PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 18, 1996
Rail Safety Act of 1996 - Amends Federal transportation law to direct the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations concerning limitations on duty hours of train employees that are no less stringent than those under specified existing Federal transportation law. Directs the Secretary to study and report to the Congress on: (1) the feasibility of requiring satellite-based positive train control systems in the United States by January 1, 2001; and (2) the technical, structural, and economic feasibility of installing in rail passenger cars devices which, in the event of a collision, would automatically provide passenger escape access. Directs the Secretary, to the extent feasibility is determined, to promulgate regulations requiring installation of such control systems and train escape devices by specified dates. Directs the Secretary to: (1) determine what regulations are necessary to increase the ability of passengers to escape from a rail car in the event of an emergency; and (2) if necessary, promulgate them, to take effect as soon as practicable. Directs the Secretary to establish, by regulation, minimum safety standards for fuel tanks of locomotives of rail passenger trains that take into consideration environmental protection and public safety. Directs the Secretary to determine, and report to the appropriate congressional committees, whether to promulgate regulations for public safety purposes to: (1) require crash posts at the corners of rail passenger cars; (2) require safety locomotives on rail passenger trains; (3) establish minimum crash-worthiness standards for passenger cab cars; or (4) carry out any combination of the above. Directs the Secretary to: (1) study whether to promulgate regulations requiring placement of rail signals along railways in specified positions; and (2) promulgate such regulations if the requirement is determined necessary. Requires a report to the Congress if such placement is determined unnecessary.
People & committees
Rep. Wynn, Albert Russell [D-MD-4] · D–MD
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 Railroads.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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 21, 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.3106 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.3106 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.3106 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.3106 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.