Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

aon, mnutr Clarti~tion, Jr, Opinion No. S-117 Mrector, Texas Department of Public Safety Rer Appl.lcability of Article Camp Mabry 6701.0-1,V,C& , to “com- Aubtin, Teras merclal vehhile8" and “t.ruck-tractora” operated over the highways of Texas by pemons other than the Dear Sir? regirtarecjlvthfclt amer. Your mquoet; fasz, the cP$t&.tmof $h& ofm3E~.rsgard- &UJ tnc applioaisZlll;lty of &t%&te WJl 122, AcM oftthe 53rd &i?gialature,to VariouB ~E&L%sifisat$,onzs ~ofmotor vehible op- eration& oonta$ns the,feUu&ng sWMX@ quWt&one,~ ‘1, Are we comt0t mtiwr in*we tation that mate 8111 I.22ia applloable to all oom- merelal metor vcehlcleeand Wubk tractor8 operated over the hIghwayS’of Texas, except those expressly exempt by the terms of’the act, under lease by ti ps%%cwrOP perBorn@who Uo not operetk for hire and whoa* operations ere neither rsubj&Qtte or re lOl;eB by the provlplionsof the Texas Motor Oarrfer Ew or Part II of the Tntertigate@OMnerce Act? “2* Are we correct in our interpretation that &g%atb Bill 122 id agpl.Laable to all oom- ti&rclalaLdtorvehicle& and truc.ktractora o~cMtW4 NW the hIghWaya of Texas under lea@&’ by a p@s%on or pereoni!(1e@,see&).who are lawfully engaged in for hire trenspWiat$an pur$uent to ‘coI&h p+raon or per0onl3 by auttirlty ilambi&Ml tsthex the RaUFoad CbiWaQlslon of Texas or the ihXt!m%ePionor both? Inttr&tattC~or(uocr%e “3,. Are we aorseQt M our interps-e tet%an that mnate $ill 122 if3 W$llcblble to all COW merralalmat@ vdhiclea end truok +wactom op* tmMd OPBP the huhWy$ (P:O Taxai3by 0 Per&on or persons In the for hire transportationof exempt commodltlesunder Pa’rtI? of the Inter- state Commerce Act?” Hon. Homer Garrison - page 2 - S-117 Senate Bill 122 of the 53rd Legislature was enacted as Chapter 209, Acts of the 53rd Legislature, 1953, and 1s codified aa Arthcle 6701c-1, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Article 6701c-1 appl&~ to the operation of com- mercial motor vehlcltasand truck-tractorsover the highways of ~!Qaa by any person &her th%n the registered owner thereof, or h28 agent, servant or employee under his direct supervision and control, but excepts from Its application the movements of specific commoditiesset forth in Section 2 there&n, and excepts movements of such character as are de- fined in Section 2, Subsections (a), (b) and (c) and Section 8, ISrectm 1 &NW the Wm %%wmmm%l @&or vah2ale” and Utruok-tractor*for tW purp@m@ o,fi&&s Aa& Tt 3,sap- parent that tkwbe, defin@i~aa m&m rw UlabknctELBZI CaBbo *he character of’operations to W% performed by said Voh&Cl%s, end no such distinction %ppa%rs with&n the Aot, We trwt3conclude that Article 6701~1 is intondsd to apply to operations of conmmrcfolmotor vehlolea an& truck-tractor%, %x,%%ptto the operations th%r%in sgecifto&Uy %m4MnpCaU, wnctnw kvperebor thereof is not the re&s&?&%d @wner c&fsuch vehicle, or h&s agent, servant or employuao,i!egaFdlees o,fthe character of the operation a0 being intrvOebateor lntera,t;a+ifd, regulated or non-r%gul%tod,private er for hire, It state Pre p 251 (19 2 ; 1 3 28 294 ‘is prescrib% r highwey% In toldint+r@t of #~&l.$.c %%,f%t;Y and hig&i$y con- servatbiw2da equ%lly well sstab1Se~nea.M A, Rr?vlWoesPinr$ Hon. Homer Garrison - page 3 - S-117 In gtephenson v. Blnford, supra, the United States Supreme Court announced the following,crlterlonin passing upon the validity of State 1egisJatlon'enactedpuz%uant to the State's police powers over its hiephways: "The assailed provisions, In this view, are not ends in themselves,but means to the legitimateend of cotiservlng the highways. The extent to which, as means, they conduce to that end, the degree of their efficiency, the close- ness of their relation to the end sought to be attained, are matters addressed to the judgment of the legislature,and not to that of the courts. It Is enough If it can be seen that in any degree, or under any reasonably conceivable circumstances, there is an actual relation between the means and the end." We interpret Article 6701~-1 as being designed to aid in the enforcement of existing police, welfare and safety laws applicable to the operation of commercialvehicles and truck-tractorsover the highways of this State. Under this interpretationwe consider this Act to be within the test an- phenson, nounced in .Ste Returning to your three specific clasalflcatlonsof motor carrier operations,we consider to which operations the State's police power may validly extend. Unquestionablythe State has the power to regulate the handling of intrastate commerce over it8 highways. &&- road Commlsslon of Texas v. Querner, supra; Elchhole v. Public service Commlseion of Missouri, 306 U.S. 268 (1939); Conti- nental Baklnn Co. v. Woodring, supra. A state may also, under Its police ptiwer,'prescrlbe certain reasonable and appropriateregulations applicable to Interstate commerce. In Morris v. Duby, supra, the Court de- clared: "In the absence of national 'legislation especially covering the subject matter of . . Hon. Homer Oarrieon - page 4 - S-117 Interstate commerce, the state may rlght- fully prescribe uniform regulationaadopted to promote safety upon Its highways and the oonservationof their use, applicable alike to vehlolee moving In lnteratate comm8rae and those of ite own oltl8en8.* Poor decblona to the 88me effect, see& HoDonald v4 r Thompson, supra; wales v. Blnford, supr8j mission of Texas v. Querner, supra; E.xPert A very recent case, FE-YROOfinK CO, V. Wood, 344 U.S. 157 1952), further e scope of State au- thority over 5. nterbtate commerce and Is excellentlydiscussed in Volume 32, page 225 of the Texas &8w Review for maember, 1953. ThS.8case involvsd the suthority of the Arkan8afbPublic Svrvlce CommlsslM to require a Tennessee oompsny, engaged exolu8tMly ln Interstate commerce (@it operaWIg without authority from the Interstate Commerce Commlsslon), to bbtaln a permit from said Commission before opsratlng over Arkansas highways. In the course of It.8opinion the Court eald: %ere neither pctLtfoner8nor the tWW8r8 have obtained any kind BZ autho2%?ZyfW88 the Inter8tateOommerce Coaaiesla Indeea, p&l- tlon8r8 Who18 oa8e h88 barn built an the premtie that neithsr..Itnor Ii% dslver8 mu8t get a prrlahit from th8 stat8 or the national Fsgulatory aganoy, In thie eltuetlon OUT prior 088ee meke alear th8t a etate c8n regulate 80 long 88 no undue burden Is impo8ed on lnteretate commerce, and that a mere requirementfor a permit is not 8uoh a burden. .** " Sn the 8boVe ca8e the Court by It8 deoielon approved the proporltlonurged by the Arkan C~8aInn, I.e., that reglntretlonwith the Arken Comla8lon for 1dentlSlcetlon purpooer WBS necessary to a proper applicationof the State+8 valid pollee, welfare, and aarety regulations over motor carrlem using lta highways. A review of the above euthorltlesreflect8 that the police power of !l!exe~ mey ~~nstltutional~yextend to the three ol86rlflcatlonsof motor carrier operations oon- tained In your spealflo que&tiono. Your questloge are eaoh answered In the affirmative. . . Hon. Homer Qarrlson - page 5 - S-117 Art'icle67010-i V.C.S., applies to a&l operations of commFrcla1motor vehl- cles end truck-tractors,except to the operations therein specificallyexempted, , when the operator thereof Is not the re- glstered owner of such vehicle,'or his 8gent,%ervant or employee, regerd1es.s of the character of the operation as *being : ' private or for hire, regulated or non- regulated, Intrastateol'lnterstqte,and such application Is not tlolatlve of the :. Interstete Commerce Cla$se of the Constl- , L tution of the United States. Yours GFw yya JOHN BENSHEPPERD Attorney Oeneral .By w& Mert.5tarnes APPROVED: .' Assistant Dean J. CePP ,01184Gas Mvlelon John Atchison . : Reviewer Robert S. Trottl First Assistant John Ben Shepperd Attorney General MS:bt