PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 14, 2016
Community Protection and Preparedness Act of 2016
This bill requires the Department of Transportation (DOT), annually, to impose a $1,500 fee for each DOT-111 specification railroad tank car used to transport Class 3 flammable liquids during the previous fiscal year that did not meet DOT-117, DOT-117P, or DOT-117R specifications at the time it was used. Such fee shall be paid by each person who causes such liquids to be transported by such car in commerce and not by the railroad carrier that transports such liquids.
Collected fees shall be deposited into a Rail Account established within the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and shall be available only for: (1) the payment of removal and remediation costs and other costs, expenses, claims, and damages related to an accident or incident involving the transportation of Class 3 flammable liquids by rail; and (2) DOT grants to states and Indian tribes to develop emergency plans and to train regional hazardous material emergency response teams and public employees responding to such an accident or incident.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
DOT shall issue such regulations as necessary to require each Class I railroad carrier to inspect all track where an accident or incident involving the transportation by rail of flammable liquids or material poisonous or toxic by inhalation could affect a "high consequence area" (a commercially navigable waterway, an area with a high or concentrated population, or an area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage). The inspections shall be carried out on foot and by a gage restraint measurement system. An inspector who finds a deviation from requirements regarding track safety standards shall immediately initiate remedial action.
Necessary amounts are authorized for the Federal Railroad Administration to hire at least two additional track safety specialists per region.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
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, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
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 12, 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.5786 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.5786 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.5786 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.5786 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.