PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 8, 1996
Commuter Rail Safety Act of 1996 - Amends Federal transportation law to revise hours of duty limitations for train employees to prohibit them, among other things, from remaining or going on duty: (1) after having completed a tour of duty, unless having had at least eight consecutive hours of undisturbed rest; and (2) unless such employee has received at least eight hours notice before the time for reporting for duty, except in the event of an emergency, in which case the employee may not work for more than eight hours after reporting for duty. Prohibits a railroad carrier from requiring or allowing a commuter rail train employee to operate a split shift unless it begins between 4 o'clock a.m. and 8 o'clock a.m. Prohibits a railroad carrier and a railroad carrier employer from discharging or in any way discriminating against an employee (whistleblower) who has furnished railroad accident or injury information to the railroad carrier, the Federal Railroad Administration, or other Federal or State agency. Sets forth both civil and criminal penalties for violations under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Martini, William J. [R-NJ-8] · R–NJ
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E745)
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.3413 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.3413 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.3413 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.3413 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.