September 2007

From the editors of CCH's Transportation products, here are summaries of the important recent developments in the area for the past month.  Complete coverage of these issues, and many more, appear in our print and electronic products, including: Aviation Law Reporter, Commercial Aircraft Transactions, Issues in Aviation Law and Policy, Federal Carriers Reporter, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Decisions, and Motor Carrier Liability.

If you have comments or suggestions concerning the information provided or the format used, please feel free to contact me directly at aaron.broaddus@wolterskluwer.com.

Hot Topics

NY Governor Signs Airline Passenger Bill of Rights
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer signed an airline passenger rights measure he said will ensure that airline passengers on severely delayed flights operating out of airports in his state are provided with basic customer protections. Proposed in response to several incidents of severe airline delays due to inclement weather at New York's Kennedy International Airport, the legislation is set to take effect on January 1, 2008. The legislation requires that all airlines operating out of New York airports provide passengers with food, water, fresh air, power, and working restrooms on any flight that has left the gate and remains on the tarmac for more than three hours. Aviation Law Report Letter No. 1361, August 9, 2007.

Ways and Means Revenue Panel Considers Airport Taxes
House Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) said he expects the full Committee to approve legislation after Congress' August recess that will reauthorize airport excise taxes before they expire on September 30, 2007. The subcommittee on August 1 considered the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2881), which would provide $68 billion in funding over five years for the Airport Improvement Program, FAA facilities and equipment, FAA operations, and research, engineering, and development programs. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) called on Ways and Means to approve his Committee's recommendations to raise existing taxes on aviation fuel and jet fuel. “I believe that the programs we have authorized can be funded by existing aviation excise taxes, coupled with a General Fund contribution that is consistent with that authorized under the 2003 authorization act, and a relatively small increase in revenue derived from adjusting general aviation fuel taxes,” he told lawmakers. Aviation Law Report Letter No. 1361, August 9, 2007.

Aviation News

Constitutionality of Airport Screening Not Based on Consent
The pre-boarding security screening of a passenger at an airport security checkpoint, which revealed the presence of a controlled substance in the passenger's clothing and resulted in the passenger's arrest, did not violate the passenger's protections from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in an en banc decision. The passenger, who had passed through initial security screening at the checkpoint without setting off any alarms, was subjected to secondary screening because his ticket had been marked to indicate that he lacked a government-issued identification card. According to the full court, requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by electing not to fly on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. Thus, where a search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, all that is required is the passenger's election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport, the court concluded. U.S. v. Aukai (9thCir) 32 Avi. 15,404.

9/11 Implementation Act Tightens Airport, Cargo Screening
President Bush on August 3 signed into law the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266), which includes several provisions to tighten airport and cargo security screening. At the bill signing, the President said he would continue to work with Congress “to ensure the workability of the cargo screening provisions in a way that increases our vigilance on homeland security while ensuring the continuance of vital commerce.” The new statute requires the implementation of a system to screen all cargo loaded onto passenger aircraft within three years of the law's enactment. The measure also provides $250 million annually for airport checkpoint screening, $450 million annually for baggage screening, and $50 million annually for the next four years for aviation security research and development. Aviation Law Report Letter No. 1361, August 9, 2007.

FAA Issues Flightdeck Door Monitoring, Discreet Alert Rule
New regulations that require passenger airliners to have a means to allow the flight crew to visually monitor the door area outside the flightdeck will take effect on October 15. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, this will give flightcrews the ability to identify persons requesting entry into the flightdeck, as well as detect suspicious behavior or potential threats. The new rule will allow compliance through the use of a video system or a viewing device in the flightdeck door, coupled with a provision for audio confirmation in order to assure that no passengers occupy the forward lavatory or the area outside the door. For operations requiring flight attendants, the rule requires a means to discreetly notify the flight crew of suspicious activity or security breaches in the cabin. However, current, on-board crew alert systems can meet the requirement if used with FAA-approved operator-developed procedures. In addition, the rule allows carriers to use more sophisticated technology, such as hands-free wireless systems, at their option. Aviation Law Report Letter No. 1362, August 30, 2007.

Lithium Battery Shipments Banned from Passenger Planes
Cargo shipments of certain types of lithium batteries will remain banned from passenger aircraft under a final rule issued on August 9 by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The rule amends the Hazardous Materials Regulations by adopting a limited ban on primary, non-rechargeable lithium batteries —such as those found in cameras, laptop computers, and mobile telephones —to reduce the risk of potential fire caused by electrical short circuit. This final rule also tightens standards for testing, handling, and packaging lithium batteries to reduce the likelihood of a lithium battery-related fire during shipment. Aviation Law Report Letter No. 1362, August 30, 2007.

Interference with Flight Warranted Sentencing Enhancement
A federal appeals court ruled that a nine-level sentencing enhancement was properly imposed on an airline passenger whose interference with flight attendants had constituted reckless endangerment of the safety of the aircraft. The passenger claimed that his conduct, which had consisted of bomb threats and physical violence, did not warrant the enhancement because it had endangered only the flight crew and passengers, but not the aircraft. The court disagreed. Concluding that an aircraft is a captive, closed environment in which the safety of the passengers and the integrity of the aircraft are closely intertwined, the court found that endangerment of the aircraft does not require evidence of actual harm to the aircraft or require that an actual weapon or bomb be found on the plane. Thus, the passenger's statements, threats, and conduct, which required diversion of the flight, easily had qualified as reckless endangerment to the safety of an aircraft within the meaning of the sentencing guideline, the court said. U.S. v. Gonzalez (9thCir) 32 Avi. 15,318.

Substance of Subcontractor Drug Test Rule Upheld
A federal appeals court upheld the substance of a Federal Aviation Administration final rule that extends the agency's drug and alcohol testing requirements to employees of air carrier subcontractors at any tier who perform safety-related functions. The court ruled that FAA's new requirements did not violate the provisions of the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) or the Administrative Procedure Act, and did not violate the workers' constitutional rights. However, the court also found that FAA had violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by failing to conduct the required regulatory flexibility analysis to determine the new rule's effect on small business entities. Although OTETA's statutory language is ambiguous as to whether the testing requirements apply to employees of all subcontractors at any tier, the court ruled that FAA had reasonably construed the statute to treat a subcontractor's employees as statutory employees of air carriers. The court found that the statute does not distinguish between employees of certificated and noncertificated subcontractors, and it is not unreasonable for FAA to construe the statute to require the testing of all maintenance employees in order to ensure that all maintenance work is done properly. Aeronautical Repair Station Ass'n v. FAA (DCCir) 32 Avi. 15,354.

Convention Time-Barred Injured Passenger's Claim
An action against an air carrier by a passenger who had been injured in a fall while boarding an international flight to the U.S. was time-barred by the Warsaw Convention, a federal court ruled. According to the court, the Convention governed the passenger's complaint because the alleged injuries had taken place in the course of embarking on a flight between Honduras and the U.S., both of which are signatories to the Convention. As such, the action, which alleged claims only under Puerto Rico law, had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the court ruled. Since any claim for the passenger's injuries could be brought only under the Convention, it would be subject to the Convention's conditions and limits, including its two-year statute of limitations, the court said. Consequently, because the passenger had commenced the lawsuit more than three years after the incident occurred, the complaint was fatally late, the court concluded. Sanchez Morrabal v. Omni Air Servs. (DPR) 32 Avi. 15,330.

Carrier May Recover its Payments of Uncollected User Fees
An air carrier was entitled to recover from the federal government certain immigration user fees and agricultural quarantine inspection fees that it had failed to collect from passengers, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has ruled. The court previously held that the government lacked authority under the applicable statutes to impose liability on the carrier for the payment of the uncollected user fees (see American Airlines v. U.S., previously reported at 31 Avi. 17,243). Nonetheless, the government argued that the carrier was equitably estopped from recovering any of the illegally exacted fees because it allegedly had full knowledge of, and acquiesced to, the premise that instances in which it had failed to document the collection of a user fee would be deemed instances of non-remittance for which it could seek recovery. However, the court found no evidence that the carrier knew it was not legally liable for the uncollected user fees or anticipated future litigation, or that it had misled the government as to its litigation intentions. American Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. (FedCl) 32 Avi. 15,379.

Carrier's Failure to Provide Wheelchair Was an “Accident”
An air carrier's failure to provide wheelchair assistance following an international passenger's disembarkation was an “accident” within the meaning of the Warsaw Convention, a federal court ruled. Upon exiting the flight, the passenger had requested a wheelchair and a gate attendant/employee left to procure one, but never returned. While walking to the baggage claim area, the passenger suffered chest pains and was taken to a hospital. The carrier removed the passenger's state law negligence action, arguing that the Warsaw Convention governed the claims and provided the basis for the federal court's jurisdiction. For his part, the passenger asserted that the Convention did not apply because he had sought help in the baggage claim area and, therefore, was not in the process of disembarking from the flight at the time of his injury. However, the court found that the alleged injury-causing event, or “accident” under the Convention, was the carrier's alleged failure to provide the passenger with a wheelchair. That event took place during “disembarking” within the meaning of the Convention because it occurred when the passenger had just deplaned at his gate and was awaiting the return of —and further direction from —the carrier's employee, the court concluded. Bunis v. Israir GSA, Inc. (EDNY) 32 Avi. 15,417.

Surface Transportation News

FRSA Partially Preempts State Law Aiding Injured Rail Employees
A state law intended to ensure that railroad employees injured in the course of their employment receive prompt medical treatment without interference or harassment from their employer was partially preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), a federal district court concluded. The state law was adopted to address concerns by the state that railroad employees injured on the job were not afforded prompt medical treatment due to employer interference. Under the law, a employer or person convicted of a violation of the state statute would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could face a fine of up to $1,000. A group of railroads operating in the state filed an action against the state official responsible for the enforcement of the law. The railroads sought an injunction barring enforcement of the law, and a declaration that the law was preempted by the FRSA.

The first provision of the challenged state law prohibited employers from intentionally denying, delaying, or interfering with medical treatment or first aid treatment to a railroad employee injured on the job. The railroads claimed that Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations mandating that railroad employers comply with internal control plans, asserting the railroad's commitment to the accurate reporting of job-related injuries, and prohibiting the harassment and intimidation of injured employees preempted the state law. Upon review, the court determined that the FRA regulations did not address the subject matter covered in the first provision of the state law. Consequently, the state was permitted to enact and enforce laws dealing with the subject matter until FRA issues applicable regulations.

The second provision of the state law prohibited rail employers from disciplining, harassing, or intimidating an employee injured in the course of their employment in an effort to discourage them from receiving medical treatment, or threatening to discipline injured employees for requesting medical treatment or first aid. The railroads again claimed that FRA's Internal Control Plan regulations covered the subject matter contained in the state law. In this instance, the court agreed, finding that FRA had issued regulations that substantially subsumed the subject matter covered by the second provision of the state law by prohibiting harassment and intimidation intended to discourage or prevent an injured employee from seeking medical treatment. Since the federal regulations provided the same protections to employees injured on the job as the state provision, and because no exceptions to preemption were applicable, the state provision dealing with the harassment and/or intimidation of injured employees was preempted by federal law. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson (DMinn) ¶84,501.

State Regulation of Intrastate Movements Preempted
A federal district court ruled that a state's attempt to regulate intrastate transportation services provided by a passenger motor carrier over its federally authorized routes was preempted by federal statute. The carrier filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's attempted regulation of the carrier was preempted by federal law and requesting a permanent injunction barring the state from regulating the carrier in the future. The suit stemmed from an enforcement action arising from an alleged violation of a state statute prohibiting the charging or advertising of rates to passengers that were different from the rates on file with the state.

The state argued that federal preemption was not applicable because the carrier operated exclusively within the state. The carrier countered, asserting that the transportation it provided exclusively within the state of Colorado qualified as interstate under federal law because the transportation was part of an active, regularly scheduled interstate service, and the interstate traffic was substantial in relation to the intrastate traffic. While the state admitted that the carrier's operations were ``actual'' and part of its existing intrastate operations, it argued that the services were not regularly scheduled, lacked a connection to interstate transportation, and were not ``substantial'' in relation to its intrastate routes. The court disagreed with the state, finding that the carrier provided regularly scheduled service that was related to interstate movements through the prearranged transportation of passengers from airports to ski resorts and was substantial in relation to its intrastate services. Based on this determination, the intrastate transportation provided by the carrier was part of an interstate movement subject to federal regulation.

The state also challenged the carrier's claim by asserting that the enforcement action was excepted from preemption because it was based on violations of state notice requirements. Federal transportation law bars states and their subdivisions from enacting or enforcing any law related to ``scheduling of interstate or intrastate transportation provided by a motor carrier of passengers subject to federal jurisdiction on an interstate route.'' However, an exception exists for schedule change notice requirements. The state asserted that the notice exception was applicable because the alleged violations were based on the carrier's advertising of rates different from those on file with the state without providing the proper notice of change. This argument was rejected because the violation notice did not cite the carrier for failing to provide a notice of change, nor did it address changes in the carrier's schedule. Thus, the state action was preempted by federal law and, therefore, unenforceable. Additionally, the state was permanently enjoined from regulating the carrier's operations on its certified federal routes. East West Resort Transp., LLC v. Binz (DCol) ¶84,502.

ICCTA Preempts State's Attempt to Close Rail Crossing
A state statute authorizing the closing of a private railroad crossing was preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), a federal district court held. Pursuant to New York Railroad Law, the New York Department of Transportation commenced an administrative proceeding that resulted in an order to close a private railroad crossing. A property owner with an easement to use the affected crossing to access a portion of its property challenged the closure order, asserting that the state law under which the closing was authorized was preempted by federal statute. The state argued that its law was not preempted because it was not intended to regulate transportation by rail carriers, but was adopted to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Based on the evidence presented, the court concluded that the rail crossing was within the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (STB), and ruled that the actions taken by the state in ordering the closing of the crossing had exceeded the scope of the police power exception to preemption. Thus, the closure order was preempted by the ICCTA and the state was permanently enjoined from using the state law to order the closing of the crossing. Island Park, LLC v. CSX Transp. Inc. (NDNY) ¶84,503.

Portion of HOS Rulemaking Deemed Arbitrary and Capricious
Two related decisions seeking review of the 2005 hours-of-service rulemaking issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) were addressed by a federal court of appeals in a single decision, granting one petition and denying the other. The petitions, filed by a public interest group and an association of independent owner-operators, challenged the portion of the 2005 final rule that applied to long-haul truck drivers.

The public interest group challenged the rules dealing with the 11-hour daily driving limit and the 34-hour restart provision. The petition claimed that the agency had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to disclose, in time for public comment, the methodology of the operator-fatigue model that was cited in the agency's justification for the rule. In addition, the petition alleged that the agency had neglected to provide a reasoned explanation for some of the methodology's critical elements, rendering both the methodology and the rule arbitrary and capricious. Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the court ruled that the agency had violated rulemaking procedures and was unable to provide an adequate explanation for its decision to adopt the 11-hour daily driving limit and the 34-hour restart provision. As such, the petition for review was granted and the challenged provisions were vacated.

The petition for review filed by the owner-operator group claimed that the rule was arbitrary and capricious because the agency had failed to deal with loading and unloading issues mandated by Congress, did not consider the negative effects of driver health and safety, and overlooked important issues related to the modification of the sleeper-berth exception. In order to establish that a rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious, the agency must have relied on factors which Congress did not intend it to consider, failed to consider important aspects of the problem, adopted conclusions that were contrary to the evidence, or were so implausible that they could not be attributed to a difference in views or the product of agency expertise. Based on this analysis, the court rejected the petitioner's arguments, finding that the agency had properly addressed and dealt with each of the challenged items. Thus, the rulemaking was deemed reasonable as it related to these claims.

In a statement published following receipt of the appellate court's decision, the FMCSA stated that it was in the process of reviewing the decision and considering its options. The agency also emphasized that the decision would not go into effect until September 14, unless the court ordered otherwise. OOIDA v. FMCSA (DCCir) ¶84,504.

Violation of Transportation Whistleblower Statute Upheld
A petition for review of a decision finding that a motor carrier employer had violated the whistleblower protection provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) was denied by a federal court of appeals. A motor carrier employee claimed that he had been terminated in retaliation for having testified against his employer at a grievance hearing. The carrier-employer asserted that the termination was not related to the hearing testimony but was the result of the employee lying on his employment application. In support of this claim, the carrier alleged that the decisionmaker had been unaware of the employee's testimony. The carrier further argued that, even if the termination was deemed to be related to the hearing testimony, the STAA had not been violated since the hearing was not a protected activity under the statute.

The employee's initial complaint with the Department of Labor was dismissed for lack of merit. The employee appealed the dismissal and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was appointed. Upon review, the ALJ determined that the employee had proven by a preponderance of evidence that he had been terminated for having engaged in the protected activity of providing testimony against his employer at a grievance hearing filed by a co-worker. The ALJ rejected the carrier's claim and the decisionmaker had been unaware of the employee's testimony and declined to address the employer's stated reason for termination when the carrier refused to name the individual who alerted the company to the inaccuracies in the driver's job application. The ALJ's decision was affirmed by the DOL's Administrative Review Board (ARB).

The employer sought appellate review of the ARB's decision. Based on the evidence presented, the court ruled that the conclusions reached by the ARB and the ALJ were supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the petition for review was denied. Roadway Express, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (7thCir) ¶84,506.

Carrier Has Duty to Ensure Financial Responsibility Compliance
An insurance company did not have a duty to ensure that a motor carrier had complied with federal regulations mandating minimum levels of financial responsibility, a federal district court ruled. A motor carrier involved in a fatal accident had violated federal regulations by failing to maintain the required minimum level of insurance coverage. The estate of the deceased had sued the carrier's insurance company alleging negligent underinsurance. The estate's representative argued that the insurer had a duty to inform the carrier of the need to maintain public liability insurance in the amount of $750,000. The estate further claimed that the insurer had been negligent in failing to obtain adequate coverage for the carrier.

The insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was not responsible for ensuring that a carrier obtain the required minimum level of insurance coverage, nor did it have a duty to inform the carrier of the minimum requirements. The insurer asserted that the duty to comply with the regulations fell to the carrier. The court agreed, finding that the regulations clearly placed the responsibility for securing and maintaining the required insurance on the motor carrier. Accordingly, the insurance company did not have a duty to inform or ensure that motor carriers comply with federal regulations, the court concluded. Brewer v. Maynard (SDWVa) ¶84,505.

Exemption Notice Dismissed; STB Approval Not Required
A notice of exemption filed by a state agency seeking to acquire certain physical assets of seven rail lines was dismissed by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) because the transaction did not required STB approval. The state agency filed a notice of exemption on March 27, 2007. On April 20, 2007, the petitioner filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the notice, asserting that the transaction was not subject to STB regulations.

Normally, acquisitions of rail lines and the common carrier obligations that attach to those lines require STB approval. However, where the common carrier rights and obligations attached to the line are not transferred, STB approval of the transaction is not required. In this case, the state agency acquired the right, title, and interest in certain tracks, track materials, and the underlying rights-of-way of the rail lines, while the common carrier rights and obligations remained with the prior owner of the line under a permanent, exclusive, assignable freight operating easement. Because the common carrier rights were not transferred, the transaction did not require STB approval. Therefore, the notice of exemption was dismissed. Utah Transit Auth.•Acquisition Exemption•Union Pacific R.R. Co. (STB) ¶37,240.

Planned Transloading Activities May Be Subject to State Laws
The Surface Transportation Board (STB) has issued preliminary findings regarding the scope of its jurisdiction over a transloading facility proposed by New England Transrail, LLC (NET). NET filed a petition with the STB seeking authority to acquire 1300 feet of existing track, construct 6,200 feet of new track, and operate as a rail carrier over the combined 7,500 feet of track. The request was made to facilitate NET's interchange operations. Additionally, NET stated that it planned to seek authority to construct a facility for the loading of certain materials requiring special handling onto rail cars or into containers. STB declined to consider NET's request until a wide range of environmental and public interest safeguards were met. However, the agency did address two preliminary issues, including whether NET would be a rail carrier subject to STB jurisdiction and, if so, whether its various activities involving municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition debris (C&D) would be considered sufficiently related to rail transportation to be within the scope of federal preemption.

Based on the evidence presented, it was determined that if the proposed transaction was approved, NET would become a rail carrier and STB approval would be required for the construction, acquisition, and operation of its rail line. As for whether the various planned activities involving MSW and C&D were deemed to be transportation related, STB concluded that the shredding of construction and demolition debris would be outside the scope of rail transportation and would be subject to all applicable state and local regulations. However, the other proposed activities involving MSW and other commodities, such as loading, unloading, handling, and storing were deemed to be integrally related to rail transportation. Thus, they would be subject to federal regulations and exempt from most state and local rules. New England Transrail, LLC d/b/a Wilmington & Woburn Terminal Ry.•Construction, Acquisition and Operation Exemption•In Wilmington and Woburn, MA (STB) ¶37,241.

FRA Issues Direct Final Rule to Amend NSRT Formulas
A direct final rulemaking adopting technical revisions to the regulations governing the formulas used to calculate the annual value of the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT) has been initiated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The changes are intended to eliminate confusion regarding the data and calculations that are to be used establish the appropriate value of the NSRT each year. Currently, the applicable regulations contain specific numbers and dates that must be updated on an annual basis when the NSRT is recalculated. Through this rulemaking, the agency has removed the references to specific numbers and dates, leaving only the relevant formulas for calculating the NSRT, which should eliminate potential confusion and misunderstanding. Under the rules governing the use of the direct final rule procedures, the revised regulation will take effect on October 9, 2007, unless adverse comments or requests for oral hearings are received by the agency. Written comments must be submitted on or before September 10, 2007. Federal Carriers Report Letter No. 1516, August 23, 2007.

Quarterly Reporting of Fuel Use Required for Large Railroads
Starting with the three months beginning October 1, 2007, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) will require all Class I railroads to file quarterly fuel use reports. The quarterly reports must include following the information: (1) the total fuel costs for the reporting period; (2) the number of gallons of fuel consumed during the reporting period; (3) the increased or decreased cost of fuel over the previous reporting cycle; (4) the total quarterly revenue from fuel surcharges (all traffic); and (5) the revenue from fuel surcharges on regulated traffic. The new reporting requirements were adopted following a notice and comment period. The original proposal called for the submission of monthly reports. However, in response to comments submitted by affected carriers, the agency revised the reporting frequency from monthly to quarterly. The final rule is effective November 12, 2007. For further information, contact: Joseph H. Dettmar, telephone: (202) 565-0395. Federal Carriers Report Letter No. 1516, August 23, 2007.

FMCSA Issues New Guidance on the Definition of ``Accident''
New regulatory guidance on the definition of ``accident'' has been released by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The new guidance provides guidelines for determining whether certain vehicle fires must be recorded on a motor carrier's accident register and considered in the application of the FMCSA's safety fitness procedures. The purpose of the regulatory guidance is to provide the motor carrier industry and Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials with a clearer understanding of when a vehicle fire constitutes a recordable ``accident'' under federal regulations. As such, the agency has concluded that a vehicle fire occurring in a commercial motor vehicle in transit on a roadway customarily open to the public, which results in a fatality, bodily injury requiring medical attention away from the scene of the accident, or disabling damage requiring a vehicle to be towed, is an ``accident'' under federal regulations and must be recorded on the motor carrier's accident register. The new guidance took effect July 24, 2007. For further information, contact: Deborah Freund, telephone: (202) 366-4009. Federal Carriers Report Letter No. 1515, August 9, 2007.