U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

49–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2015

114–147 

Calendar No. 239 

DRIVER PRIVACY ACT OF 2015 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 766 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

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 AdminisVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:53 Oct 02, 2015 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR147.XXX SR147

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

tration (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-asyou-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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

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 vehiclerelated 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 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS