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 applloableto all oommerelal metor vcehlclee and Wubk tractor8operated 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* operationsere 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&tattC~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 Legislaturewas 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 operationof commercial motor vehlcltas and truck-tractors over the highways **of** ~!Qaa by any person &her th%n the registeredowner thereof, or h28 agent, servant or employee under his direct supervisionand control,but excepts from Its applicationthe movements of specific commoditiesset forth in Section 2 there&n, and excepts movements of such characteras 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,fi&&s Aa& Tt 3,sapparent that tkwbe, defin@i~aa m&m rw UlabknctELBZI CaB bo *he characterof’

operations to W% performedby said Voh&Cl%s,end no such distinction%ppa%rswith&n the **Aot,** We trwt3 conclude that Article 6701~1 is intondsd to apply to operationsof conmmrcfolmotor 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 characterof 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 1 3 ‘is ;
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 assailedprovisions,In this view, are not ends in themselves, but means to the legitimateend 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 reasonablyconceivablecircumstances, there is an actual relation between the means and the end."
We interpretArticle **6701~-1** as being designed to aid in the enforcementof existingpolice,welfare and safety laws applicableto the operationof commercialvehicles 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 operationsthe State's police power may validly extend.

Unquestionably

the State has the power to regulate the handling of intrastatecommerceover it8 highways. &&- road Commlsslonof Texas v. Querner, supra; Elchhole v. Public service Commlseionof Missouri, 306 U.S. 268 (1939);Continental Baklnn Co. v. Woodring,supra.

A state may also, under Its police ptiwer,'prescrlbe certain reasonableand appropriateregulationsapplicableto Interstatecommerce. In Morris v. Duby, supra, the Court declared:
"In the absence of national 'legislation especially covering the subjectmatter of. .

Hon. Homer Oarrieon - page 4 - S-117

Interstatecommerce, the state may rlghtfully prescribeuniform regulationaadopted to promote safety upon Its highways and the oonservationof their use, applicablealike to vehloleemoving In lnteratatecomm8rae and those of ite own oltl8en8.* Poor decblona to the 88me effect, see& HoDonald v4 Thompson, supra; r

wales 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 excellentlydiscussed in Volume 32, page 225 of the Texas &8w Review for maember, 1953. ThS.8 case involvsd the suthorityof the Arkan8afb Public Svrvlce CommlsslM to require a Tennessee oompsny,engaged exolu8tMly ln Interstatecommerce (@it operaWIg without authorityfrom the InterstateCommerceCommlsslon),to bbtaln a permit from said Commissionbefore opsratlngover Arkansas highways. In the course of It.8

opinion the Court eald:
%ere neither pctLtfoner8nor the tWW8r8 have obtained any kind BZ autho2%?Zy fW88 the Inter8tateOommerce Coaaiesla Indeea,p<lon8r8Who18 oa8e h88 barn built an the premtie that neithsr..It

nor Ii% dslver8mu8t get a prrlahit from th8 stat8 or the national Fsgulatoryaganoy, In thie eltuetlonOUT prior 088ee meke alear th8t a etate c8n regulate 80 long 88 no undue burden Is impo8ed on lnteretatecommerce, and that a mere requirementfor a permit is not 8uoh a burden. " .**
Sn the 8boVe ca8e the Court by It8 deoielon approved the proporltlonurged by the Arkan C~8aInn, I.e., that reglntretlon

with the Arken Comla8lon for 1dentlSlcetlon purpooer WBS necessary to a proper applicationof the State+8 valid pollee,welfare, and aarety regulationsover motor carrlem using lta highways.

A review of the above euthorltlesreflect8 that the policepower of !l!exe~ mey ~~nstltutional~y extend to the three ol86rlflcatlons of motor carrier operationsoontained In your spealflo que&tiono. Your questloge are eaoh answered In the affirmative.. .

Hon. Homer Qarrlson - page 5 - S-117

Art'icle

67010-iV.C.S., applies to a&l operationsof commFrcla1motor vehlcles end truck-tractors, except to the operations therein specificallyexempted,
, when the operator thereof Is not the reglstered owner of such vehicle, 'orhis 8gent,%ervant or employee, regerd1es.s of the characterof the operation as *being ' private or for hire, regulated or non- : regulated, Intrastateol' lnterstqte,and such applicationIs not tlolatlve of the :. IntersteteCommerce Cla$se of the Constl- , L tution of the United States.

YoursGFw yya JOHN BENSHEPPERD Attorney Oeneral

APPROVED: .'

Dean J. CePP ,01184 Gas Mvlelon .By w& Mert.5tarnes Assistant

John Atchison . : Reviewer
Robert S. Trottl First Assistant
John Ben Shepperd Attorney General
MS:bt