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