Railroad: Commission

of Texas Austin,Texas

Cent lemen : Opinion No. O-3107 Re: Effect of prevision in Crawford

Truck Lines’ interstate

certificate

restricting the cartifitite holder to the use of trucks owned by him.

You have handed us your file on Certificate No. 3084 issuedto RussellC. Crawford,

dba Crawford

Truck Lines on Apnll 29, 1940,and in connection therewith

requestoux Opinion in responseto these questions:

It 1 - (a) May Crawford Truck Line, under the facts presented by the enclosedfile in view of Its limited, Texas interatLte~:

common carriercertificate lawfully

operate\:,

motor vehicleunder lease, and (b) may said lines lawfully transfer this Railroad

Commission’ s :‘Pl#e& end%id&blfication cards to such leasevehicles?

4 2 - Does thie Commieeion have the power to requirean owner of Tems Interstete

Cownon Carrier certificate under the facts and conditions

prerronted

by the file, to wwn the motor vehicles operated under such certificate, or should this Commission reco&ze 11~:::: leases to the same extent as they are recogcized by the Interstate Commerce

Commlseion?

The certificate

in question

and its supporting order containthe provision that “All equipment to be operated

under authority

herein granted is restricted

to that ownedby the holder of such certificate and shall not exceed seven truhhr .I’ Purely interstate

operations

are authorized,

intrastate services

are pcohlblted. The order aleo contains the following: .i, ‘TIiS COMMISSION

FURTHERFINDS that thelaigh~+yBttha.t~ ~~~3.8~~2ican0.:~opoaea have heretofore

been used by the applicant under his contractcarrier permit, interstate, and that the h&hwaya are of such type ef construction and in euch state of repairand maintenance as will permit the traffic sought to be place thereon by the applicant

without unnecessary damage and otherwiseinterfering with the general#IbMc: tlping,#said highways for general

highwaypurposes;

that the applicant

has furnished

satisfactoryproof of his financial responsibility.;

and that the equipment proposedto he used by the applicant complied

with the laws of the State of Texas in reSard to safety devicee, dimensions,

etc.Railroafi Cor.xniasion of Terns, page 2 O-3107

"VIE CoEiMISSIOIJ

in iaauin;;

this order has not considered the vnatter of convenience

and necessity,

nor the ac‘squacy

of the existingtranaportntion facilities. Therefore, niter c:1refull:: cor,aidering the evidence, the law and its own rules ond regulations, tine Commission

is of the opinionthat tb.s

application

shouldbe granted,

subjectto the limitations and restrictions

hereinafter

set forth;and the Contract Carrier Permit 170.

111.87, Interstate shouldbe cancelled. Accordingly, jut is * * Y"

Unless it can be gleanedfrom the quotedportionof the or,der there is nothing in such order or elsewhere in the file which discloses the reasonactuating the Cormlaaion in nlacingsuch restriction in the certificate. It has been settled

by the case of THOMPSON vs. MCDONALD,95 Fed. (2) 337, certiorari denied,and a n~&er of opinions by our,Couzta of Civil A:>peala, error denied in some cf tb.em,that to l&ully en@@ in B pur:!.: ::nterstate

motor carrier

oxration one must obtain from ths Railroad Coxii::slon

of Texas a certificate

or permitevidencing a ftiding that the highxaya to be used wiil be able to take the added traffic burden. Hence, it is not difficult to mderatand the reason upon which the restriction of this o=rstion to seven trucks

was grounded.

Had no limitation of this naturebeen placed Ln the authority

the operation

may have presently emerged

with a hundredor more trucks,thus throwing on the highvaya

authorized

to.be used a traffic burden m?nytixes

greaterthan tha Commission had in mind would be dare wy:ea LL manted the certificate.But, it seems to us that in granting this certificatethe Commission must have found that thesehighwayscouldadequately handle as many as seven owned trucksand a leased truck is no greater burden to the highwayand will congest traffic

no more than one which is owned by the operator, We are left to conclude that other considerations than hi&way conditions

and trafficsafety

must have produced the attempted

reatrictlnn to the use of trucksowned by Csawford. As we understand the opinion in the McDonald case, aupra,the Railroad Commission's

jurisdiction

over purely interstate

motor carrier

operations

is limitedto considerations of hi&my conditions

and traffic safety. It is our opiniontherefore that the restriction

contained

in this certificate is void ~inaofar

as :t >rould

prevent the use of leasedtrucks. Your question & (a) is answeredIn the affirmative.

B::- the above we do not mean to say that mder no circumstances could the Cxxxiaaion

restrict an interstate operation

to trucks owned by the certificate holder. In aome instances it may be that it could. As an illustration; auqpoae in a given case the Commission should not limit the number of i--ucks ?rhich couldbe used, but believed that if the carriershould be permitted to operatt leasedtrucks therewould bs certainseasonsdur?ng which it ?.iould glut the highways

with leasedtrucks, believing

also that any such aenaonal

bua'inens

wouldnot

warrant the carrierin purchasing such equipnsnt. Urder such circumstances, it is not at all certainthct the Cormniasion m?&t not be able to protectthe highways againstsuch undue ,trsffic b: siqly requiring

that the carrier use only equipmant

amed b:, i,t.

Our nn%er.to

question1 (b) is that such platesand identification cards no:: be lawfully

transferred

with the Commission's permission. However,c,

.

Railroad

Commission

of Texas, page 3 O-3107

such permission

must be obta:;ned

as is customarily

done vhen it is desired to retire one vehicleand >ubc,titute another.
Answering

question

2, it is our opinionthat the Commission, shouldrecoaize suck leases,

provided

the leasedequipmentis in compliance with the stetutes

and rules and regulations of the RailroadCommission. In other words, the Con?nlssion should permit the use of leasedequipment if it would authorize

the use of the same equipment were the same owned by Crawford.

You also requestour opinion in response to the following

question:
"(3) Does the owner of e Texas Interstate Common ZarrierCertificate have su.thoT*i~ty, so far as this Commission is concerned,

to operateas a "broker' as that term is used in the Federal Motor Carrier Act, if such owner be authorized by the Interstete'Commerce Commission to act as a 'broker' es that term is used in said Federal Act?"

The licensin::

of interstate

transportation

brokers is provided for in Xec. 311, Title 49, U. S. C. A. It is therein provided

that it shallhe unlawful for a broker to "employ any carrier

by motor vehicle

who or whichisnot the lawfulholaer of an effective certificate

or permit" issued

b> the Interstate Commerce

Commission. As already noted herein, such interstate crlrricrs

must also have certificates or permits from the Railroad Commission.

evidencing

a findir.g

that the highwaystraversed by them will stand the traffice caLsed by the operation. If the carrier who performs

the actual transportstion at the instance

of the brokerhas no authority from the Railroad

Comm5.ssi.on, then, of course,the operation is unlawful

and both the carrier and broker
are violstin the motor carrierstatide. But, we are of the o?irionthat the Commission

msy not interfere

in the actionsof a broker, licensed under t&e Federal rtatute, in his arranging

for freightto be transported pureb: in iuu4siiate

commerce,

where the actual tronsportatioi? is to be perforE? b;~ s carrier

holain,a certificate issued by the Railrood~ Co?xfiiss~.on edhorizing use of the hi&vsys, an2 the act of transportalio~ itself i.S within. the certificate.

Yours very truly

ATTOIQm GElEPALOF TEXAS

GRL:ob

APPROVED

MAY 21, 19&l
s/ Grover Sellers FIFST ASSISTAX ATTOREEYGENERAL By s/ Glenr. 9. Lewis Assistant

APPROVXD:

OPINIONCCXMITTElj:

By EWB CHAIRW.1~