[1] NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

 

Only the most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC’s office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Vigil

 

DATE TYPED:

02/06/02

 

HB

219

 

SHORT TITLE:

Commercial Motor Vehicle Definitions

 

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Belmares

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY02

FY03

FY02

FY03

 

 

 

NFI

 

 

 

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Department of Public Safety (DPS)

State Highway and Transportation Department (SHTD)

Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

House Bill 219 updates the definition of a “commercial motor carrier vehicle” and “commercial Motor Vehicle” in the Motor Transportation Act, the Motor Carrier Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Code, in order to comply with federal regulations.

 

     Significant Issues

 

The current state definition of “commercial motor vehicle” is not compatible with the revised federal definition and is no longer compatible with 49 CFR 390 (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 390.  The current state definition is similar to the federal definition of “commercial motor vehicle” and was initially established to mirror the federal definition; however, the federal definition has been revised resulting in an incompatible state definition when compared to the federal definition.  The Motor Transportation Division (MTD) of DPS has adopted the revised federal definition through Title 18 Transportation and Highways, Chapter 2 Motor Carrier Regulation, Part 3 Motor Carrier Safety.

 

 

 

HB 219 modifies the definition of a “commercial motor carrier vehicle” for purposes of the Motor Transportation Act, the Motor Carrier Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Code.  In effect, HB 219 adapts state statute to correspond with the definition already embodied in the regulations of the Motor Transportation Division of DPS.

 

The new definition provided by HB 219 would set different size threshold for vehicles operated intrastate (26,001 lbs. or more) vs. interstate (10,001 lbs. or more), compared with one definition under present law (12,000 pounds).  Vehicles for transporting persons would be excluded unless they are designed or used for more than eight persons including the driver when used for compensation, or more than 15 persons when not used for compensation.  Vehicles used to transport hazardous materials would be included if they are required by federal law to carry a placard. 

 

TECHNICAL ISSUES

 

In responding to HB 219, TRD indicates that the distinction between intrastate and interstate vehicles might be criticized as interfering with interstate commerce and challenged on constitutional grounds.

 

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

 

The state is mandated by 49 CFR Part 350 to adopt compatible commercial motor carrier and highway hazardous materials rules and regulation. 

 

SHTD suggests that similar changes to the definition of “commercial motor carrier vehicle” might be considered in the Trip Tax Act (Section 7-15-3, Subsection B; NMSA 1978).  That section currently specifies vehicles with a gross weight of 12,000 pounds or more, and does not specifically address passenger buses.  Further, SHTD suggests the important issue under the Trip Tax may be in regard to vehicle registration fees rather than weight-distance taxes.

 

DPS has indicated that it is difficult to maintain consistency and uniformity in field enforcement if there are several different definitions within state statutes that describe a commercial motor vehicle.  Additionally, HB 219 would make it easier for the Motor Transportation Division of DPS to train enforcement personnel with a single set of applicable rules and would reduce confusion among enforcement personnel and the motor carrier industry.

 

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

 

  1. Does the distinction between intrastate and interstate vehicles interfere with interstate commerce resulting in a potential challenge on constitutional grounds?

 

EB/njw

 [1]Begin typing on the * in replace mode.  Do not add or delete spaces.