PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 26, 2013
Motorcoach Safety, Accountability, and Technology Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) to issue regulations to ensure that an individual conducts a brake performance inspection before each motorcoach trip to ensure that the brake performance satisfies all federal law requirements.
Directs the Secretary to issue regulations to: (1) establish minimum performance standards for onboard electronic air brake monitoring systems for motorcoaches, (2) require motorcoaches to be equipped with automatic emergency braking and collision warning systems, (3) require motorcoaches with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds to be equipped with a lane departure warning system, and (4) require motorcoaches to be equipped with a device to limit maximum speed to 70 miles per hour. Requires the Secretary to make such technologies tamper resistant.
Directs the Secretary to study the feasibility of requiring motorcoaches be retrofitted with such technologies.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to issue regulations to establish standards for motorcoaches to use regrooved, recapped, or retreaded tires.
Revises Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program requirements.
Requires the Secretary to approve plans under which states agree to assume responsibility for improving motor carrier safety and adopt and to enforce commercial motor vehicle safety, hazardous materials transportation safety, or compatible regulations, standards, and orders if the plan ensures that (except in the case of an imminent or obvious safety hazard) an inspection of a passenger motorcoach is conducted at a station, terminal, border crossing maintenance facility, and destination (as under current law), but also a weigh station, rest stop, turnpike service area, or other location where adequate food, shelter, and sanitation facilities are available for passengers as well as passengers with disabilities.
People & committees
Rep. Negrete McLeod, Gloria [D-CA-35] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2505 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2505 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2505 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2505 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.