```

[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]
```