Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

THEA~TBRNEYGENERAL OP TEXAS AUSCITIN.TEXAS 78711 April 28, 1975 The Honorable Wilson E. Speir Opinion No. H- 593 Director Texas Department of Public Safety Re: Whether operating P. 0. Box 4087 authority from the Rail- Austin, Texas 78773 road Commission must be obtained for wreck&s used by the owner of a garage which includes a storage area for automobiles. Dear Colonel Speir: You have requested our opinion concerning whether certificates of convenience and necessity from the Railroad Commission are required under article 911b, V. T. C. S., for certain activities. Article 911b provides that “specialized motor carriers” must obtain a certificate. A “specialIied motor carrier” is defined by section l(i) in part as one who uses “specialized equipment” such as hoists, winches, etc. However, section 1 l/4 provides: The term ‘Specialized Motor Carrier’ and ‘Specialized Equipment’ shall not include wrecker type vehicles used incidental to or as an adjunct to the carrying on of the primary business of buying, selling, ex- changing, repairing, storing, servicing or wrecking motor vehicles. You ask whether the following activities would be within this exception: 1. The operation of a wrecker type vehicle by the owner of a garage body shop specializing in body work which p. 2642 . The Honorable Wilson E. Speir page 2 (H- 5931 garage has a fenced storage area for automobiles; 2. The operation of a wrecker type vehicle by the owner of a garage specializing in mechanical work which garage has a fenced storage area for automobiles; and 3. The operation of a wrecker type vehicle when the owner has no building. but does have a fenced storage area for automobiles. Whether any specific situation would involve activities “incidental to or as an adjunct to the carrying on of the primary business of”‘one listed in section 1 l/4 will depend on the characteristics of the individual circumstances and will necessitate a factual determination. Consequently, we are unable to rule on the three situations to which you make reference. However, in Interstate Commerce Commission v. S. C. Wholesale- Warehouse Company, 312 F. Supp. 542 (D. Idaho 1969), the court construed a “primary business” test to req uire a determination of whether the transportation operations are in bona fide furtherance of the primary business or are conducted as unrelated or secondary enterprises. In our view, there are several factors which will be involved in this determination. While this is not an exclusive listing, some of these factors are: 1. Whether the individual is in the business of buying, selling, exchanging, repairing, storing, servicing or wrecking motor vehicles. 2. Whether the transportation performed is in furtherance of the primary business of buying, selling, exchanging, repairing, storing, servicing or wrecking motor vehicles. 3. Whether the individual business transports or holds out to transport for anyone other than itself. p. 2643 -- . The Honorable Wilson E. Speir page 3 (H-593) 4. Whether the business advertises itself as being in a carrier business. 5. Whether its investment in transportation facilities and equipment is the principal part of its total business investment. 6. Whether revenues received from transportation services constitute a substantial portion of the total revenue of the business. SUMMARY Section 1 l/4 of article 911b, V. T. C. S., excepts those who operate wrecker type vehicles incidental to or as an adjunct to one of the primary businesses listed therein from the requirement of a certificate of convenience and necessity. Whether a particular situation will be within the exception must be determined on a case by case basis. Very truly yours, HN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas APPROVED: DAVID M. KENDALL. First Assistant C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee lg p. 2644