PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 28, 2023
Decreasing Emergency Railroad Accident Instances Locally Act or the DERAIL Act
This bill requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to expand the statutory definition of a high-hazard flammable train (HHFT), thereby subjecting more trains to additional safety requirements.
Specifically, DOT must expand the definition of HHFT to mean a train transporting one or more loaded tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid (e.g., benzene residue) or a Class 2 flammable gas (e.g., vinyl chloride) and other materials DOT determines necessary for safety. Current regulations define HHFT as a train transporting 20 or more loaded tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid in a continuous block or 35 or more loaded tank cars of a Class 3 flammable liquid dispersed throughout the train.
The bill also requires railway carriers to report a train derailment that involves a train carrying material toxic by inhalation within 24 hours of the derailment to the National Response Center, state and local officials, and tribal governments.
People & committees
Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17] · D–PA
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 House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H953)
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 1, 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.1238 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.1238 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.1238 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.1238 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.