Posted on 05/02/2012 11:16:14 AM PDT by xzins
SEC. 31406. VEHICLE EVENT DATA RECORDERS. (a) Mandatory Event Data Recorders-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part.
(2) PENALTY- The violation of any provision under part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations--
(A) shall be deemed to be a violation of section 30112 of title 49, United States Code;
(B) shall be subject to civil penalties under section 30165(a) of that title; and
(C) shall not subject a manufacturer (as defined in section 30102(a)(5) of that title) to the requirements under section 30120 of that title.
(b) Limitations on Information Retrieval-
(1) OWNERSHIP OF DATA- Any data in an event data recorder required under part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, regardless of when the passenger motor vehicle in which it is installed was manufactured, is the property of the owner, or in the case of a leased vehicle, the lessee of the passenger motor vehicle in which the data recorder is installed.
(2) PRIVACY- Data recorded or transmitted by such a data recorder may not be retrieved by a person other than the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle in which the recorder is installed unless--
(A) a court authorizes retrieval of the information in furtherance of a legal proceeding;
(B) the owner or lessee consents to the retrieval of the information for any purpose, including the purpose of diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the motor vehicle;
(C) the information is retrieved pursuant to an investigation or inspection authorized under section 1131(a) or 30166 of title 49, United States Code, and the personally identifiable information of the owner, lessee, or driver of the vehicle and the vehicle identification number is not disclosed in connection with the retrieved information; or
(D) the information is retrieved for the purpose of determining the need for, or facilitating, emergency medical response in response to a motor vehicle crash.
(c) Report to Congress- Two years after the date of implementation of subsection (a), the Secretary shall study the safety impact and the impact on individual privacy of event data recorders in passenger motor vehicles and report its findings to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives. The report shall include--
(1) the safety benefits gained from installation of event data recorders;
(2) the recommendations on what, if any, additional data the event data recorder should be modified to record;
(3) the additional safety benefit such information would yield;
(4) the estimated cost to manufacturers to implement the new enhancements;
(5) an analysis of how the information proposed to be recorded by an event data recorder conforms to applicable legal, regulatory, and policy requirements regarding privacy;
(6) a determination of the risks and effects of collecting and maintaining the information proposed to be recorded by an event data recorder;
(7) an examination and evaluation of the protections and alternative processes for handling information recorded by an event data recorder to mitigate potential privacy risks.
(d) Revised Requirements for Event Data Recorders- Based on the findings of the study under subsection (c), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The rule--
(1) shall require event data recorders to capture and store data related to motor vehicle safety covering a reasonable time period before, during, and after a motor vehicle crash or airbag deployment, including a rollover;
(2) shall require that data stored on such event data recorders be accessible, regardless of vehicle manufacturer or model, with commercially available equipment in a specified data format;
(3) shall establish requirements for preventing unauthorized access to the data stored on an event data recorder in order to protect the security, integrity, and authenticity of the data; and
(4) may require an interoperable data access port to facilitate universal accessibility and analysis.
(e) Disclosure of Existence and Purpose of Event Data Recorder- The rule issued under subsection (d) shall require that any owner’s manual or similar documentation provided to the first purchaser of a passenger motor vehicle for purposes other than resale--
(1) disclose that the vehicle is equipped with such a data recorder; and
(2) explain the purpose of the data recorder.
(f) Access to Event Data Recorders in Agency Investigations- Section 30166(c)(3)(C) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘, including any electronic data contained within the vehicle’s diagnostic system or event data recorder’ after ‘equipment.’
(g) Deadline for Rulemaking- The Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (d) not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Just called Pete Olson’s office in both Washington and Sugar Land and told them I expected him to vote no. No one in either office was aware of any of the details of this bill. Pathetic! Just one of the reasons why I am glad he had someone running against him this time for whom I will be happy to vote.
Sure, they can take it with a court order. Go ahead, it’s in that spare parts bin in the corner of the garage along with the other useless junk I removed from the vehicle :)
CRASH DATA RECORDER TOOLS HERE:
http://www.boschdiagnostics.com/parts/cdr/CDR/Pages/CDR.aspx
Includes harnesses that convert your car’s EDR/CDR/PCM/ACM connectors to a standard D-Sub connector for connection to your laptop (or desktop, if you get an extension cable) computer’s serial I/O port.
Happy hunting!
ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD HERE:
http://www.boschdiagnostics.com/software/pages/CDR_software.aspx
Prolly hafta hack it to run it unless you know a mech who’s already a certified subscriber. In which case, quit mucking around at Bosch Diagnostics; just slip your mech a c-note and use his tools.
| R | Wicker, Roger | MS | 0.905755464687 | |
| R | Chambliss, Saxby | GA | 0.891182228237 | |
| R | Cochran, Thad | MS | 0.672069348051 | |
| R | Collins, Susan | ME | 0.368269836798 | |
| R | Blunt, Roy | MO | 0.728905791923 | |
| R | Boozman, John | AR | 0.753270129553 | |
| R | Brown, Scott | MA | 0.470587397187 | |
| R | Moran, Jerry | KS | 0.708722973375 | |
| R | Murkowski, Lisa | AK | 0.591782059067 | |
| R | Shelby, Richard | AL | 0.735716321239 | |
| R | Sessions, Jefferson “Jeff” | AL | 0.87144366449 | |
| R | Snowe, Olympia | ME | 0.317130644786 | |
| R | Grassley, Charles “Chuck” | IA | 0.693067483217 | |
| R | Roberts, Pat | KS | 0.843924026368 | |
| R | Vitter, David | LA | 0.902593288699 | |
| R | Thune, John | SD | 0.880276185813 | |
| R | Hoeven, John | ND | 0.72780551701 | |
| R | Inhofe, James “Jim” | OK | 0.965457190169 | |
| R | Heller, Dean | NV | 0.655024286835 | |
| R | Hutchison, Kay | TX | 0.73557890887 | |
| R | Alexander, Lamar | TN | 0.685007652965 | |
| R | Isakson, John “Johnny” | GA | 0.807557003462 |
Make no mistake about this.
This is the modern version of, “PAPERS PLEASE.”
Oh wait, go back and read this again...after two years some beaurcrat is going to tighten the screws on this even more...
This is just another bill of slow tyranny coming into being. Two years from now...we have no real idea what life is going to be like in two years from now, now do we.
Are they anticipating a turn over of congress in 2014?
We need better than an election to stop this crap. The government needs to be served a cease and desist order from we the people. We need to stop them.
Like identity theft, and credit card theft which is running rampant I can see the HACKERS finding and selling ways to access and adjust the data recorded by the boxes
I've see SEVERAL DRM - Digital Rights Management codes hacked and broken faster than they could get a foothold. If this black box is computer oriented it will be compromised and accessed probably sooner rather than later.
The law does not prohibit removal of the device by the owner, merely that it must be sold with the device installed.
Nice work, Grams.
It’s time to put the pressure on all those we elect, especially those who were elected with Tea Party support, to make sure they personally READ EVERY bill they vote yes on.
If that’s too much work for them then they don’t deserve to be in office.
Not sure about that J. It reads:
the Secretary shall revise part 563 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to require, beginning with model year 2015, that new passenger motor vehicles sold in the United States be equipped with an event data recorder that meets the requirements under that part
It seems that it might depend on what part 563 of title 49 requires.
Fellow technologically inclined Americans, do you see?
§ 563.6 Requirements for vehicles. top Each vehicle equipped with an EDR must meet the requirements specified in §563.7 for data elements, §563.8 for data format, §563.9 for data capture, §563.10 for crash test performance and survivability, and §563.11 for information in owner's manual.
I can see a government lawyer easily construing that underlined section to mean that the vehicle is ALWAYS required to have that capability; ergo, that capability cannot be removed.
It does not say "cannot be removed", but saying "must meet the requirements" is very troublesome.
The long term goal is to tax you directly on how much you drive.
I agree, Redgolum. If you look at this Para 49, 563:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=49:6.1.2.3.31&idno=49
The tables in that paragraph include everything but testing for your blood type. They'll be able to tax more than your miles. They'll be able to tax your hours and minutes, your locations, probably even the air you use.
You posted, in part: Wait until the Insurance companies start refusing to pay for your accident because you were in the wrong.
Hit a deer doing 10 mile over the limit. Tough jellybeans the Insurance won’t pay off.
***
Not sure how I feel about the event recorders. They can also back up a safe driver’s story in the face of lies by another driver in an accident. But they have to be accurate.
Are we saying, by opposing the recorders, that we OUGHT to be able to drive unsafely and still have insurance cover our accidents? Should the relationship between driver and insurance company not be market-controlled? That’s what most conservatives believe in other contexts. Let me shop for a policy that will “give” me 10 mph over the limit (or buyer a rider for that), etc.
In a way this reminds me of the attacks against Linda Tripp for recording her phone calls with Lewinsky. The dems were not so much mad about the recording per se. Rather, they hated that they could not effectively destroy Tripp’s testimony. If event recorders are accurate, shouldn’t we support them— except for use as admissions by the government, I have big problems with that.
Well of course all of us are perfect and never make mistakes ,so why not have something monitoring us 24/7.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.