including how information
is sent between emission-related system modules and other modules on a
multiplexed bus);
(5) Any information regarding any system, component, or part of a
vehicle monitored by the OBD system that could in a failure mode cause
the OBD system to illuminate the malfunction indicator light (MIL);
(6) Information needed to start the vehicle when the vehicle is
equipped with an anti-theft system or other systems that disables the
engine and prevents it from starting after the completion of an
emissions-related repair; and
(7) Manufacturer-specific emissions-related diagnostic trouble
codes (DTCs) and any related service bulletins, trouble shooting
guides, and/or repair procedures associated with these manufacturer-
specific DTCs.
(F) Enhanced service and repair information means information which
is specific for an original equipment manufacturer's brand of tools and
equipment.
(G) Generic service and repair information means information which
is not specific for an original equipment manufacturer's brand of tools
and equipment.
(H) Indirect information means any information that is not
specifically contained in the service literature, but is contained in
items such as tools or equipment provided to franchised dealers (or
others).
(I) Intermediary means any individual or entity, other than an
original equipment manufacturer, which provides service or equipment to
aftermarket service providers.
(J) Manufacturer franchised dealership means any service provider
with which an manufacturer has a direct business relationship.
(K) Third party information provider means any individual or
entity, other than an original equipment manufacturer, who consolidates
manufacturer service information and makes this information available
to aftermarket service providers.
(L) Third party training provider means any individual or entity,
other than an original equipment manufacturer who develops and/or
delivers instructional and educational material for automotive training
courses.
(3) Information dissemination. By [date six months after the
effective date of the final rule], each manufacturer shall provide or
cause to be provided a manufacturer-specific World Wide Web site
available to the persons specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this
section and to any other interested parties containing in the
information specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section for 1996
and later model year vehicles which have been offered for sale; this
requirement does not apply to indirect information, including the
information specified in paragraphs (g)(11) through (g)(15) of this
section. Each manufacturer Web site shall:
(i) Provide access in full-text to all of the information specified
in paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
(ii) Be updated at the same time as dealership World Wide Web
sites, but in no instance less than 14 days after new information or
changes to existing information have been changed or updated on the
manufacturer's dealership site.
(iii) Provide users with a description of the minimum computer
hardware and software needed by the user to access that manufacturer's
information (e.g., computer processor speed and operating system
software). This description shall appear when users first log-on to the
home page of the manufacturer's Web site.
(iv) Provide Short-Term (24 hours), Mid-Term (30 day
period), and Long-Term (365 day period) Web site subscription options
to any person specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section at a fair
and reasonable cost as specified in paragraph (g)(6) of this section
for each of the options. Reasonable cost shall not exceed $20 for
short-term access, $300 for mid-term access, and $2500 for long-term
access in year 2001 dollars.
(v) Allow the user to search the manufacturer Web site by various
topics including but not limited to model, model year, key words or
phrases, vehicle identification number (VIN),
[[Page 30847]]
etc., while allowing ready identification of the latest vehicle
calibration.
(vi) Provide accessibility using common, readily available software
and shall not require the use of proprietary software, hardware,
viewers, or browsers. manufacturers shall also provide hyperlinks to
any plug-ins, viewers or browsers (e.g. Adobe Acrobat or Netscape)
needed to access the manufacturer Web site.
(vii) Allow simple hyper-linking to the manufacturer Web site from
Government Web sites and automotive-related Web sites.
(viii) Allow access to the manufacturer Web sites with no limits on
the modem speed by which aftermarket service providers or other
interested parties can connect to the manufacturer Web site.
(4) Small volume provisions for information dissemination. (i)
Manufacturers with annual sales of less than 5,000 vehicles shall have
until [12 months after the effective date of the final rule] to launch
their individual Web sites as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this
section.
(ii) Manufacturers with annual sales of less than 1,000 vehicles
may, in lieu of meeting the requirement of paragraph (g)(3) of this
section, request the Administrator to approve an alternative method by
which the required emissions-related information can be obtained by the
persons specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(5) Required information. All information relevant to the diagnosis
and completion of emissions-related repairs shall be posted on
manufacturer Web sites excluding indirect information specified in
paragraphs (g)(11) through (g)(15) of this section. The required
information includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Manuals, including subsystem and component manuals, technical
service bulletins (TSBs), recall service information, diagrams, charts,
and training materials;
(ii) OBD system operational information that describes functional
characteristics of the OBD system and emission-related components; OBD
system operational information includes, but is not limited to, OBD
generic drive cycle information, component operating ranges, and system
logic flow diagrams. Algorithms, look-up tables, or any values
associated with look-up tables are not required to be made available;
(iii) Emission-related diagnostic procedures; manufacturers who
utilize their manufacturer-specific scan tool to provide emissions-
related diagnostic procedures cannot require connection to the vehicle
to access this information and shall make such information available to
aftermarket service providers on their respective manufacturer Web
sites;
(iv) Any information on other systems that can directly effect the
emission system within a multiplexed system (including how information
is sent between emission-related system modules and other modules on a
multiplexed bus);
(v) Any information regarding any system, component, or part of a
vehicle monitored by the OBD system that could in a failure mode cause
the OBD system to illuminate the malfunction indicator light (MIL); and
(vi) Information needed to start the vehicle when the vehicle is
equipped with an anti-theft system or other systems that disables the
engine and prevents it from starting after the completion of an
emissions-related repair.
(6) Cost of required information. All information required to be
made available by this section shall be made available at a fair and
reasonable price to any person engaged in the repairing or servicing of
motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines. In determining whether a price
is fair and reasonable, consideration may be given to relevant factors,
including, but not limited to, the cost to the manufacturer of
preparing and/or providing the information, the type of information,
the format in which it is provided, the price charged by other
manufacturers for similar information, the differences that exist among
manufacturers (e.g., the size of the manufacturer), the quantity of
material contained in a publication, the level of detail of the
information, the cost of the information prior to [effective date of
this paragraph], volume discounts, and inflation.
(7) Unavailable information. Any information which is not provided
at a fair and reasonable price shall be considered unavailable, in
violation of this paragraph (g) and section 202(m)(5) of the Clean Air
Act.
(8) Third party information providers. By [date 6 months after
publication of the final rule], manufacturers shall, for model year
2002 and later vehicles and engines, provide the required emissions-
related information as specified in paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
(i) Directly to third-party information providers as defined in
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section in electronic format such as
diskette or CD-ROM using non-proprietary software, in English; or
(ii) Indirectly via a Web site other than that required by
paragraph (g)(3) of this section for aftermarket service providers.
(9) Required emissions-related training information. By [date 6
months after publication of final rule], for emissions-related training
information, manufacturers shall:
(i) Provide on the manufacturer Web site an index of all emissions-
related training information available for purchase by aftermarket
service providers for 1994 and newer vehicles. The index shall describe
the title of the course or instructional session, the cost of the video
tape or duplicate, and information on how to order the item(s) from the
manufacturer Web site.
(ii) Video tape or otherwise duplicate any emissions-related
training courses and instructional sessions that are made available to
manufacturer dealerships via satellite or the World Wide Web and make
these items available for purchase as described in paragraph (g)(3) of
this section. Additionally, manufacturers shall tape or otherwise
duplicate any emissions-related class-room training courses made
available to manufacturer franchised dealerships and make those
duplicates available for sale at a fair and reasonable price on the
manufacturers Web site.
(iii) Provide access to third party training providers as defined
in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section all emission-related training
courses transmitted via satellite or Internet offered to their
franchised dealerships
(10) Timeliness and maintenance of information dissemination.
Manufacturers must make the information required under paragraphs
(g)(5) and (g)(8) of this section available to any person engaged in
the repairing or servicing of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines
on their Web site within three months of model introduction. After this
three month period, the information must be available and updated on
the manufacturer Web site at the same time that the information is made
available and updated to manufacturer franchised dealerships, except as
otherwise specified in this section. Beginning with the 1996 model
year, manufacturers must maintain the required information on their Web
sites in full-text as defined in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section
for a minimum of 15 years after model introduction. Subsequent to this
fifteen year period, manufacturers may archive the information in the
manufacturer's format of choice and provide an index of the archived
information on the manufacturer Web site and how it can be obtained by
interested parties. Archived information must be made
[[Page 30848]]
available on demand and at a fair and reasonable price.
(11) Reprogramming Information. (i) For model years 1996 and later,
manufacturers shall make available to the persons specified in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section all emissions-related recalibration or
reprogramming events (including driveability reprogramming events that
may affect emissions) in the format of their choice at the same time
they are made available to dealerships.
(ii) For model years 1996 and later manufacturers shall be
responsible for ensuring that persons specified in paragraph (g)(1) of
this section shall have access to reprogramming services via
manufacturer dealerships at a fair and reasonable cost and in a timely
manner.
(iii) For model years 1996 and later manufacturers shall provide
persons specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section with an efficient
and cost-effective method for identifying whether the calibrations on
vehicles are the latest to be issued.
(iv) For all 2003 and later OBD vehicles equipped with
reprogramming capability, manufacturers shall comply with SAE J2534.
(v) For model years 2003 and later, manufacturers shall comply with
SAE Standardized Practice J1962, ``Diagnostic Link Connector'' for the
purposes of pass-through reprogramming.
(vi) For model years 2003 and later, manufacturers shall make
available to aftermarket service providers the necessary manufacturer
specific software applications needed to initiate pass-through
reprogramming. This software shall be able to run on a standard
personal computer that utilizes standard operating systems.
(vii) Compliance with SAE J2534 is not mandatory for model years
prior to 2003, provided that the manufacturer makes available to
aftermarket scan tool manufacturers by [date 6 months after the
effective date of the final rule] the following information necessary
for reprogramming the Electronic Control Unit (ECU):
(A) The physical hardware requirements for reprogramming events or
tools (e.g. system voltage requirements, cable terminals/pins,
connections such as RS232 or USB, wires, etc.).
(B) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) data communication (e.g. serial
data protocols, transmission speed or baud rate, bit timing
requirements, etc).
(C) Information on the application physical interface (API) or
layers (descriptions for procedures such as connection, initialization,
performing and verifying programming/download, and termination).
(D) Vehicle application information or any other related service
information such as special pins and voltages for reprogramming events
or additional vehicle connectors that require enablement and
specifications for the enablement.
(12) Generic and enhanced information for scan tools. By [date 30
days after the effective date of the final rule], vehicle manufacturers
shall make available to equipment and tool companies all generic and
enhanced service information including bi-directional control and data
stream information as defined in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section.
This requirement applies for 1996 and later model year vehicles.
(i) The information required by this paragraph shall be transmitted
electronically to the aftermarket tool and equipment companies in
English to a secure World Wide Web site. This site shall be agreed upon
between manufacturers and aftermarket tool and equipment companies. The
information required by this paragraph (g)(12) shall be provided using
common document formats.
(ii) In addition to the generic and enhanced defined in paragraph
(g)(2)(ii) of this section, vehicle manufacturers shall also make
available the following information necessary for developing generic
diagnostic scan tools:
(A) The physical hardware requirements for data communication (e.g.
system voltage requirements, cable terminals/pins, connections such as
RS232 or USB, wires, etc.)
(B) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) data communication (e.g. serial
data protocols, transmission speed or baud rate, bit timing
requirements, etc),
(C) Information on the application physical interface (API) or
layers (i.e., processing algorithms or software design descriptions for
procedures such as connection, initialization, performing and verifying
programming/download, and termination),
(D) Vehicle application information or any other related service
information such as special pins and voltages for reprogramming events
or additional vehicle connectors that require enablement and
specifications for the enablement.
(E) The necessary calibrations via CD-ROM, diskette, or the
Internet.
(F) Information that describes which interfaces, or combinations of
interfaces, from each of the categories as described in paragraphs
(g)(12)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(13) Availability of vehicle manufacturer-specific scan tools.
Manufacturers shall make available for sale to the persons specified in
paragraph (g)(2) of this section their own manufacturer-specific
diagnostic tools at a fair and reasonable cost. Manufacturers who
develop different versions of one or more of their diagnostic tools
that are used in whole or in part for emission-related diagnosis and
repair shall insure that all emission-related diagnosis and repair
information is available for sale to the aftermarket at a fair and
reasonable cost. Manufacturers shall provide technical support to
aftermarket service providers for the tools described in this section,
either themselves or through a third-party of their choice.
(14) Changing content of manufacturer-specific scan tools.
Manufacturers who opt to remove non-emissions related content from
their manufacturer-specific scan tools and sell them to the persons
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section shall adjust the cost of
the tool accordingly lower to reflect the decreased value of the scan
tool. All emissions-related content that remains in the manufacturer-
specific tool shall be identical to the information that is contained
in the complete version of the manufacturer specific tool.
(15) Special tools. (i) Manufacturers who have developed special
tools to extinguish the malfunction indicator light (MIL) for Model
Years 1994 through 2001 shall make available the necessary information
available to equipment and tool companies to design a comparable
generic tool. This information shall be made available to equipment and
tool companies no later than [date 90 days following the effective date
of the Final Rule].
(ii) Manufacturers are prohibited from requiring special tools to
extinguish the malfunction indicator light (MIL) beginning with Model
Year 2002.
(16) Reference materials. Manufacturers shall conform with the
following Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards. Copies of
these documents may be obtained from SAE 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, or at www.sae.org. The following documents
are Incorporated by Reference.
(i) For Web-based delivery of service information, vehicles
manufacturers shall comply with SAE Recommended Practice
J1930,''Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions,
Abbreviations, and Acronyms.'' (May 1988). This recommended practice
standardizes various terms, abbreviations, and acronyms associated
[[Page 30849]]
with On-board diagnostics. Vehicle manufacturers shall comply with
J1930 beginning with Model Year 2003.
(ii) For OBD vehicle communications, vehicle manufacturers shall
comply with SAE Recommended Practice J2284, ``High Speed CAN (HSC) for
Vehicle Applications at 500 KBPS.'' (February 1999). This recommended
practice defines a level of standardization in the implementation of a
500 KBPS vehicle communication network using the Controller Area
Network (CAN) protocol. Vehicle manufacturers shall comply with J2284
beginning with Model Year 2003.
(iii) For pass-through reprogamming capabilities, vehicle
manufacturers shall comply with SAE Recommended Practice J1962 (FEB
98), ``Diagnostic Connector''. This recommended practice specifies the
boundaries within the passenger compartment where vehicle manufacturers
may place the OBD diagnostic link connector. Vehicle manufacturers
shall comply with J1962 beginning with model year 2003.
(iv) For pass-through reprogramming capabilities, vehicle
manufacturers shall comply with SAE Recommended Practice J2534 (DEC
00), ``Specifications for Pass-Through Reprogramming.'' This
recommended practice provides technical specifications and information
that vehicle manufacturers must supply to aftermarket tool and
equipment companies to develop aftermarket pass-through reprogramming
tools. Vehicle manufacturers shall comply with J2534 beginning with
model year 2003.
(17) Reporting Requirements. Manufacturers shall provide to the
Administrator reports on an annual basis and upon request of the
Administrator, that describe the performance of their individual Web
sites. These annual reports shall be submitted to the Administrator
electronically utilizing non-proprietary software in the format as
agreed to by the Administrator and the manufacturers. These annual
reports shall include, at a minimum, monthly measurements of the
following parameters:
(i) Total successful requests. This is measured in number of files
(including graphic interchange formats (GIFs) and joint photographic
expert group (JPEG) images, i.e. electronic images such as wiring or
other diagrams or pictures). This is defined as the total successful
requests counts all the files which have been requested, including
pages, graphics, etc.
(ii) Average successful requests per day (measured in number of
files). This is defined as reports of the average successful requests
per day of all files which have been requested, including pages,
graphics, etc.
(iii) Total successful requests for pages [report on number of
pages (including graphic interchange formats (GIFs) and joint
photographic expert group (JPEG) images, i.e. electronic images such as
wiring or other diagrams or pictures). This is defined as the total
successful requests counts all the documents that were returned or
where the document was requested but was not needed because it had not
been recently modified and the user could use a cached copy.
(iv) Total failed requests (measured in number of files). This is
defined as the total failed requests counts all the files which were
requested but failed requests because they could not be found or is
read-protected. This includes pages, graphics, etc.
(v) Total redirected requests (measured in number of files). This
is defined as redirected requests that indicate that the user was
directed to a different file instead.
(vi) Number of distinct files requested (measured in number of
files). This is defined as the number of different file types that were
requested (i.e html, pdf, txt).
(vii) Number of distinct hosts served (measured in number of
files). This is defined as reports on the number of different computers
where requests have come from.
(viii) Corrupt logfile lines (measured in number of lines). This is
defined as the lines in the logfile that were unreadable by the
computer.
(ix) Total data transferred (measured in bytes). This is defined as
the total amount of data transferred from one place to another.
(x) Average data transferred per day (measured in bytes). This is
defined as the average amount of data transferred per day from one
place to another.
(xi) Daily Summary (measured in number of files/pages by day of
week). This is defined as the total number of requests in each day of
the week, over the time period given at the very top of the report.
(xii) Daily Report (measured in number of files/pages by day of
month). This is defined as how many requests there were in each day of
a specific month.
(xiii) Hourly Summary (measured in number of files/pages by hour of
day). This is defined as the total number of requests for each hour of
the day, over a specific time period.
(xiv) Request Report (measured in number of files/pages by
individual URL). This is defined as which files were downloaded.
(xv) Referrer Report (measured in number of files/pages by
individual referring URL). This is defined as which pages linked to
your files.
(xvi) Browser Summary (measured in number of files/pages by browser
type, i.e., Netscape, Internet Explorer). This is defined as the
versions of browsers by vendor.
(xvii) Browser Report (measured in number of files/pages by browser
type, i.e., Mozilla 4.0). This is defined as a list of the detailed
versions of browsers used.
(18) Prohibited Acts, Liability and Remedies. (i) It is a
prohibited act for any person to fail to promptly provide or cause a
failure to promptly provide information as required by this paragraph
(g), or to otherwise fail to comply or cause a failure to comply with
any provision of this paragraph (g).
(ii) Any person who fails or causes the failure to comply with any
provision of this paragraph (g) is liable for a violation of that
provision. A corporation is presumed liable for any violations of this
subpart that are committed by any of its subsidiaries, affiliates or
parents that are substantially owned by it or substantially under its
control.
(iii) Any person who violates a provision of this paragraph (g)
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $27,500 per day
for each violation. In addition, such person shall be liable for all
other remedies set forth in Title II of the Clean Air Act, remedies
pertaining to provisions of Title II of the Clean Air Act, or other
applicable provisions of law.
4. Section. 86.1808-01 is proposed to be amended by revising
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 86.1808-01 Maintenance instructions.
* * * * *
(f) Emission control diagnostic service information.
(1) Manufacturers are subject to the provisions of this paragraph
(f) beginning in the 2001 model year for manufacturers of light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks, and beginning in the 2005 model year
for manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines
weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that are
subject to the OBD requirements of this part.
(2) General requirements. (i) Manufacturers shall furnish or cause
to be furnished to any person engaged in the repairing or servicing of
motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines, or the Administrator upon
request, any and all information needed to make use of the on-board
diagnostic system and such other information, including
[[Page 30850]]
instructions for making emission-related diagnosis and repairs,
including but not limited to service manuals, technical service
bulletins, recall service information, data stream information, bi-
directional control information, and training information, unless such
information is protected by section 208(c) as a trade secret. No such
information may be withheld under section 208(c) of the Act if that
information is provided (directly or indirectly) by the manufacturer to
franchised dealers or other persons engaged in the repair, diagnosing,
or servicing of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines.
(ii) Definitions. The following definitions apply for this
paragraph (f):
(A) Aftermarket service provider means any individual or business
engaged in the diagnosis, service, and repair of a motor vehicle or
engine who is not directly affiliated with a manufacturer or
manufacturer franchised dealership.
(B) Bi-directional control means the capability of a diagnostic
tool to send messages on the data bus that temporarily overrides the
module's control over a sensor or actuator and gives control to the
diagnostic tool operator. Bi-directional controls do not create
permanent changes to engine or component calibrations.
(C) Data stream information means information (i.e., messages and
parameters) originated within the vehicle by a module or intelligent
sensors (i.e., a sensor that contains and is controlled by its own
module) and transmitted between a network of modules and/or intelligent
sensors connected in parallel with either one or two communication
wires. The information is broadcast over the communication wires for
use by other modules (e.g., chassis, transmission, etc.) to conduct
normal vehicle operation or for use by diagnostic tools. Data stream
information does not include engine calibration related information.
(D) Emissions-related information means any information related to
the diagnosis, service, and repair of emissions-related components.
(E) Emissions-related training information means any information
related training or instruction for the purpose of the diagnosis,
service, and repair of emissions-related components. Emissions-related
information includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Manuals, including subsystem and component manuals, technical
service bulletins (TSBs), recall service information, diagrams, charts,
and training materials;
(2) OBD system operational information that describes functional
characteristics of the OBD system and emission-related components. OBD
system operational information includes, but is not limited to, OBD
generic drive cycle information, component operating ranges, and system
logic flow diagrams. Algorithms, look-up tables, or any values
associated with look-up tables are not required to be made available;
(3) Emission-related diagnostic procedures. Manufacturers who
utilize their manufacturer-specific scan tool to provide emissions-
related diagnostic procedures cannot require connection to the vehicle
to access this information. Additionally, manufacturers shall also make
any emissions-related diagnostic procedures incorporated into their
manufacturer-specific scan tools available to aftermarket service
providers on their respective manufacturer Web sites;
(4) Any information on other systems that can directly effect the
emission system within a multiplexed system (including how information
is sent between emission-related system modules and other modules on a
multiplexed bus);
(5) Any information regarding any system, component, or part of a
vehicle monitored by the OBD system that could in a failure mode cause
the OBD system to illuminate the malfunction indicator light (MIL);
(6) Information needed to start the vehicle when the vehicle is
equipped with an anti-theft system or other systems that disables the
engine and prevents it from starting after the completion of an
emissions-related repair; and
(7) Manufacturer-specific emissions-related diagnostic trouble
codes (DTCs) and any related service bulletins, trouble shooting
guides, and/or repair procedures associated with these manufacturer-
specific DTCs.
(F) Enhanced service and repair information means information which
is specific for an original equipment manufacturer's brand of tools and
equipment.
(G) Generic service and repair information means information which
is not specific for an original equipment manufacturer's brand of tools
and equipment.
(H) Indirect information means any information that is not
specifically contained in the service literature, but is contained in
items such as tools or equipment provided to franchised dealers (or
others).
(I) Intermediary means any individual or entity, other than an
original equipment manufacturer, which provides service or equipment to
aftermarket service providers.
(J) Manufacturer franchised dealership means any service provider
with which an manufacturer has a direct business relationship.
(K) Third party information provider means any individual or
entity, other than an original equipment manufacturer, who consolidates
manufacturer service information and makes this information available
to aftermarket service providers.
(L) Third party training provider means any individual or entity,
other than an original equipment manufacturer who develops and/or
delivers instructional and educational material for automotive training
courses.
(3) Information dissemination. By [date six months after the
effective date of the final rule], each manufacturer shall provide or
cause to be provided a manufacturer-specific World Wide Web site
available to the persons specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this
section and to any other interested parties containing in the
information specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section for 2001
and later model year vehicles which have been offered for sale; this
requirement does not apply to indirect information, including the
information specified in paragraphs (f)(11) through (f)(15) of this
section. Each manufacturer Web site shall:
(i) Provide access in full-text to all of the information specified
in paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
(ii) Be updated at the same time as dealership World Wide Web
sites, but in no instance less than 14 days after new information or
changes to existing information have been changed or updated on the
manufacturer's dealership site.
(iii) Provide users with a description of the minimum computer
hardware and software needed by the user to access that manufacturer's
information (e.g., computer processor speed and operating system
software). This description shall appear when users first log-on to the
home page of the manufacturer's Web site.
(iv) Provide Short-Term( 24 hours), Mid-Term (30 day
period), and Long-Term (365 day period) Web site subscription options
to any person specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section at a fair
and reasonable cost as specified in paragraph (f)(6) of this section
for each of the options. Reasonable cost shall not exceed $20 for
short-term access, $300 for mid-term access, and $2500 for long-term
access in year 2001 dollars.
[[Page 30851]]
(v) Allow the user to search the manufacturer Web site by various
topics including but not limited to model, model year, key words or
phrases, vehicle identification number (VIN), etc., while allowing
ready identification of the latest vehicle calibration.
(vi) Provide accessibility using common, readily available software
and shall not require the use of proprietary software, hardware,
viewers, or browsers. manufacturers shall also provide hyperlinks to
any plug-ins, viewers or browsers (e.g. Adobe Acrobat or Netscape)
needed to access the manufacturer Web site.
(vii) Allow simple hyper-linking to the manufacturer Web site from
Government Web sites and automotive-related Web sites.
(viii) Allow access to the manufacturer Web sites with no limits on
the modem speed by which aftermarket service providers or other
interested parties can connect to the manufacturer Web site.
(4) Small volume provisions for information dissemination. (i)
Manufacturers with annual sales of less than 5,000 vehicles shall have
until [12 months after the effective date of the final rule] to launch
their individual Web sites as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this
section.
(ii) Manufacturers with annual sales of less than 1,000 vehicles
may, in lieu of meeting the requirement of paragraph (f)(3) of this
section, request the Administrator to approve an alternative method by
which the required emissions-related information can be obtained by the
persons specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(5) Required information. All information relevant to the diagnosis
and completion of emissions-related repairs shall be posted on
manufacturer Web sites excluding indirect information specified in
paragraphs (f)(11) through (f)(15) of this section. The required
information includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Manuals, including subsystem and component manuals, technical
service bulletins (TSBs), recall service information, diagrams, charts,
and training materials;
(ii) OBD system operational information that describes functional
characteristics of the OBD system and emission-related components; OBD
system operational information includes, but is not limited to, OBD
generic drive cycle information, component operating ranges, and system
logic flow diagrams. Algorithms, look-up tables, or any values
associated with look-up tables are not required to be made available;
(iii) Emission-related diagnostic procedures; manufacturers who
utilize their manufacturer-specific scan tool to provide emissions-
related diagnostic procedures cannot require connection to the vehicle
to access this information and shall make such information available to
aftermarket service providers on their respective manufacturer Web
sites;
(iv) Any information on other systems that can directly effect the
emission system within a multiplexed system (including how information
is sent between emission-related system modules and other modules on a
multiplexed bus);
(v) Any information regarding any system, component, or part of a
vehicle monitored by the OBD system that could in a failure mode cause
the OBD system to illuminate the malfunction indicator light (MIL); and
(vi) Information needed to start the vehicle when the vehicle is
equipped with an anti-theft system or other systems that disables the
engine and prevents it from starting after the completion of an
emissions-related repair.
(6) Cost of required information. All information required to be
made available by this section shall be made available at a fair and
reasonable price to any person engaged in the repairing or servicing of
motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines. In determining whether a price
is fair and reasonable, consideration may be given to relevant factors,
including, but not limited to, the cost to the manufacturer of
preparing and/or providing the information, the type of information,
the format in which it is provided, the price charged by other
manufacturers for similar information, the differences that exist among
manufacturers (e.g., the size of the manufacturer), the quantity of
material contained in a publication, the level of detail of the
information, the cost of the information prior to [effective date of
the final rule], volume discounts, and inflation.
(7) Unavailable information. Any information which is not provided
at a fair and reasonable price shall be considered unavailable, in
violation of this paragraph (f) and section 202(m)(5) of the Clean Air
Act.
(8) Third party information providers. By [date 6 months after
publication of the final rule], manufacturers shall, for model year
2002 and later vehicles and engines, provide the required emissions-
related information as specified in paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
(i) Directly to third-party information providers as defined in
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section in electronic format such as
diskette or CD-ROM using non-proprietary software, in English; or
(ii) Indirectly via a Web site other than that required by
paragraph (f)(3) of this section for aftermarket service providers.
(9) Required emissions-related training information. By [date 6
months after publication of the final rule], for emissions-related
training information, manufacturers shall:
(i) Provide on the manufacturer Web site an index of all emissions-
related training information available for purchase by aftermarket
service providers for 1994 and newer vehicles. The index shall describe
the title of the course or instructional session, the cost of the video
tape or duplicate, and information on how to order the item(s) from the
manufacturer Web site.
(ii) Video tape or otherwise duplicate any emissions-related
training courses and instructional sessions that are made available to
manufacturer dealerships via satellite or the World Wide Web and make
these items available for purchase as described in paragraph (f)(3) of
this section. Additionally, manufacturers shall tape or otherwise
duplicate any emissions-related class-room training courses made
available to manufacturer franchised dealerships and make those
duplicates available for sale at a fair and reasonable price on the
manufacturers Web site.
(iii) Provide access to third party training providers as defined
in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section all emission-related training
courses transmitted via satellite or Internet offered to their
franchised dealerships
(10) Timeliness and maintenance of information dissemination.
Manufacturers must make the information required under paragraphs
(f)(5) and (f)(8) of this section available to any person engaged in
the repairing or servicing of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines
on their Web site within three months of model introduction. After this
three month period, the information must be available and updated on
the manufacturer Web site at the same time that the information is made
available and updated to manufacturer franchised dealerships, except as
otherwise specified in this section. Beginning with the l996 model
year, manufacturers must maintain the required information on their Web
sites in full-text as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) for a minimum of
15 years after model introduction. Subsequent to this fifteen year
period, manufacturers may archive the information in the manufacturer's
format of choice and provide an index of the archived
[[Page 30852]]
information on the manufacturer Web site and how it can be obtained by
interested parties. Archived information must be made available on
demand and at a fair and reasonable price.
(11) Reprogramming Information. (i) For model years 2001 and later,
manufacturers shall make available to the persons specified in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section all emissions-related recalibration or
reprogramming events (including driveability reprogramming events that
may affect emissions) in the format of their choice at the same time
they are made available to dealerships.
(ii) For model years 2001 and later manufacturers shall be
responsible for ensuring that persons specified in paragraph (f)(1) of
this section shall have access to reprogramming services via
manufacturer dealerships at a fair and reasonable cost and in a timely
manner.
(iii) For model years 2001 and later manufacturers shall provide
persons specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section with an efficient
and cost-effective method for identifying whether the calibrations on
vehicles are the latest to be issued.
(iv) For all 2003 and later OBD vehicles equipped with
reprogramming capability, manufacturers shall comply with SAE J2534.
(v) For model years 2003 and later, manufacturers shall comply with
SAE Standardized Practice J1962, ``Diagnostic Link Connector'' for the
purposes of pass-through reprogramming.
(vi) For model years 2003 and later, manufacturers shall make
available to aftermarket service providers the necessary manufacturer
specific software applications needed to initiate pass-through
reprogramming. This software shall be able to run on a standard
personal computer that utilizes standard operating systems.
(vii) Compliance with SAE J2534 is not mandatory for model years
prior to 2003, provided that the manufacturer makes available to
aftermarket scan tool manufacturers by [date 6 months after the
effective date of the final rule] the following information necessary
for reprogramming the Electronic Control Unit (ECU):
(A) The physical hardware requirements for reprogramming events or
tools (e.g. system voltage requirements, cable terminals/pins,
connections such as RS232 or USB, wires, etc.).
(B) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) data communication (e.g. serial
data protocols, transmission speed or baud rate, bit timing
requirements, etc).
(C) Information on the application physical interface (API) or
layers (descriptions for procedures such as connection, initialization,
performing and verifying programming/download, and termination).
(D) Vehicle application information or any other related service
information such as special pins and voltages for reprogramming events
or additional vehicle connectors that require enablement and
specifications for the enablement.
(12) Generic and enhanced information for scan tools. By [date 30
days after the effective date of the final rule], vehicle manufacturers
shall make available to equipment and tool companies all generic and
enhanced service information including bi-directional control and data
stream information as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section.
This requirement applies for 2001 and later model year vehicles.
(i) The information required by this paragraph shall be transmitted
electronically to the aftermarket tool and equipment companies in
English to a secure World Wide Web site. This site shall be agreed upon
between manufacturers and aftermarket tool and equipment companies. The
information required by this paragraph (f)(12) shall be provided using
common document formats.
(ii) In addition to the generic and enhanced defined in paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this section, vehicle manufacturers shall also make
available the following information necessary for developing generic
diagnostic scan tools:
(A) The physical hardware requirements for data communication (e.g.
system voltage requirements, cable terminals/pins, connections such as
RS232 or USB, wires, etc.)
(B) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) data communication (e.g. serial
data protocols, transmission speed or baud rate, bit timing
requirements, etc),
(C) Information on the application physical interface (API) or
layers (i.e., processing algorithms or software design descriptions for
procedures such as connection, initialization, performing and verifying
programming/download, and termination),
(D) Vehicle application information or any other related service
information such as special pins and voltages for reprogramming events
or additional vehicle connectors that require enablement and
specifications for the enablement.
(E) The necessary calibrations via CD-ROM, diskette, or the
Internet.
(F) Information that describes which interfaces, or combinations of
interfaces, from each of the categories as described in paragraphs
(f)(12)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(13) Availability of vehicle manufacturer-specific scan tools.
Manufacturers shall make available for sale to the persons specified in
paragraph (f)(2) of this section their own manufacturer-specific
diagnostic tools at a fair and reasonable cost. Manufacturers who
develop different versions of one or more of their diagnostic tools
that are used in whole or in part for emission-related diagnosis and
repair shall insure that all emission-related diagnosis and repair
information is available for sale to the aftermarket at a fair and
reasonable cost. Manufacturers shall provide technical support to
aftermarket service providers for the tools described in this section,
either themselves or through a third-party of their choice.
(14) Changing content of manufacturer-specific scan tools.
Manufacturers who opt to remove non-emissions related content from
their manufacturer-specific scan tools and sell them to the persons
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section shall adjust the cost of
the tool accordingly lower to reflect the decreased value of the scan
tool. All emissions-related content that remains in the manufacturer-
specific tool shall be identical to the information that is contained
in the complete version of the manufacturer specific tool.
(15) Special tools. (i) Manufacturers who have developed special
tools to extinguish the malfunction indicator light (MIL) for Model
Years 1994 through 2001 shall make available the necessary information
available to equipment and tool companies to design a comparable
generic tool. This information shall be made available to equipment and
tool companies no later than [date 90 days following the effective date
of the Final Rule].
(ii) Manufacturers are prohibited from requiring special tools to
extinguish the malfunction indicator light (MIL) beginning with Model
Year 2002.
(16) Reference materials. Manufacturers shall conform with the
following Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards. Copies of
these documents may be obtained from SAE 400 Commonwealth Drive,
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, or at www.sae.org. The following documents
are Incorporated by Reference.
(i) For Web-based delivery of service information, vehicles
manufacturers shall comply with SAE Recommended Practice
J1930,''Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, Definitions,
Abbreviations, and Acronyms.'' (May
[[Page 30853]]
1988). This recommended practice standardizes various terms,
abbreviations, and acronyms associated with On-board diagnostics.
Vehicle manufacturers shall comply with J1930 beginning with Model Year
2003.
(ii) For OBD vehicle communications, vehicle manufacturers shall
comply with SAE Recommended Practice J2284, ``High Speed CAN (HSC) for
Vehicle Applications at 500 KBPS.'' (February 1999). This recommended
practice defines a level of standardization in the implementation of a
500 KBPS vehicle communication network using the Controller Area
Network (CAN) protocol. Vehicle manufacturers shall comply with J2284
beginning with Model Year 2003.
(iii) For pass-through reprogramming capabilities, vehicle
manufacturers shall comply with SAE Recommended Practice J1962 (FEB
98), ``Diagnostic Connector''. This recommended practice specifies the
boundaries within the passenger compartment where vehicle manufacturers
may place the OBD diagnostic link connector. Vehicle manufacturers
shall comply with J1962 beginning with model year 2003.
(iv) For pass-through reprogramming capabilities, vehicle
manufacturers shall comply with SAE Recommended Practice J2534 (DEC
00), ``Specifications for Pass-Through Reprogramming.'' This
recommended practice provides technical specifications and information
that vehicle manufacturers must supply to aftermarket tool and
equipment companies to develop aftermarket pass-through reprogramming
tools. Vehicle manufacturers shall comply with J2534 beginning with
model year 2003.
(17) Reporting Requirements. Manufacturers shall provide to the
Administrator reports on an annual basis and upon request of the
Administrator, that describe the performance of their individual Web
sites. These annual reports shall be submitted to the Administrator
electronically utilizing non-proprietary software in the format as
agreed to by the Administrator and the manufacturers. These annual
reports shall include, at a minimum, monthly measurements of the
following parameters:
(i) Total successful requests. This is measured in number of files
(including graphic interchange formats (GIFs) and joint photographic
expert group (JPEG) images, i.e. electronic images such as wiring or
other diagrams or pictures). This is defined as the total successful
requests counts all the files which have been requested, including
pages, graphics, etc.
(ii) Average successful requests per day (measured in number of
files). This is defined as reports of the average successful requests
per day of all files which have been requested, including pages,
graphics, etc.
(iii) Total successful requests for pages [report on number of
pages (including graphic interchange formats (GIFs) and joint
photographic expert group (JPEG) images, i.e. electronic images such as
wiring or other diagrams or pictures). This is defined as the total
successful requests counts all the documents that were returned or
where the document was requested but was not needed because it had not
been recently modified and the user could use a cached copy.
(iv) Total failed requests (measured in number of files). This is
defined as the total failed requests counts all the files which were
requested but failed requests because they could not be found or is
read-protected. This includes pages, graphics, etc.
(v) Total redirected requests (measured in number of files). This
is defined as redirected requests that indicate that the user was
directed to a different file instead.
(vi) Number of distinct files requested (measured in number of
files). This is defined as the number of different file types that were
requested (i.e., html, pdf, txt).
(vii) Number of distinct hosts served (measured in number of
files). This is defined as reports on the number of different computers
where requests have come from.
(viii) Corrupt logfile lines (measured in number of lines). This is
defined as the lines in the logfile that were unreadable by the
computer.
(ix) Total data transferred (measured in bytes). This is defined as
the total amount of data transferred from one place to another.
(x) Average data transferred per day (measured in bytes). This is
defined as the average amount of data transferred per day from one
place to another.
(xi) Daily Summary (measured in number of files/pages by day of
week). This is defined as the total number of requests in each day of
the week, over the time period given at the very top of the report.
(xii) Daily Report (measured in number of files/pages by day of
month). This is defined as how many requests there were in each day of
a specific month.
(xiii) Hourly Summary (measured in number of files/pages by hour of
day). This is defined as the total number of requests for each hour of
the day, over a specific time period.
(xiv) Request Report (measured in number of files/pages by
individual URL). This is defined as which files were downloaded.
(xv) Referrer Report (measured in number of files/pages by
individual referring URL). This is defined as which pages linked to
your files.
(xvi) Browser Summary (measured in number of files/pages by browser
type, i.e., Netscape, Internet Explorer). This is defined as the
versions of browsers by vendor.
(xvii) Browser Report (measured in number of files/pages by browser
type, i.e., Mozilla 4.0). This is defined as a list of the detailed
versions of browsers used.
(18) Prohibited Acts, Liability and Remedies. (i) It is a
prohibited act for any person to fail to promptly provide or cause a
failure to promptly provide information as required by this paragraph
(f) or to otherwise fail to comply or cause a failure to comply with
any provision of this paragraph (f).
(ii) Any person who fails or causes the failure to comply with any
provision of this subsection is liable for a violation of that
provision. A corporation is presumed liable for any violations of this
subpart that are committed by any of its subsidiaries, affiliates or
parents that are substantially owned by it or substantially under its
control.
(iii) Any person who violates a provision in this paragraph (f)
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $27,500 per day
for each violation. In addition, such person shall be liable for all
other remedies set forth in Title II of the Clean Air Act, remedies
pertaining to provisions of Title II of the Clean Air Act, or other
applicable provisions of law.
[FR Doc. 01-14471 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P