Remote Control Locomotives Safety Improvement Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill mandates human engineers in the cab for most train operations, particularly on main lines, aiming to enhance rail safety by restricting remote control locomotive use.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits railroad carriers from operating trains outside of a yard without a human locomotive engineer physically present in the lead locomotive's cab. It specifically bans remote control locomotives on main lines and prevents the Secretary of Transportation from waiving these requirements for Class I or II railroads or trains on higher-class tracks. The bill also mandates audits and inspections by the Federal Railroad Administration to ensure compliance and establishes significant civil penalties for violations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill significantly enhances rail safety by ensuring a human engineer is always present to take immediate control, especially on main lines where trains operate at higher speeds and carry more cargo. They contend that remote control operations, while efficient in yards, pose unacceptable risks in more complex and high-traffic environments, citing potential for human error or system failures without immediate human intervention. This measure is seen as a proactive step to prevent accidents and protect communities.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill stifles innovation and efficiency gains achieved through remote control technology, particularly in yard operations where it has proven effective. They may contend that existing safety regulations for remote control operations are sufficient and that a blanket prohibition on main lines is an overreach that could increase operational costs and reduce flexibility for railroad carriers. Some might also argue that the bill's immediate effective date and lack of rulemaking process could create undue burdens for railroads needing to adjust their operations.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are clear, making it accessible for a quick but informed review.
Section 2(a)(1)
Mandate for Onboard Engineer for Train Operations
This provision requires that any train operated outside of a railroad yard must have a human locomotive engineer physically present inside the cab of the lead locomotive. This engineer must have the immediate ability to take control of the train's operation, effectively preventing fully autonomous or remotely operated trains from running on open tracks.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for safety, ensuring immediate human intervention capability in unexpected situations or emergencies, reducing the risk of accidents associated with remote or automated operations.
Critics contend
Critics may argue this provision limits technological advancement and operational efficiency, potentially increasing labor costs for railroads without a proven corresponding increase in safety over existing remote control protocols.
Tradeoffs
Balances potential safety benefits from human oversight against operational efficiency and technological innovation offered by remote control systems.
Section 2(a)(2)
Ban on Remote Control Locomotives on Main Lines
This provision explicitly forbids the operation of any remote control locomotive on a 'main line.' A main line is defined as a segment of track transporting 5,000,000 or more gross tons of railroad traffic annually. This means that remote control technology, even if a human engineer is present elsewhere, cannot be the primary control method for trains on these high-traffic routes.
Section 2(b)
Certified Engineer Requirement for Main Line Operations
This section mandates that any train operating on a main line must have a lead locomotive with a cab occupied by a locomotive engineer certified under federal regulations (49 CFR part 240). It explicitly clarifies that a person certified only as a remote control operator is not qualified to fulfill this requirement, ensuring a fully qualified, in-cab engineer is always present on main lines.
Section 2(c)
Restriction on Waivers for Safety Requirements
This provision explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from waiving the requirements of this Act for Class I railroads, Class II railroads, or any train operating on track classified as Class 1 or above (as per 49 CFR part 213). This eliminates the possibility of major railroads or critical tracks being exempted from the new safety mandates.
Section 3
Mandated Audits and Inspections for Compliance
This section directs the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Administrator to conduct audits and inspections. Within 180 days of enactment, all Class I railroads must be audited and inspected to ensure compliance. Within one year, unscheduled audits and inspections must be carried out on all other covered rail carriers to verify adherence to the Act's requirements.
Section 5
Enhanced Civil Penalties for Non-Compliance
This provision establishes significant civil penalties for any person or entity violating the Act or its associated regulations. The penalty amount is set as the greater of 1% of the person's annual income or annual operating income, or $1,000,000. A separate violation occurs for each day the non-compliance continues, providing a strong deterrent against ongoing violations.
States that the requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code (the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA), shall not apply to this section.
Section 2(d)(1)
Why it matters:This is a deliberate legislative choice to expedite implementation and prevent potential delays or challenges through the standard notice-and-comment rulemaking process. It's not necessarily evasive but bypasses a common avenue for public and industry input.
Case for: Proponents would argue that bypassing the APA's rulemaking requirements allows for immediate implementation of critical safety measures without lengthy delays, which is essential when public safety is at stake.
Case against: Critics would argue that bypassing the APA denies stakeholders, including railroad carriers and labor unions, the opportunity to provide input, raise concerns, or suggest modifications during the regulatory process, potentially leading to unintended consequences or less effective rules.
Estimated impact: Expedites the implementation of the bill's core prohibitions and requirements by removing the standard public comment and review period for new regulations.
Defines 'main line' as 'a segment or route of railroad tracks over which 5,000,000 or more gross tons of railroad traffic is transported annually.'
Section 6(4)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define terms at the end, but its specific threshold is highly consequential for the bill's reach.
Case for: Proponents would argue this specific tonnage threshold targets the highest-traffic, highest-risk routes, ensuring the safety measures are applied where they are most needed without unduly burdening lower-traffic lines.
Case against: Opponents might argue that the 5 million gross tons threshold is arbitrary or too high, potentially leaving some moderately busy lines vulnerable to remote control operations, or too low, encompassing lines where remote control could be safely and efficiently used.
Estimated impact: Determines which specific rail segments are subject to the ban on remote control locomotives and the requirement for an in-cab certified engineer.