PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S2252-2253)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 16, 2015
Positive Train Control Safety Act
This bill authorizes the Department of Transportation (DOT) to extend the deadline, in one-year increments, for implementation of positive train control systems if full implementation by the existing deadline will likely be infeasible due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, and other certain other criteria are met.
Each Class I railroad carrier, and each entity providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation, must submit annual progress reports to DOT on the status of fits implementation plan.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Such plans shall now be required for any such carrier or entity governing operations on a main line over which 20 or more tank cars loaded with petroleum crude oil, ethanol, or other Class 3 material are transported.
DOT shall assess electromagnetic spectrum needs and availability for implementing positive train control systems.
Applicable railroad carriers shall establish a confidential close call reporting system program subject to DOT regulations.
A railroad carrier providing commuter rail passenger transportation on high density commuter railroad lines, when performing a required inspection, shall:
at least once each two weeks traverse each line by vehicle or inspect each main line on foot, and
at least once each month traverse and inspect each siding by vehicle or by foot.
DOT shall:
study the effectiveness of positive train control and related technologies on reducing collisions at highway-rail grade crossings; and
promulgate regulations to require that on-track safety programs, whenever practicable and consistent with other safety requirements and operational considerations, include requiring implementation of redundant signal protection, such as shunting, for maintenance-of-way work crews who depend on a train dispatcher to provide signal protection.
People & committees
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S2252-2253)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.1006 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 S.1006 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 S.1006 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 S.1006 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.