Department of Transportation Record, or other product of inves- Appropriate element evaluates Report, containing record, other 12. TRANSFER OF ICC RAIL SAFETY POWERS TO A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION There is the possibility that certain interests may be concerned with the likelihood that a Department of Transportation would mean more government regulation and control in the transportation industry at a time when they foresee a need for more reliance on freedom of management. Their concern may be with the transfer of ICC rail safety powers and the thought that a department might interfere with management decisionmaking. All of the rail safety powers, functions, and duties of the ICC are to be transferred to the Department. The rail safety statutes are not new; most of them have been on the books for many years. The most recent one is the Power Brake Act of 1958. Insofar as actual court proceedings for enforcement of these statutes are concerned, the inspections and investigations giving rise to them are made by Commission field personnel. The purpose of these field inspections is to secure voluntary compliance with the safety laws. As a result of the field work, a relatively small number of court enforcement cases are instituted where voluntary compliance has been found to be inadequate. In most of the court enforcement matters, pleas of no contest or guilty are entered. To many of the railroads, safety enforcement is simply a cost of doing business. What some may fear is that an executive department would, with greater budget resources and with an increasing interest in safety overall, expand its inspections and investigations and depart from its present selective basis. This may well occur. The only reasonable answers which therefore may be made are (1) management has no prerogative to violate the law; (2) safety is a matter of vital concern to the Government; (3) an evaluation will be made to see that a truly effective approach will be undertaken; and (4) a significant effort will be made to achieve management-labor cooperation in this area (note that cooperation is one of the goals in the draft bill's declaration of purpose). In all probability, however, possible rail management objections to the transfer of the safety functions are related to those proceedings before the Commission which involve relief sought by the railroads from ICC safety regulations prescribed pursuant to the various safety statutes. Most of these decisions are made by ICC Division 3 (a panel of three commissioners) or by the employee railroad safety and service board. While not all management proposals are approved-some being denied and some partially denied-all decisions are made on the record and generally have been favorable to the railroads. However, it is simply a case of management making a reasonable, justified case for relief. Moreover, it should be noted that very few of these matters have been taken to court by the brotherhoods. Thus, it may be said that insofar as relief from safety regulations is concerned, as distinguished from court enforcement of violations, management ordinarily has been able to justify its requests so as to obtain Commission approval. The only major recent exception has occurred in railroad proposals to revise Power Brake Act regulations. Here, however, proposed changes with economic benefits which would not decrease safety were not allowed by the ICC because of statutory language permitting changes related solely to achieve safety. But such language was included in the statute at the behest of the railroads to prevent possible union efforts to change train lengths. Given the vast body of precedent which has grown up over the years in both areas, it would seem unlikely that the Department of Transportation would or could take a more restrictive interpretive approach. Undoubtedly, some would be unwilling to give up what appears to be a history of favorable ICC consideration in the relief areas discussed and may fear that the brotherhoods will be able to bring political influence to bear insofar as the Department is concerned. However, without a significant change in existing safety statutes, it would not appear that management has much to fear, particularly if it continues to present evidence justifying relief. To the extent that the railroads would seek changes in the existing regulations, as distinguished from relief from them, the former are rulemaking proceedings and turn on the case made. The Department would undoubtedly participate with the benefit of enlarged technological and other research in an effort to determine the best course of action. It should be noted, however, that even though the existing investigation and inspection personnel of the Commission will be transferred to the Department, the National Transportation Safety Board would also be created as an independent body to determine the cause of accidents and make recommendations for the conduct of special safety studies. Thus, unlike the situation at ICC, there would be a clear statutory separation of functions. The separation and independence which would obtain under a department would, if anything, be more equitable. The only other pertinent references to safety appear in the bill's declaration of purpose and in section 3(c), but these are general in nature and cannot, as such, be construed as interfering with management prerogatives. It would not appear that the fears set forth above are necessarily justified. 13. BACKGROUND PAPER CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DANGEROUS ARTICLES FUNCTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION This paper is divided into three segments. The first segment describes the statutory authorities involved and the basic safety functions of the ICC. The second part deals with the current situation in the safety and in the explosives and other dangerous articles fields, and the problem areas in which adequate attention is not now possible. The third section describes the advantages and need of centralizing all activities in the whole of the safety field in one agency. DESCRIPTION OF FUNCTIONS The authority for highway safety activities by the Interstate Commerce Commission is legislative. The duties of the Commission with respect to safety regulations are prescribed in section 204 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 304). The primary responsibility in |