PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 22, 2015
Eliminating Dangerous Oil Cars and Ensuring Community Safety Act
This bill replaces general requirements for design standards of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for pressurized tank cars with a retrofitting requirement for certain tank cars.
No rail carrier may ship on or after a specified deadline any hazardous material (hazmat) in any tank car under DOT-111 (Department of Transportation specification for a non-pressurized rail tank car) or non-jacketed Casualty Prevention Circular (CPC)-1232 (new rail tank car standards for transporting crude oil or ethanol), unless the tank car has been retrofitted in accordance with the DOT-117 specification design established by the May 2015 final rule for the safe transportation of flammable liquids by rail.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
DOT shall establish and begin enforcing a national maximum volatility standard for the transport of crude oil by rail or by barge.
The bill sets a maximum speed for any train carrying more than 10 cars, including at least one hazmat-carrying DOT-111 or unjacketed CPC-1232 tank car that has not been so retrofitted, of 40 miles per hour while traveling through a county (or county equivalent) with a population density of greater than 20 persons per square mile.
In addition to certain other required track inspections, each rail carrier shall conduct, on main line routes it owns or for which it has been assigned maintenance responsibility, and over which 1 or more high-hazard flammable trains are operated:
2 additional inspections for internal defects of all rail in Classes 3, 4, and 5 for every 40,000,000 gross tons transported on such lines, or annually, whichever interval is shorter; and
4 track geometry inspections each calendar year.
Beginning on December 1, 2018, each rail line over which tank cars carrying crude oil or ethanol travel shall be equipped with a positive train control system.
Each rail carrier that transports crude oil, petroleum, or other hazardous products by rail shall develop comprehensive oil spill response plans.
The FRA shall develop a program to audit such response plans to ensure that they include comprehensive procedures for:
preventing or mitigating a substantial threat of a worst-case discharge of such products resulting from a rail accident or incident, and
responding to and cleaning up such a discharge.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration shall revise specified spill response planning thresholds to require comprehensive response plans to effectively provide for a carrier's ability to respond to worst-case discharges resulting from accidents involving unit trains or blocks of tank cars transporting oil and petroleum products.
Each rail carrier shall:
establish a system through which employees may anonymously report circumstances or incidents that endanger the safety of railroad operations, and
provide specified information to the FRA and the county emergency management contact (or equivalent) immediately after the derailment of any high hazard flammable train the carrier operates.
People & committees
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] · D–NY
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.
Introduced in Senate
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: 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.1462 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.1462 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.1462 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.1462 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.