PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 10, 1996
Intermodal Safe Container Transportation Act Amendments of 1996 - Amends Federal transportation law to revise the prior notification requirements for intermodal freight transportation. Requires a person who tenders to a first carrier that is a motor carrier (currently, any carrier) a container or trailer with a gross cargo weight of more than 29,000 pounds (currently, 10,000 pounds, including packing material and pallets) for intermodal transportation to give prior notification of the cargo weight and a reasonable description of its contents to the motor carrier. Allows such notification to be made by telephone, and allows the required certification of the container or trailer contents to be electronic. Sets forth administrative and civil penalties for persons who inaccurately transfer certification information. Makes such a person liable to the owner or beneficial owner for any lien filed by a subsequent carrier that incurred a bond, fine, or other penalty as a result of an inaccurate information transfer or a failure to forward a certification. Requires a motor carrier that knows that the gross cargo weight of an intermodal container or trailer violates State vehicle weight laws to give notice to the operator of a leased vehicle that transports such items. Requires the motor carrier to reimburse the operator of the leased vehicle that are fined because of a violation of a State's gross vehicle weight laws. Allows a motor carrier to presume that the gross cargo weight of a container or trailer is under 29,001 pounds if it receives no certification before or when a loaded intermodal container or trailer is tendered to it. Declares that a copy of a certification is not required to accompany the intermodal container or trailer. Prohibits a person from coercing a person transporting a loaded container or trailer having a gross cargo weight of more than 29,000 pounds (currently, 10,000 pounds, including packing materials and pallets) before the required certification is provided. Adds to the circumstances giving certain persons a lien against the contents of the container or trailer as a result of a violation of a State's gross vehicle weight laws. Includes among such circumstances: (1) failure of the party required to provide certification off gross cargo weight to the first carrier to provide it; (2) failure of the party required to forward such certification to forward it; or (3) error in the transfer of information on the certification to another document.
People & committees
Rep. Shuster, Bud [R-PA-9] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10546-10548)
Mr. Shuster moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 432.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 104-794.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 104-794.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
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.4040 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.4040 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.4040 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.4040 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.