Mr. D. C. Greer Oplnlon No. WW-487 

State Highway Engineer 

Texas Highway Department Re: Whether or not the Civil 

Austin, Texas Defense and Disaster Relief, Vocational Schools, 

Civil Air Patrol and 

Texas Turnpike Authority 

are exempt from the registration fees of vehicles 

Dear Mr. Greer: owned and used by them. 

We quote from your request for an opinion as follows: 

"Article 6675a-3, Section c, R.C.S., authorizes this 

Department to issue fee exempt license plates to 'Owners 

of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers which are 

the property of and used exclusively In the service of 

the United States Government, the State of Texas, or 

any county, city or school district thereof, . . .l, 

upon proper application to this Department as provided 

in Section 3-aa of this Act. 

II . . . 

II Within the last few years. many other agencies 

have been created and we respectfuily request your 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 

Civil Air Patrol 

Texas Turnpike Authority" 

GENERAL DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO 

"STATE AGENCIES" 

The only case Involving a construction of 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 Commission et 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 the 
Mr. D, C. Greer, page 2, Opinion No. w~A87 

Harris County Navigation District were 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,three requirements for exemption: 

1. The institution seeking the exemption must own the 

vehicles involved. 

2. The vehicles must be exclusively used In the 

service of such institution. 

3. The institution must exist solely as an agent of 

the State of Texas. 

The first two matters are nothing more than fact questions; 

but inview of the ,controversy that has centered around ;he 

third requirement, the qualifications of a "State agent 

purposes of the exemption afforded by Article 6675a-3(c 7 

for 

need 

more specific definition. 

Heretof0r.e there has been considerable emphasis placed 

on the distinction between a "political subdivision" and a 

"State agency" in dealing with questions of this nature. The. 

theory has been advanced that since Article 6675a-3(c) specifically exempts vehicles belonglng to any county; city,or school 

district, which are political subdivisions, all other political 

subdivisions are thereby excluded from benefits of the act. 

This conclusion employs the maxim of construction expresslo 

unius eat exclusio alterius, which means "expression of one 

thing rthe exclusion of another." 

This position is untenable. It pre~sumes that pol'tical 

subdivisions other than those named may 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 following positions: 

1, Political subdivisions are not State agencies 

or governmental instrumentalities. 

This proposition has been expressly,overruled by 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, speaking through Justice Crits, stated that it 

was too plain to admit of debate.that the Harris County Flood 

Control District was a political subdivision which 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. 

I 
Mr. D. C. Greer, page 3, Opinion No. 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 administering the State's system of public 

schools." 

2. Political subdivlslons even though instrumentalities of the State government, are not exempted by 

the provisions of Article 6675a-3(c) unless expressly named. 

This construction puts 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 

simply because the second agency was created with some measure 

of autonomy. The inconsistency of this position is heightened 

by the fact, which has been judicially recognized, that for a 

long time the Highway Department has issued exempt license 

plates to the Lower Colorado River Authority and the Brazos 

River Reclamation and Conservation District, on the theory 

that these districts are "State asencies." State Hizhwav Commission v. Harris County Flood Control District 247 S.W.-2d 

135 (Tex.Civ.App. 19.52, N.R.E.). 

The case of Allis-Chalmers Mfg. 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 language which rebuts the contention that the 

Article 6675a-3(c 7 

olitical subdivisions expressly named by 

are the only ones entitled to the exemption 

therein prescribed. This case involves a construction of the 

term "this State" used in Article 5160 V.A.C.S. requiring any 

firm contracting with "this State or its counties or school 

districts or other subdivisions thereof or any municipality 

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 included within its terms. 

The Legislature was 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." (Emphasis added.) 

The case of State Highway Commission v. Harris County 

Flood Control District, supra, was decided in 1952. In 1955, 

Article 6675a-3 was amended and re-enacted by the Fifty-fourth 

Legislature. It is a well-settled principle of law that upon 
Mr. D. C. Greer, Page 4, Opinion No. ~-487 

re-enactment of a statute without material change, a presumption 

arises that the Legislature knew and adopted or approved the 

interpretation placed 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 supported by the theory that 

collection of the license fee from State governmental agencies 

amounts to the State of Texas engaging In the senseless process 

of taxing itself, in derogation of Article XI, 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 requirements must be present: 

1. The agency seeking the exemption must have been 

created by the laws of the State of Texas and be 

functioning pursuant thereto. 

2. The agency must have been creat:ed for the purPose 

of performing governmental functions or duties0 

3. The vehicles for which exemption is sought m,ust be 

owned by such agency. 

4. The vehicles must be used exclusively by 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 !Texas Turnpike Authority,l hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 'Authority,' Ey and in its 

names the Authority may sue'and be sued, and plead snd 
Mr. D. C. Ureer~, page 5, Opinion No. Wk-487 

be impleaded. The Authority.ishereby~constitutedan 

agency.of the.State,of.Texas, .and.the exercise by the 

Authority.of the.powers~conferred.by,thisAct.in~the 

construction,.operation.and,maintenance.of.turnpike 

projects,shall.be.deemed,and,held to.be an.essential 

governmental,function.of the State." (Emphasis added.) 

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, independent and distinct within 

itself. Among other autonomic features, the Authority has 

the power granted to Subdivisions of 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" from payment of the registration fee therein prescribed. 

CIVIL DEFENSE AND DISASTER RELIEF 

The "Texas Civil Protection Act of 1.951," Article 6889-4, 

V.A.C.S., creates the State Defense and Disaster Relief Council. Whether or not this particular agency is entitled to the 

exemption will not be discussed since you state in your letters, 

"The State headquarters, 

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 organizations under the authority 

of duly constituted local officials. 

It is obvious that local civil defense and disaster 

relief organizations are not agencies of the State even though 

the Governor or the Defense and Disaster Relief Council may 

have assisted in establishing such organizations. Therefore, 

vehicles belonging to local defense and disaster relief organizations are not covered by the exemption provision in Article 

6675a-3(c) V.A.C.S. This is true even though the officials 

of the organization may also be county or municipal officers 

or officials. 
Mr. D. C. Greer, page 6, Opinion No. WW-487 

There is one possibility whereby vehicles used in the 

service of local defense and disaster relief organizations 

would be entitled to the exemption. This is in cases where 

such organizations are created by and operate entirely pursuant to the organic law of a county or municipality. Actually, 

however, this point is moot, since In such cases the vehicles 

would be owned by 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 called upon to decide any particular 

set of facts. 

We have carefully checked the statutes on this point, 

and find that "vocational education" is specifically provided 

for in several instances. These statutory provisions establish four categories of institutions which are entitled to 

the exemption by Article 6675a-3(c). 

1. Those offering courses in or in conjunction with 

Texas Public High Schools. 

It is apparent that any institution falling within this 

classification forms a component part of a "school district" 

of the State. Vehicles belonging to such a school and used 

exclusively in its service are therefore entitled to the 

exemption provided in Article 6675a-3(c). (For example of 

statutory authorization of this type of vocational education, 

see Article 2680, V.A.C.S.) 

2. Institutions made 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 afforded by Article 

6675a-3(c) on exactly the same basis as vehicles belonging 

to the parent college or university. 

3. Public Junior Colleges. Vehicles belonging to Vocational Divisions of Public Junior Colleges are entitled to 

fee-exempt license plates for the same reasons as stated in 

Number 2 above. 
Mr. D. C. Greer, page 7, Opinion No. W-487 

4. Special schools established by 

the purpose of administering vocational __ _ 

the Legislature for . . eaucation unaer 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" created pursuant 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 expressed partic'ilar 

interest in whether or not vehicles used by vocational school 

"coordinators" are entitled to fee exempt license plates. YOU 

are respectfully advised that unless such vehicles 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. 

CIVIL AIR PATROL 

The Civil Air Patrol was created by the Act of July 1, 

1956, 8 60 Stat. 346, which is codified in 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 organization to encourage civilian contribution 

of efforts, services and resources in the development of 

aviation and maintenance 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 volunt e e r 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 

Force military and civilian personnel. 

This section was repealed, and the provisions thereof 

substantially re-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 Public Law 557, cection fi26h, Title 5, 

U.S.C.AJ the Air Force could make available to the 

Civil Air Patrol surplus aircraft materiel and equipment. Under this arrangement Civil Air Patrol obtained surplus equipment directly from the Air Force. 

With the passage of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, however, surplus property 

was defined to mean property excess to the needs of all 

Federal agencies, with-the result that.Civil Air Patrol 

came afterall,Federal agencies inacquiring AirForce 

surplus property. Section 1 of the bill would permit 

the Civil Air Patrol to acquire equipment excess to the 

needs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force without regard 

to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act 

of 1949." (Emphasis added.) 

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 Property Administrative Services Act. This was 

the only appreciable change made by the repeal and reenactment 

of Section 626~, Title 5, U.S.C.A. 

The foregoing provisions 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 

corporations granted federal charters - merely requirj.ng the 

.L ,,ransmittal to Congress each year of a report of its proceedings and activities for the preceding calendar year. ~ , the 

conclusion is inescapable that the (Xvi1 Air Patrol under its 

charter,, should not be classified as a corporation 'primarily 

acting as fig instrumentality of the UnLted States.8 Since 

it is not a part of the executive department nor an 

establishment of the United States 

'independen; 

o it is not a federal agent 

Pearl v. TJnited States, 230 F. 2d 243 (U.S. C,t. of App. 19.56. 7' 

Since the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal governmental. 

agency, it is not covered by the provision of Article 6675a-_?(c) 

exempting vehicles 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 .to feeexempt license plates by reason of its being a "State 

agency.. " 
_ . . 

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

Vehicles belonging to local Civil Defense and Disaster 

Relief organizations are not covered by the provisions 

of Article 6675a-3(c) since such organizations are not 

"State agencies"; license plates should not be issued to 

such vehicles 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 

license plates. 

The Civil Air Patrol is not a United States governmental agency. It is not entitled to the exemption provided 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