Mr. D. C. Greer OplnlonNo. WW-487

State Highway Engineer Texas Highway Department Re: Whether or not the Civil Austin, Texas Defense and Disaster Relief,Vocational Schools, CivilAir Patrol and Texas Turnpike Authority are exempt from the registration fees of vehicles Dear Mr. Greer: owned and used by them.
We quote fromyour request for an opinion as follows:
"Article 6675a-3, Section c, R.C.S., authorizes this Department to issue fee exempt licenseplates to 'Owners of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailerswhich are the property of and used exclusively In the service of the United States Government, the State of Texas, or any county, city or schooldistrict thereof,

. . .l, upon proper application to this Department as provided in Section 3-aa of this Act. II

. . . II Within the last fewyears. many other agencies have been created and we respectfuilyrequestyour advice as to whether the following agencies are exempt from the registration fees of vehicles owned and used by them: "Civil Defense and Disaster Relief Vocational Schools CivilAir Patrol Texas TurnpikeAuthority"
GENERALDISCUSSIONRELATIVE TO

"STATE AGENCIES" The only case Involving a constructionof the exemption afforded the State of Texas by Article 6675a-3(c) as presently enacted which has reached the Court of Civil Appeals is State Highway Commissionet al v. Harris County Flood Control District et al 247 S.W. 2d 135 (Tex.Clv.App.1952 N.R.E.). The court decided that the Harris County Flood Control District, and theMr. D, C. Greer,page 2, OpinionNo. w~A87

Harris CountyNavigation Districtwere both exempt from payment of the vehicle registration fee. No clear cut tests were established;however, the last paragraph of the court's opinion sets forth,threerequirements for exemption:
1. The institution seekingthe exemptionmust own the vehicles involved. 2. The vehiclesmust be exclusivelyused In the service of such institution. 3. The institutionmust exist solely as an agent of the State of Texas. The first twomatters are nothingmore than fact questions; but inview of the ,controversythat has centered around ;he third requirement, the qualificationsof a "State agent purposes of the exemption affordedby Article 6675a-3(c 7 for need more specificdefinition. Heretof0r.e

therehas been considerableemphasisplaced on the distinctionbetween a "political subdivision"and a "State agency" in dealingwith questions of this nature. The. theory has been advanced that sinceArticle 6675a-3(c) specifically exemptsvehicles belonglng to any county; city,or school district,which are political subdivisions,all other political subdivisionsare thereby excluded from benefits of the act. This conclusion employs the maxim of constructionexpresslo unius eat exclusioalterius,which means "expression of one thingrthe exclusion of another." This position is untenable. It pre~sumes that pol'tical subdivisionsother than those namedmay not be inc,lude &I .within the term "the State of Texas" as used In Article 6675a-3(c). This is tantamount to taking one of the followingpositions: 1, Political subdivisionsare not State agencies or governmental instrumentalities. This propositionhas been expressly,overruledby two notable cases. The first is Harris County Flood Control District v. Mann, 140 S.W. 2d 1098 (Tex.Sup.Ct.19403, in which the Supreme Court, speakingthrough Justice Crits, stated that it was too plain to admit of debate.that the Harris County Flood ControlDistrict was a political subdivisionwhich functioned as an arm of the State government --'that is, a.State governmental'agency. The second is the case of Wilson v. Abilene Independent School District, et al, 190 S.W.,2d 406 (Tex.Civ. App. 19&!5

Ref. w:'m.)in which,the court, quoting37 Tex.Jur. IMr. D. C. Greer, page 3, OpinionNo. wW187

864, 865, sec. 16, stated "School districts are quasi public corporations.

. .which derive their powers by delegation from the State. They are State agencies, erected and employed for the purpose of administeringthe State's system of public schools." 2. Political subdivlslonseven though instrumentalities of the State government, are not exempted by the provisions of Article 6675a-3(c) unless expressly named. This constructionputs your department in the anomalous position of according the exemption to one agency but denying it to another of equal dignity as a governmental instrumentality simplybecause the second agencywas createdwith somemeasure of autonomy. The inconsistency of this position is heightened by the fact,which has been judiciallyrecognized, that for a long time the Highway Departmenthas issued exempt license plates to the Lower ColoradoRiver Authority and the Brazos River Reclamation and ConservationDistrict, on the theory that these districts are "State asencies." StateHizhwav Commission v. Harris County Flood ControlDistrict 247 S.W.-2d 135 (Tex.Civ.App.19.52, N.R.E.). The case of Allis-ChalmersMfg. Co. v. Curtis Electrical Co. 259 S.W. 2d, 918, (Tex.Clv.App.1953), aff'd 264 S.W. 2d 700 (Tex.Sup.Ct.1954) contains languagewhich rebuts the contention that the Article 6675a-3(c

7olitical subdivisionsexpresslynamed by are the only ones entitled to the exemption thereinprescribed. This case involves a construction of the term "this State"used in Article 5160 V.A.C.S. requiring any firm contractingwith "this State or its counties or school districts or other subdivisionsthereof or anymunicipality therein" to execute bond for payment of labor and material supplies. The court at page 921 stated: "If all the various branches of the State Government were beyond the scope of Article 5160 then there would be little of the State to be includedwithin its terms. The Legislaturewas certainly aware,when it enacted Art. 5160, that the State consisted of many branches and agencies. To name them all not only would have been quite ----- ambs~ probably woum have had the effect of excluding State agencies later created." (Emphasisadded.) The case of State Highway Commissionv. Harris County Flood Control District, supra,was decided in 1952. In 1955, Article 6675a-3 was amended and re-enactedby the Fifty-fourth Legislature. It is a well-settledprinciple of law that uponMr. D. C. Greer, Page 4, Opinion No. ~-487

re-enactment of a statutewithoutmaterial change, a presumption arises that the Legislatureknew and adopted or approved the interpretationplaced upon the original act, Amaimo v. Carter 212 S.W. 2d 950 (Tex.Civ.App.194.8 Ref. N.R.E.); Lane v. Ross 151 T. 268, 249 S.W. 2d 591 (1952).
prom the foregoing authorities It is apparent that a State agency created and operating for the purpose of performing or carrying out a State governmental function or duty is entitled to have fee exempt licenses issued to vehicles owned by it and used exclusively in its service,whether such agenc labelled "branch ' "commission ' x is division." ' > "board " ' > agency,U or subThis conclusion is also supportedby the theory that collection of the license fee from State governmentalagencies amounts to the State of Texas engaging In the senselessprocess of taxing itself, in derogation of ArticleXI, Sec. 9, and Art.VIII, Sec. 2, Texas Constitution,and Article 7150, Sec. 4, V.A.C.S. This theory is ably propounded in Attorney General's Opinion No. V-955, written by Mr. W. V. Geppert of this office.
In $he hopes that your position in,,regard to "State ~~;';2",~c)

and the term "State of Texas, as used in Article will be clarified,you are respectfully advised that in order to qualify for issuance of fee-exempt license plates, the following requirementsmust be present: 1. The agency seekingthe exemptionmust have been created by the laws of the State of Texas and be functioningpursuant thereto. 2. The agencymust have been creat:ed for the purPose of performing governmental functions or duties0 3. The vehicles for which exemption is soughtm,ust be owned by such agency. 4. The vehiclesmust be used exclusivelyby the agency.

TEXAS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY Sec:ion 3 of Article 6674~, V.A.C.S., states: "There is hereby created an authority to be known as the !TexasTurnpikeAuthority,lhereinafter sometimes referred to as the 'Authority,' Ey and in its namesthe Authoritymay sue'andbe sued, and plead sndMr. D. C. Ureer~, page 5, OpinionNo. Wk-487

be impleaded. The Authority.ishereby~constitutedan agency.of the.State,of.Texas,.and.theexercise by the Authority.of the.powers~conferred.by,thisAct.in~the construction,.operation.and,maintenance.of.turnpike projects,shall.be.deemed,and,heldto.be an.essential governmental,function.ofthe State." (Emphasisadded.)
It is clear from the provisions of the Act creating the Turnpike Authority that it is designed to exist and function as a body corporate, separate,independentand distinctwithin itself. Among other autonomic features, the Authority has the power granted to Subdivisionsof the State by Article III, Section 52 of the Texas Constitution,to issue turnpike revenue bonds for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of a Turnpike project. Article 6674V, Section 9, V.A.C.S.
It is equally clear from the Act creating the Authorlty and defining its nature,purposes and powers, that it is an arm of the State government - that is, a State governmental agency - performing a governmental function. As such it is included in the provision of Article 6675a-3(c) exempting vehicles which are the property of and used exclusively in the service of the "State of Texas" frompayment of the registration fee thereinprescribed.

CIVILDEFENSE AND DISASTERRELIEF The "Texas Civil ProtectionAct of 1.951," Article 6889-4, V.A.C.S., creates the State Defense and DisasterRelief Council. Whether or not this particular agency is entitled to the exemptionwill not be discussed sinceyou state in your letters, "The Stateheadquarters, Office is not an issue." which is a part of the Governor's

Section 4(f) of Article 6889-4 provides that the Governor, or upon his designation, the State Defense and Disaster Relief Council, is authorized,and empowered to assist in providing for adequate local defense organizationsunder the authority of duly constituted local officials.
It is obvious that local civil defense and disaster relief organizationsare not agencies of the State even though the Governor or the Defense and DisasterRelief Councilmay have assisted in establishing such organizations. Therefore, vehicles belonging to local defense and disaster relief organizations are not covered by the exemptionprovision in Article 6675a-3(c)V.A.C.S. This is true even though the officials of the organizationmay also be county ormunicipal officers or officials.Mr. D. C. Greer,page 6, Opinion No. WW-487

There is onepossibilitywhereby vehiclesused in the service of localdefense and disaster relief organizations would be entitled to the exemption. This is in caseswhere such organizationsare createdby and operate entirelypursuant to the organic law of a county or municipality. Actually, however, this point is moot, since In such cases the vehicles would be ownedby the county or the municipality and would already be entitled to the exemption.

VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS The question regarding vocational schools is one that is extremely difficult to answer, since the subject is so broad, and we are not calledupon to decide any particular set of facts.
We have carefully checked the statutes on thispoint, and find that "vocationaleducation" is specifically provided for in several instances. These statutoryprovisions establish four categories of institutionswhich are entitled to the exemptionby Article 6675a-3(c). 1. Those offering courses in or in conjunctionwith Texas PublicHigh Schools.
It is apparent that any institution fallingwithin this classification forms a componentpart of a "schooldistrict" of the State. Vehicles belonging to such a school and used exclusively in its serviceare therefore entitled to the exemptionprovided in Article 6675a-3(c). (Forexample of statutoryauthorization of this type of vocational education, see Article 2680, V.A.C.S.) 2. Institutionsmade a division of any State College or University and placed under the direction and control of the President and Board of Regents of any such colleges or university.
It need hardly be said that such schools are included within the term "the State of Texas," and vehicles belonging thereto are entitled to the exemption affordedby Article 6675a-3(c) on exactly the same basis as vehiclesbelonging to the parent college or university. 3. Public Junior Colleges. Vehicles belonging to Vocational Divisions of Public Junior Colleges are entitled to fee-exempt licenseplates for the same reasons as stated in Number 2 above.Mr. D. C. Greer, page 7, Opinion No. W-487

4. Special schools establishedby the purpose of administeringvocational

__ _ the Legislature for

. . eaucationunaer tne direction of local school trustees or officials. These schools are covered by Article 6675a-3(c)by virtue of being made a part of a "school district" by special statute. At present the only school falling into this category are the "special schools for veterans" createdpursuant to Article 2683b, V.A.C.S. If any of the vocatlonal schools to which you have reference are not institutions of one of the types listed above, we know of no basis by which it can be accorded the exemption in Article 6675a-3(c).
In our recent conversation,you expressedpartic'ilar interest in whether or not vehicles used by vocational school "coordinators"are entitled to fee exempt licenseplates. **YOU** are respectfully advised that unless suchvehicles belong to vocational institutions of one of the foregoing types, or to the Texas Department of Education, and are used exclusively In the service thereof, they are not so entmd.

CIVILAIR PATROL The Civil Air Patrol was created by the Act of July 1, 1956, 8 60Stat. 346, which is codifiedin Title 36, 8 201 through 2 208 u.S.C.A. It was declared to be a body corporate, with perpetual succession. The purposes of the act were to provide an organizationto encourage civilian contribution of efforts, servicesand resources in the development of aviation andmaintenance of air supremacy;and to provide aviation, education and training and to foster civil aviation in local communities to assist in meeting local an" national emergencies. 8 202, Title 36, U.S.C,A, Section 626~~ Title 5, U.S.C,A., as amended, established the Civil Air Patrol as a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force, authorized the Secretary of 3b.e Air Force to make available to the Civil Air Patrol obsolete or surplus aircraft, materials and supplies,permitted utilization of Air Force facilities,provided for liaison offices and for detail of Air Forcemilitary and civilianpersonnel. This sectionwas repealed, and the provisions thereof substantiallyre-enacted in Section 9441, Title 10, U.S.C.A. by the 84th Congress. In speaking of this change, Senate Report 1278, 83rd Cong. 2nd Sess., U. S. Code Cong. and Adm. News 1954, p0 2271 states:Mr. D, C. Greer,page 8, Opinion No. WW-487

"Under PublicLaw 557, cection fi26h, Title 5, U.S.C.AJ the Air Force couldmake available to the Civil Air Patrol surplus aircraft materiel and equipment. Under this arrangement Civil Air Patrol obtained surplus equipmentdirectly from the Air Force. With the passage of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,however, surplusproperty was defined to mean property excess to the needs of all Federal agencies,with-theresult that.CivilAir Patrol came afterall,Federal agencies inacquiring AirForce surplusproperty. Section 1 of the bill would permit the CivilAir Patrol to acquire equipment excess to the needs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force without regard to the Federal Property andAdministrative ServicesAct of 1949." (Emphasisadded.) Accordingly, subsection (b) (1) of Section 9441, Title 10, U.S,C.A., gave the Secretary of the Air Force the power to give, lend or sell to the Civil Air Patrol without regard to the Federal PropertyAdministrativeServicesAct. This was the only appreciable changemade by the repeal and reenactment of Section 626~, Title 5, U.S.C.A. The foregoingprovisions compel the conclusion that the Civil Air Patrol was chartered as an independent,non-governmental entity. "The Control of the Congress over this Corporation is only such as is common to virtually all private corporationsgranted federal charters - merely requirj.ng the .L ,,ransmittal

to Congress eachyear of a report of its proceedings and activities for the preceding calendaryear. ~ , the conclusion is inescapablethat the (Xvi1Air Patrol under its charter,,shouldnot be classified as a corporation 'primarily acting as fig instrumentalityof the UnLted States.8 Since it is not a part of the executive departmentnor an establishmentof the United States 'independen; o it is not a federal agent Pearl v. TJnitedStates, 230 F. 2d 243 (U.S. C,t.of App. 19.56. 7' Since the CivilAir Patrol is not a federal governmental. agency, it is not covered by the provision of Article 6675a-_?(c) exemptingvehicles owned and used in the service of the "United Sta,tes

Government" from the payment of registration fees.

SUMMARY Venicles belonging to the Texas Turnpike Authority and used exclusively in its service are entitled .tofeeexempt licenseplates by reason of its being a "State agency..

"_ . .

Mr. D. C. Greer, Page 9, Opinion No. WW-487

Vehicles belonging to local CivilDefense and Disaster Relief organizationsare not covered by the provisions of Article 6675a-3(c) since such organizationsare not "State agencies"; licenseplates shouldnot be issued to suchvehicles without payment of the prescribed fees. Vehicles belonging to and used exclusively in the service of Vocational Schools falling into one of the four categories listed above are entitled to fee-exempt licenseplates. The Civil Air Patrol is not a United Statesgovernmental agency. It is not entitled to the exemptionprovided in Article 6675a-3(c). Very truly yours, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

ByTiiiZkrkew Assistant
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE: Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman Linward Shivers William E. Allen Wayland C. Rivers, Jr. J. Arthur Sandlin
REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY G.ENERAL By: W. V. Geppert