[Senate Report 114-147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 239
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-147
______________________________________________________________________
DRIVER PRIVACY ACT OF 2015
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 766
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 28, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-010 WASHINGTON : 2015
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred fourteenth congress
first session
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ED MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel
Calendar No. 239
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-147
======================================================================
DRIVER PRIVACY ACT OF 2015
_______
September 28, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thune, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 766]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 766) to limit the retrieval of
data from vehicle event data recorders, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of S. 766, the Driver Privacy Act of 2015, is
to establish limitations on data retrieval from vehicle event
data recorders (EDRs). Under current law, there are no Federal
standards for ownership, use, or privacy of this data. The bill
would establish that the owner or lessee of a motor vehicle
owns the data contained within the vehicle's EDR, and would
create specific circumstances under which the data that is
recorded or transmitted by an EDR can be accessed by entities
other than the owner or lessee.
Background and Needs
EDRs capture information about a vehicle just before and at
the time of a crash event. While the EDR records continuously
as a vehicle travels, the data is only stored if a major event
occurs, such as a crash or air bag deployment. The data in
these recorders can be used for crash reconstruction and is
also used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) to conduct investigations into potential vehicle
defects. NHTSA has not required the installation of EDRs on new
light vehicles; however it has promulgated regulations
specifying uniform, national requirements for vehicles equipped
with EDRs concerning the collection, storage, and
irretrievability of onboard motor vehicle crash event data (see
49 C.F.R. pt. 563). NHTSA estimates that vehicle manufacturers
voluntarily install EDRs on approximately 96 percent of new
motor vehicles.
Summary of Provisions
The Driver Privacy Act of 2015 would establish the owner or
lessee of a motor vehicle as the owner of data collected and
stored on the vehicle's EDR. The bill would limit access to
that data recorded or transmitted by the EDR by anyone other
than the owner or lessee of the vehicle, and it would enumerate
the specific circumstances under which the data could be
accessed by other entities. In addition, the bill would require
NHTSA to conduct a study for submission to Congress on the
appropriate amount of time that EDRs should capture and record
for retrieval vehicle-related data before and after a crash
and, within two years after the study's completion, require
NHTSA to issue regulations establishing the appropriate time
period.
S. 766 would use the definition of EDR in section 563.5 of
title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In this context
the Committee contemplates that the term should not be
interpreted as to burden unnecessarily the development and
dissemination of advanced vehicle safety technologies,
including autonomous vehicles. In the latter respect, the
Committee contemplates that the EDR would be discrete from any
devices and functions used for the operation of such vehicles.
Legislative History
In the 113th Congress, Senator Hoeven introduced a similar
bill, S. 1925, with Senator Klobuchar and 16 other cosponsors.
On April 9, 2014, in an open Executive Session, the Committee
considered that bill with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute and reported S. 1925 favorably by voice vote. The
amendment clarified the description of the data to which the
bill refers, made clear that the requirements of section 2
would apply to ``motor vehicles'' not just ``passenger motor
vehicles,'' removed a limitation on data retrieval, provided
two years for NHTSA's rulemaking; and made other minor changes.
In the 114th Congress, Senator Hoeven, along with Senator
Klobuchar, introduced S. 766. On March 25, 2015, in an open
Executive Session, the Committee considered that bill and
ordered S. 766 to be reported favorably by voice vote.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
S. 766--Driver Privacy Act of 2015
S. 766 would establish that any data collected by event
data recorders (EDRs) in motor vehicles are the property of the
owner or lessee of the vehicle and would set broad conditions
under which such data could be retrieved by others for purposes
such as judicial proceedings, investigations, and traffic
safety research. The bill also would require the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to complete a
study and a rulemaking about the data collected by EDRs.
Based on information from NHTSA, CBO estimates that
implementing S. 766 would cost about $1 million over the 2016-
2020 period, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.
Enacting S. 766 would not affect direct spending or revenues;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
S. 766 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no
costs on state, local or tribal governments.
By requiring NHTSA to issue regulations that establish the
appropriate period for EDRs to capture and record information,
the bill could impose a private-sector mandate on automobile
manufacturers if those regulations require changes in the
design of motor vehicles. Most manufacturers currently install
EDRs in new vehicles. Current standards for EDRs require them
to capture and record a few seconds before and after a crash.
If NHTSA issues regulations that would alter the required time
period captured by EDRs, manufacturers may have to redesign the
electronic equipment and storage space of their vehicles to
accommodate a different type of EDR, which could amount to a
substantial increase in costs for the industry. However,
because the cost of the mandate would depend on future
regulations, CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate cost of
the mandates would exceed the annual threshold for private-
sector mandates established in UMRA ($154 million in 2015,
adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Sarah Puro
(for federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the private-sector
impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
The legislation would apply to motor vehicle owners and
lessees and to auto manufacturers that build vehicles equipped
with EDRs. The regulations would revise existing regulations
and would not impact any additional entities.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
This legislation is not expected to have an adverse
economic impact on the Nation.
PRIVACY
S. 766 would not have a negative impact on the personal
privacy of individuals. By clarifying that the owner or lessee
of a vehicle is also the owner of any information collected by
an EDR, S. 766 would greatly enhance the personal privacy of
these individuals.
PAPERWORK
The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in
paperwork requirements for private individuals or businesses
due to S.766. The bill would call on NHTSA to conduct a study
and issue regulations regarding the appropriate amount of time
for an EDR to capture and record for retrieval vehicle-related
data.
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title.
Section 1 would establish the title of the bill, the Driver
Privacy Act of 2015.
Section 2. Limitations on data retrieval from vehicle event data
recorders.
Section 2(a) would establish the owner of a motor vehicle--
or, in the case of a leased vehicle, the lessee--as the owner
of the data retained by an EDR.
Section 2(b) would establish that data recorded or
transmitted by an EDR could not be retrieved by anyone other
than the owner or lessee unless one of five conditions is met:
(1) a court or administrative authority, with jurisdiction
authorizes retrieval; (2) the owner or lessee provides written,
electronic, or recorded audio consent, or the owner or lessee
agrees to a subscription that describes how data will be
retrieved and used; (3) the data is retrieved pursuant to an
investigation or inspection by NHTSA and no personally
identifiable information is disclosed, except that the vehicle
identification number may be disclosed to the certifying
manufacturer; (4) the data is retrieved for the purpose of
determining the need for, or facilitating, an emergency medical
response; or (5) the data is retrieved for traffic safety
research and no personally identifiable information or vehicle
identification number is disclosed.
Section 3. Vehicle event data recorder study.
Section 3 would require NHTSA to conduct a study to
determine the amount of time that EDRs installed in passenger
motor vehicles should capture and record for retrieval vehicle-
related data in conjunction with an event in order to provide
sufficient information to investigate the cause of motor
vehicle crashes. NHTSA would be required to submit that study
to Congress and, within two years, issue regulations
establishing the amount of time before and after a crash that
EDRs must capture and record for retrieval vehicle-related
data.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.
[all]