U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–010 

" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT 

2014

113–255 

Calendar No. 563 

DRIVER PRIVACY ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 1925 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SENcongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas 

ED MARKEY, Massachusetts DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JOHN WALSH, Montana 

ELLEN DONESKI, Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
Calendar No. 563 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–255 

DRIVER PRIVACY ACT 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1925] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 1925) to limit the retrieval of data 

from vehicle event data recorders, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a 

substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 1925, the Driver Privacy Act, is to establish 

limitations on data retrieval from vehicle event data recorders 

(EDRs). Under current law, there are no Federal standards for 

ownership or privacy of this data. The bill would establish that the 

owner or lessee of the vehicle owns the data contained within the 

EDR, and would create specific circumstances under which the 

data 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. While the EDR records continuously as a vehicle 

travels, the data is only stored if a major event occurs, such as a 

crash or airbag deployment. The data in these recorders is used for 

crash reconstruction and is also used by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to conduct investigations 

into potential vehicle defects. While NHTSA currently enforces no 

rule requiring installation of EDRs on new light vehicles, the agency estimates that vehicle manufacturers voluntarily install these 

devices on approximately 96 percent of these new vehicles. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

The Driver Privacy Act would establish the owner or lessee of a 

vehicle as the owner of data collected and stored on the vehicle’s 

EDR. The bill would limit access to that data 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. In addition, the bill would call on NHTSA to conduct a study for submission to Congress on the appropriate amount of time that EDRs 

should capture data before and after a crash and, within two years 

after the study’s completion, issue regulations establishing the appropriate time period. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Hoeven introduced S. 1925 on January 14, 2014, with 

Senator Klobuchar and 16 other cosponsors. On April 9, 2014, in 

an open Executive Session, the Committee considered the 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 that would 

have prevented such retrieval without data having been recorded, 

provided for two years for NHTSA’s rulemaking, and made other 

minor changes. 

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. 1925—Driver Privacy Act 

Based on information from the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), CBO estimates that implementing S. 

1925 would cost about $1 million over the 2015–2019 period, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting S. 1925 

would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-yougo procedures do not apply. 

S. 1925 would establish that any data collected by event data recorders (EDRs) in motor vehicles are owned by 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 NHTSA to complete a study and a rulemaking about 

the data collected by EDRs. Based on information from NHTSA, 

CBO estimates that work would take about 18 months to complete 

and would require two or three staff members. 

S. 1925 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 mandate on automobile manufacturers if those 

regulations require changes in the design of motor vehicles. BeVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:51 Sep 17, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

cause the cost of that mandate would depend on future regulations, 

CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate cost of the mandates 

would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($152 million in 2014, 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, Deputy 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 vehicle owners and lessees and to 

auto manufacturers that build vehicles 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. 1925 would not have a negative impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in paperwork requirements for private individuals or businesses due to S. 

1925. The bill would call on NHTSA to conduct a study and issue 

regulations regarding the appropriate amount of time for an EDR 

to record a crash. 

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. 

Section 2. Limitations on data retrieval from vehicle event data recorders. 

Section 2(a) would establish the owner of the vehicle – or, in the 

case of a leased vehicle, the lessor – as the owner of the data contained in an EDR. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

Section 2(b) would establish that data in an EDR could not be 

retrieved by anyone other than the owner or lessee unless one of 

five conditions is met: a court authorizes retrieval; the owner or 

lessee provides written or electronic consent; 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; the data is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need 

for, or facilitating, an emergency medical response; or 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 should record 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 record 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. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-SEN