aon, mnutr Clarti~tion, Jr, 

Mrector, Texas Department 

of Public Safety 

Camp Mabry 

Aubtin, Teras 

Opinion No. S-117 

Rer Appl.lcability of Article 

6701.0-1, V,C& , to “commerclal vehhile8" and 

“t.ruck-tractora” operated 

over the highways of Texas 

by pemons other than the 

Dear Sir? regirtarecjl vthfclt amer. 

Your mquoet; fasz, the cP$t&.tm of $h& ofm3E~.rsgard- 

&UJ tnc applioaisZlll;lty of &t%&te WJl 122, AcM oft the 53rd 

&i?gialature, to VariouB ~E&L%sifisat$,onzs ~of motor vehible operation& oonta$ns the, feUu&ng sWMX@ quWt&one,~ 

‘1, Are we comt0t mti wr in*we tation 

that mate 8111 I.22 ia applloable to all oommerelal metor vcehlclee and Wubk tractor8 operated 

over the hIghwayS’ of Texas, except those expressly 

exempt by the terms of’ the act, under lease by ti 

ps%%cwr OP perBorn@ who Uo not operetk for hire and 

whoa* operations ere neither rsubj&Qt te or re lOl;eB 

by the provlplions of 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 oomti&rclal aLdtor vehicle& and truc.k tractora 

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 

auttirlty ilambi&Ml ‘co I&h p+raon or per0onl3 by 

tsthex the RaUFoad CbiWaQlslon of Texas or the 

Inttr&tatt C~or(uocr%e ihXt!m%ePion or both? 

“3 ,. Are we aorseQt M our interps-e tet%an 

that mnate $ill 122 if3 W$llcblble to all COW 

merralal mat@ vdhiclea end truok +wactom op* 

tmMd OPBP the huhWy$ (P:O Taxai3 by 0 Per&on 

or persons In the for hire transportation of 

exempt commodltles under Pa’rt I? of the Interstate 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 commercial motor vehlcltas and truck-tractors over 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 commodities set forth in Section 2 

there&n, and excepts movements of such character as are defined 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,f i&&s Aa& Tt 3,s apparent that tkwbe, defin@i~aa m&m rw UlabknctELBZI CaB bo *he 

character of’ operations to W% performed by said Voh&Cl%s, end 

no such distinction %ppa%rs with&n the Aot, We trwt3 conclude 

that Article 6701~1 is intondsd to apply to operations of 

conmmrcfol motor vehlolea an& truck- tractor%, %x,%%pt to the 

operations th%r%in sgecifto&Uy %m4MnpCaU, wnctn w kvperebor 

thereof is not the re&s&?&%d @wner c&f such vehicle, or h&s 

agent, servant or employuao, i!egaFdlees o,f the character of 

the operation a0 being intrvOebate or lntera,t;a+ifd, regulated 

or non-r%gul%tod, private er for hire, 

It 

state Pre p 

251 (19 2 

28 294 ‘is 1 3 

; 

pres crib% r 

highwey% In told int+r@t of #~&l.$.c %%,f%t;Y and hig&i$y conservatbiw2 da equ%lly well sstab1Se~nea. M A, Rr?v lWoesPinr$ 
Hon. Homer Garrison - page 3 - S-117 

In gtephenson v. Blnford, supra, the United States 

Supreme Court announced the following ,crlterlon in passing 

upon the validity of State 1egisJatlon'enacted puz%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 

legitimate end of cotiservlng the highways. The 

extent to which, as means, they conduce to that 

end, the degree of their efficiency, the closeness 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 commercial vehicles and 

truck-tractors over the highways of this State. Under this 

interpretation we consider this Act to be within the test announced in .Ste phenson, 

Returning to your three specific clasalflcatlons of 

motor carrier operations, we consider to which operations the 

State's police power may validly extend. 

Unquestionably the 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); Continental Baklnn Co. v. Woodring, supra. 

A state may also, under Its police ptiwer,'prescrlbe 

certain reasonable and appropriate regulations applicable to 

Interstate commerce. In Morris v. Duby, supra, the Court declared: 

"In the absence of national 'legislation 

especially covering the subject matter of 
. . 

Hon. Homer Oarrieon - page 4 - S-117 

Interstate commerce, the state may rlghtfully prescribe uniform regulationa adopted 

to promote safety upon Its highways and the 

oonservation of 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 

Thompson, supra; wales r v. Blnford, supr8j 

mission of Texas v. Querner, supra; E.x Pert 

A very recent case, 

344 U.S. 157 1952), further 

FE-Y ROOfinK CO, V. Wood, 

e scope of State authority over 5. nterbtate commerce and Is excellently discussed 

in Volume 32, page 225 of the Texas &8w Review for maember, 1953. 

ThS.8 case involvsd the suthority of the Arkan8afb Public 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.8 opinion the Court eald: 

%ere neither pctLtfoner8 nor the tWW8r8 

have obtained any kind BZ autho2%?Zy fW88 the 

Inter8tate Oommerce Coaaiesla Indeea, p<lon8r8 Who18 oa8e h88 barn built an the premtie 

that neithsr..It nor 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 

requirement for a permit is not 8uoh a burden. " .** 

Sn the 8boVe ca8e the Court by It8 deoielon approved 

the proporltlon urged by the Arkan C~8aInn, I.e., that 

reglntretlon with the Arken Comla8lon for 1dentlSlcetlon 

purpooer WBS necessary to a proper application of the State+8 

valid pollee, welfare, and aarety regulations over motor 

carrlem using lta highways. 

A review of the above euthorltles reflect8 that 

the police power of !l!exe~ mey ~~nstltutional~y extend to 

the three ol86rlflcatlons of motor carrier operations oontained In your spealflo que&tiono. Your questloge are eaoh 

answered In the affirmative. 
. . 

Hon. Homer Qarrlson - page 5 - S-117 

Art'icle 67010-i V.C.S., applies to 

a&l operations of commFrcla1 motor vehlcles end truck-tractors, except to the 

operations therein specifically exempted, , 

when the operator thereof Is not the reglstered 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, Intrastate ol' 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 

APPROVED: .' 

Dean J. CePP 

,011 84 Gas Mvlelon 

.By w& 

Mert.5tarnes 

Assistant 

John Atchison . : 

Reviewer 

Robert S. Trottl 

First Assistant 

John Ben Shepperd 

Attorney General 

MS:bt