September 18, 1951

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., Director Texas Department of Public Safety Camp Mabry Austin, Texas Opinion No. V-1285
Re: Interpretation of Senate BiII 57. Acts 52nd Leg., R.S.

Dear Sir: 1951, relating to the gross’ weight of commercial vehicles.
Your request for an opinion reads in part as follows: “Senate Bill 57, Acts 52nd Legislature, Regular Session, 1951, relating to the gross weight of commercial motor vehicles provides that no axle shall carry a load in excess of 18,000 pounds. The Act defines an axle load as ‘the total load transmitted tothe road by all wheels whose centers may be included between two parallel tFkrXv’arsevertics1 Plkie~s,.fontyihohes apart, exe. - tending across the full width ofthe vehicle.’ The Act then provides a table limiting the maximum load in pounds carried on any group of axles andthis table is based upon the distance in feet between the extremes ~ofany group of axles.

“It is further provided in the Act that the total **gross** weight concentrated onthe highway surface from any tandem axle group shall not exceed 32,000 pounds for each such tandem axle group and **then** proceeds to define a tandem axle group tobe ‘two **or** more axles spaced forty inches or **more** apart from center to center having at least one common point of weight suspension.’

“In connection withthe above Act we desire your opinion on the following questions:Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 2 (V-1285)

“1. Under Senate Bill 57, whatwould be the maximum gross weight allowed a combination ofvehicles consisting of a single driving axle truck-tractor and tandem axle semi-trailer wherein it is thirty-seven feet from the front truck axle (Axle “A”) to the extreme axle (Axle “D”) ofthe tandem axle group (Axles ‘C” and “D”), and is twentyfeet from the rear truck-tractor driving axle (Axle “B”) to the extreme axle of the tandem axle group (Axle *D”). The axles of the tandem axle group (Axles “C” and “D”) onthe frailer are spaced four feet apart..

“2. What.is the legal maximum weight allowance for semi-trailer axles spaced four feet apart with no common point of weight suspension.

“3. What is the maximum legal gross weight allowed under Senate Bill 57 for a tandem truck used to transport ready mixed cement wherein the distance in feet between the extreme axles is twelve feet.

‘4. What is the legal maximum gross weight allowed under Senate Bill 57 **on**a group of axles formed on a trucktract& by the use of a ‘ jeep assembly.‘” Article 827a. Section 5. Vernon’s Penal Code. as amended by Senate Bill 57. Acts 52nd Leg., 1951. ch. 146. p. 248, provides in part as follows:

“Section 5. Except as otherwise provided by law, no commercial motor vehicle, truck-tractor, trailer or semi-trailer, nor combination of such vehicles, shall be operated over, on, or uponthe public highways outside the limits of anincorporated city or town, where the total,weight on a s$ngle axle or any group ofaxles exceeds the weight limitations adopted April 1, 1846. by the “American Association of State Highway Officials,” set forth below in subsections (a) and (b):

“(a) Permissible Loads -- No axle shall carry a load in excess of eighteen thousand (18,000) pounds.

a

. . .

“(b) No group of axles shall carry a load in pounds in excess ofthe,value given in the following table **corres-**. .

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 3 (V-1285)

ponding to the.distance in feet between the extreme axles ofthe group, measured longitudinally to the nearest foot: “Distance in feet between the extremes ofany group of axles Maximum load in pounds carried on any group of axles

4
2 7
9” 10 11 i2 13 14

:z 17 18 19 20 21

z

z 26 27
2”; 1 30 31 32 33

:; 36 37

:; 40 41 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32.610 33,580 34.550 35.510 36,470 37.420 38.360 39,300 40,230 41,160 42.080 42,990 43.900 44,800 45,700 46.590 47,470 48.350 49,220 50,090 50,950 51,800 52,650 y”o 55: 160 55,980 56,800 57,610 58,420 58,420 58.420 58,420 58.420Hon. Homer Garrison. Jr.. page 4 (V-1285)

“The weights set forth in column two ofthe above table shall constitute the maximum permissible gross weight for any such vehicle or combination of such vehicles.” The act does not define ‘“group of axles” or “axles ofthe group.” We must therefore first ascertain what constitutes the

“group of axles” to be used in determining the maximum gross weight allowed for any motor vehicle or combination ofvehicles traversing the highways ofthis State outside the corporate limits ofany incorporated city or town.

In order that our discussion ofthe question may be more clearly understood, we have reproduced below a photograph ofthe combination of motor vehicles accompanying the request.

It is contended by some interested parties that by the use ofthe language “no group of axles shall carry a load in excess ofthe value given in the

. . . table corresponding tothe distance in feet between the extreme axles ofthe group” the Legislature intended in the above example to group the axles as follows: “A” toHon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 5 (V-1285)

“B”, “A” to “D”, “B” to “D”, and “C” to “D”. Thus, it is said that theweights given in the table for the corresponding distances in feet between each ofthese axle groups is the maximum gross weight permissible on any such axle group. In other words, applying the distances given above to the table, the total gross weight permissible onthe axle group “B” to “D” would be 43,900 pounds, and onthe axle group “A” to “D” it would be 58,420 pounds. Under this theory, an operator of a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles would be inviolation ofthe gross load limit if the gross weight onany one group of axles was in excess ofthat shown by the table.

There is authority for this contention. The Supreme Court of Iowain the recent case of State v. Balsley, 48 N.W.2d 287 (Iowa Sup. June5, 1951)held under the Iowa act’ providing for “distance in feet between the extremes of any group ofaxles or the extreme axles ofthe vehicle or combination” that axles “B”, “C”, and “D” together constitute a group of axles and that “consideration can and must be given to the distance between the extreme axles of this particular group andthe weight that was onthem.” The Attorney Nebraska reached a like result in an opinion dated General9 May 13, 1949.
On the other hand, the Attorney General of vming, construing a statute similar to those in Iowa and Nebraska, in an opinion dated July 22, 1950, concluded that the meaning intended by the Legislature in using the terms “axles ofthe group” and “group of axles” was that “all axles under avehicle should be considered as a group.” Itwas further said that the distance to be measured in

l/ The Iowaact, Sec. 321.463, Iowa Code (1950), provides: “No grouiiof axles of anyvehicle, or any combination of vehicles, shall carry-a load in pounds in excess ofthe value given in the

. , . table corresponding to the distance infeet between the extreme axles of the group,measured longitudinally to the nearestfoot.” 2/ The Nebraska act, Section~39-722. Neb. Rev. Stat. (Supp. 1949r provides: “No group of axles shall carry a load in pounds in excess-of the maximum loads given in the

. . .table corresponding to the distance in feet between the extreme axles ofthe .group. measured longitudinally to the nearest foot.” 3/ The Wyoming act, Ch. 87, Wyo. Laws. 1949. provides ”

. . . novehicle or combination of vehicles shall be operated onthe highways where the total gross weight, with load, exceeds that given by the

. . . table, corresponding to the distance infeet between the extreme axles of the group measured longitudinally to the nearest foot.*. .

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr.., page 6 (V-1285)

order properly to apply the table or formula4 was “the distance from the extreme front axle ofthe vehicle to the extreme rear axle ofthe vehicle without regard to the number ofaxles that mightintervene between such front and rear axle.”

Thus, there has been a division ofopinion as to the construction to be placed uponthe term “group of axles” even though the statutes construed are similar, each being modeled in part on the uniform act suggested bythe American Association of State Highway Officials, as is Senate Bill 57. However, in determining the construction’to be placed uponthe Texas act it is necessary to consider une very important difference between Senate Bill 57 andthe statutes of the other States. Immediately following the statutory weight formula it is provided:

“The weights set forth in column two of the above table shall constitute the maximum permissible gross we> - hicles. “-I (J&mphasisadded throughout.)

. The above provision must be construed in connection with that portion of the act immediately preceding the statutory weight formula wherein it is provided:

“No group ofaxles shall carry a load in pounds in excess gfthevalue given in the followmg table corresponding to the distance infeet between the **extreme** axles of the group, measured longihidmally to the nearest foot.” It is thus tobe observed that this portion of the act deals with a “load in pounds” in relation to a “group of axles,” while that portion of the actimmediatelyfollowing theweight formula designates the.weights &tf’nrtb inthe table as the “maximum

. . . gross weight” for the “vehicle or combination of

. . . vehicles.” sunless the second provision is explanatory ofthe meaning which the Legislature intended to attach to the first provision, the two provisions

4/ The statutory tables of distances andweights in Iowa, Nebra&a, Wyoming. and Texas **are** the **same.** 5/ This provision is neither included in the uniform act suggest&dby the American Association of State Highway Officials nor the acts ofthe several States whose acts have been modeled after the suggested uniform act., .

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 7 (V-1285)

prescribe conflicting methods for determining maximum permissible gross load. Inkeeping withthe rule of statutory construction that all parts of a statute will be harmonized, if possible, so as to.give effect to every provision in the act, we think it is obvious that the Legislature, by the insertion ofthe provision relating to the maximum gross weight **for** a vehicle or combination of vehicles, intended that all axles under a vehicle or combinationof vehicles be considered as,the “group” without regard to intervening axles. Otherwise, we must attribute to the Legislature the doing of a meaningless and **useless** thing-in expressly providing in the act that the weights given in the table should constitute the maximum permissible gross weight for a vehicle. This we should not do. Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. v. State, 190S.W.Zd 132 (Tex. Civ. App. 1945), atfirmed **145** Tex. 24, 193 S W2

. . d 675 (1946).
But assuming thatthis is not the proper construction to be given this last provision and further assuming that the arrangement of axles in the above example results in more than one group of axles, 6 then obviously the two paragraphs are in conflict andwe must therefore determine which ofthe two provisions should prevail. Ifthe provision which deals with “group ofaxles ” is to prevail, then undoubtedly the r,uleannounced by the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Balsley, supra, should be applied. Onthe other hand, if the provision ofthe actrelatin&to permissible weights for “vehicles” and “combination ofvehicles” is controlling, then the total permissible gross weight for the vehicle or combination of vehicles would be determined by the figure set out in the table corresponding tothe distance from the **extreme** front axle **to the**  **extreme** rear axle without regard to intervening axles.

Inconsidering conflicting provisions in a statute, the primary object is, to ascertain the legislative intent. Inaccordance with the principle that the last expression ofthe legislative will is the law, the prevailing view is that, in case ofconflicting provisions in the **same** act, the last provision in order ofarrangement prevails. United States v. Updike, 25 F.2d 746 (D. Neb. 1928), affirmed 281 U.S. **mUI; tireat**  wrn Rye.v. United States, 155 Fkd. 945 (C.C.A. 8th 1907). 

### afffi6/ Suchgrouping of axles accords with the interpretation which the Highway Research Board has placed on~thatpart of the act providing that “no group of axles shall carry a load in pounds in excess of thevalue given in the

. . . table:” See Bulletin No. 26, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., July 1950, p. 11. See also, “Policy Concerning Maximum Dimensions, Weights and Speeds of Motor Vehicles” adopted by American Association of State Highway Gfficials on April 1. 1946.. .

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 8 (V-1285)

208 U.S. 452 (1908); Statev. Burchfield Bros., 211Ala. 30, 99 So. 198 (1924); Spreckels v. Graham, 194 C 1 516 228 Pac. 1040 (1924); Lamar v. Allen;T(TS Ga.m3 SE

. . 958 (l”s<S)*Woodring v. McCaslin, n. I34 104N.E. 759 (19i4); People ex rel. Barnes v. Warden of \R 127’Misc. 224, 215 N.Y.S.v925)* Stat orkhouse, Ohio, 105Ohio St. 103, 136N.E. 894 (T9 e v. Industrial tommission of j Packer v. Sunbury &E R m. 211(1852); 59 C.J. 999, Statutes, Se:. 596. . Y*r

Texas has followed the above rule. Parshall v. State, 62 Tex. Grim. 177, 138 S.W. 759, 767 (1911);Stevens V. State, ?B-%x. Crim. 565, 159S.W. ‘05 (1913), Inthe Stevens case, -theaid: ” 0

. . Where there is [a]

. , . conflict between different sections or parts ofthe same statute, the last words stand

. . .; that is, the part of a statute later in position in the same act or section is deemed later in time and prevails **over** repugnant’parts occurring before, thoughenacted andto take effect at the same time.

. . .‘W Applying the above rules of construction to the question under consideration, it follows that controlling effect must be given to the provisions of the act wherein it is provided thatthe weights set forth inthe table “shall constitute themaximum permissible gross weight for any such vehicle or combination of such vehicles.”

It follows from the above that the distance to be measured in order properly’to appiy the statutory table in our example is from the extreme front axle (Axle “A”) to the rear semi-trailer tandem axle

_ (Axle “D”). This construction accords with the declared legislative intent to raise the permissible **gross** weight of commercial motor vehicles r combinations thereof, including the load thereon, from 48,000 poundss to 58,420 pounds.8 To hold otherwise would in many instances actually thwart such legislative intent.

Moreover, the construction we have placed onthe act is in accord withthe departmenta interpretation placed **thdreon** by the Texas Highway Department. 4

7/ Acts 49th Leg., 1945, ch. 162. p. 218. g/ See:.$hetitle and Section 2 of Senate Bill 57. Acts 52nd Leg., 1951,Th. 146. p. 248. 9/ The instructions for registration purposes issued by the Texas Highly Department. Motor Vehicle Division, interpret the “distance infeetbetween the extremes of any group ofaxles” to mean from the extreme front axle ofthe vehicle to the extreme rear axle ofthe vehicle or combination.Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page .9. :. (V-1285) ,

Whatwe have said above with reference to the maximum permissible **gross** weight of a vehicle or combination of vehicles under the statutory table ofweights and distances is subject to certain specific restrictions and limitations contained in the act. In thefirst 

### place, it is expressly provided that “no axle shall carry a load in excess of eighteen thousand (18,000) pounds.” Secondly, no vehicle using high-pressure tires shall have a greater weight “than six hundred (600) pounds per inch width oftire uponany wheel concentrated uponthe surface of the highway,“’ and novehicle using lowpressure tires shall have a greater weight “thansix hundred and fifty (650) pounds per inch width of tire uponany wheel concentrated uponthe surface of the highway.” Thirdly, no wheel shall carry a load in excess of eight thousand (8,000) pounds onhigh-pressure tires andnine thousand (9,000) pounds onlow-pressure tires. Fourthly, “the total **groes** weight concentrated on thehighway surface from zn:sndeem 

### axlegroup shall not exceed **thirty-two** thousand (32,000)

. **A** tandem wle group is defined “to be two or more axles spaced forty (40) inches **or more**  apart from center to center **having** at least **one** common point **of**weight suspension,”

From the above we answer 

### your first question as follows: Inmeasuring the distance between the “extramen of any group 

### of axles” in order to apply the rtatutory table ofweights it is proper **to**

### measure **from** the extreme front axle of the vehicle to the extreme 

### rear axle of the vehicle or combination 

### ofvehicles without 

### regardto the number 

### of axles that might intervene between such front and

### rear axle. Thus, a combination of vehicles eonsMing of 

### a truck-tractor and tandem axle semi-trailer wherein it is 

### thirtyseven (37) feet **from** the front truck axle (Axle *A”) to the extreme rear axle 

### of the tandem axle group (Axle “D”) is permitted to have a maximum **gram** weight **of** 58,420 pounds, subject to the limita

### tionr snd rcrtrictionr provided for in the act with respect to high and low pressure tires, **dngle** axle loads, wheel loads, and tandem 

### urle loads.By your second question you inquire as to the maximum weight allowance for two semi-trailer axles rpaced four feet apart with no common point of weight rurpenrion. **Ao** the two axles do not have 

### acommon point 

### of weight ruspenaion, they cannot come withinthe definition of

### atandem axle group. Suchaxles are maparab andapart **one**from the **other,** and

### therefore 

### come within that provision of the act wherein it is provided that *no

### axleshall carry a load in excess of eighteen 

### thousand (18,000) pounds.* You are 

### therefore advised **that** each such semi-trailer axle **may** 

### carry a load notto axceed 

### eighteen thousand (18,000) pounds, subject to tht limitations **and** restrictions with respect to low pressure 

### tire8 and wheel loads.* ,. .

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 10 (V-1285)

Inyour third question you present for determination the maximum gross weight allowed for a ~~d~~ truck used to transport ready mixed concrete wherein the diShCS between the extreme axles is twelve (12)feet. We as6ume thatthe type’of truck inquired about is used exclusively to tranoport ma+-mix concrete.

Under the statutory table ofdistances andweights the maximum permissible I(* _. --SS weight for any type of motor vehicle operated over ~tl#public highways olrUo-- ---+cide the’corporate limits of any incorporated city or townwherein it is twelve (12)feet between the extremes of its axles is 36,470 pounds. Itis true thatthe act provides that-‘yehicles used exclusively to tranoport rea cement for the next two (2) years after the effective datelVz%is act may be operated witha,tandem axle load ofthirty-six thousand (36,000) pounds” if the owner complies with certain conditions.11 This is an exception tothe 32,000 poundlimit an other tandem axle groups. Itin noway extends the maximum permissible gross weight allowed avehicle under the table ofdistances andweights. All the proviso does is toallow an increase inthe permissible weight onthe tandem axle group ofa vehicle used exclusively to transport ready-mix concrete, and it does no-y or otherwise change theweight6 set outinthe statutory table.

your fourth6question relates to the use of a “jeep assembly” in connection with an ordinary truck-tractor. As explained by you, a ‘

jeep,assembly” is a piece of equipment consisting of an axle, dual tires, andframe assembly which is connected to the truck-tractor by the use ofa king pin attached to the ‘fifth wheel.” Thus connected, it has the effect of making a tandem truck-tractor out of whatwas previously a single rear axle truck-tractor. We assume from the descriptiontbat when the “jeep assembly” is connected to thefifth wheel ofthe truck-tractor that it results inthe two axles being spaced forty (40) inches or more apart from canter to center, andis so connected as to give at least Yonecommon point**.of** weight,suspension.” Based uponthis assumption, the use ofthejeep assembly ~results in forming a “tandem axle group.” andby the express provisions ofthe act the total gross weight concentrated **on**the highway surface from

“any tandem axle group” shall not exceed thirty-two thousand (32,000) pounds.

lO/ Senate Bill 57, Actr~52nd L,eg.,;l951, ch. 146, p. 248, became effecFve September 7,~1951. 11/ The owner of such vehicle must first file withthe State HighwayDepartment a surety~bond in the sum of $lO,OOO.OO for eachvehicle operated.. I

Hon. Homer Garrison, Jr., page 11 (V-1285)

SUMMARY Under S.B. 57, Acts 52nd Leg., 1951, ch. 146. p. 248 (Art. 827a. Sec. 5, V.P.C.), the distance tobe measured in applying the table of distances andweights in order to arrive &the maximum permissible gross weight ofa vehicle or combination ofvehicles is from the extreme front axle ofthe vehicle to the extreme rear axle of thevehicle or combination without regard to intervening axles. The maximum permissible gross weight allowed under the table of weights is subject to the restrictions contained in the act with respect to single axle loads, tandem axle loads, single wheel loads, and loads transmitted to the highway surface through use of high andlow pressure tires. The provision allowing a tandem axle load of 36,000 pounds for vehicles used exclusively to transport readymix concrete for twoyears after the effective date of Senate Bill 57 merely increases from 32,000 pounds to 36,000 pounds the permis~sible tandem axle load for such vehicles, butdoes not qualify or otherwise change the maximum gross weight prescribed for these vehicles inthe statutory table. The total gross weight authorized to be concentrated on~-thehighway surface by any one tandem axle group formed by the use ofa “jeep assembly” is 32,000 pounds.
Yours very,truly..
PRICE DANIEL Attorney General
APPROVED: Everett Hutchinson

‘Executive Assistant
Price Daniel Attorney General 

# B-A. vCharles D. Mathews First Assistant

CDM:b