Class A with tag axle - beware of $1000. fine in AZ!

dodge guy wrote:
The one big positive here is that any DP over 26k lbs carries enough fuel to fill up at either border of the state, visit where they want in the state, then leave and fill up outside the state!

Although that isn`t really isn`t an issue, because the law has been interpreted wrong by AZ. they are just hurting themselves. by filling up out of state, they stand to lose a lot of fuel tax $$$

Well, that may be a positive for some, but I live here in AZ and on the East end of the Valley. I believe the nearest truck stop is 40 miles or so from here. This is main reason I want to get to the bottom of this issue is for ease of filling my coach at a nearby location.

Thank you Mr. Bligh I think that is what I said while describing ways to skirt around it for our benefit. "It is what it is" and with some people putting in some research time they may have insight in how to approach the state government but it is going to take an active interested local lawyer to bring the motion forward or public pressure addressed by the Arizona senator to see the error and have it corrected. It was still a long road to get here based on heresay as we have still never seen the warning posted or heard from the victim of the citation.

Rollnhome wrote:
What is AZ definition of "Passenger Carrying Vehicle"? If it is not a motorhome then the tax doesn't apply no matter of weight or axles.
A simple Google of passenger carrying vehicle comes up with a commercial bus or motorcoach. However it is AZ definition of passenger carrying vehicle that matters in this case.
My next question is then, why do all other vehicles require a special or commercial drivers license and a motor home does not. All passenger carrying vehicles are commercial...why include this singular vehicle, motorhomes, into this otherwise commercial tax?
I think because MHS are Recreational Vehicles not Passenger Carrying Vehicles they are exempt from this otherwise commercial tax.

OK... then why are not RVs listed along with all the other type of vehicles that are exempt. Arizona has taken the time to list the exempt vehicles on their pump posting and RVs are not on that list. Everyone here wants to "interpret" a law when it appears that Arizona has made it pretty simple by listing those vehicles that are exempt.

Now don't take me wrong, I believe that Arizona is wrong not to have included RVs as noncommercial vehicles like every other state, but it is what it is.

The one big positive here is that any DP over 26k lbs carries enough fuel to fill up at either border of the state, visit where they want in the state, then leave and fill up outside the state!

Although that isn`t really isn`t an issue, because the law has been interpreted wrong by AZ. they are just hurting themselves. by filling up out of state, they stand to lose a lot of fuel tax $$$

DSDP Don wrote:
LEO's, including the Fuel Tax enforcers, often will find a loop hole or a new law and abuse it before modifications can be made. .

The law as current has been on the books since 1983. The only thing that appears to be "new" is a stepping up of enforcement when it comes to three-axled diesel motorhomes. Maybe owners of other three-axle vehicle types started making noise or something.

Frankly, it really looks to me like a case of three-axle diesel RV's having just slipped through the cracks all these many long years.

I posted early in this thread and did some groundwork, including an email to FMCA and AZ DOT and the Fuel Tax folks (along with "Executive").

Here is how I see the issue. Motor homes are pretty much exempt from any commercial rules, like special driver's licenses and stopping at scales.

I believe there was an omission in the law that should have excluded motor homes, but as some pointed out, it was probably never thought of or thought to be necessary.

Lastly, LEO's, including the Fuel Tax enforcers, often will find a loop hole or a new law and abuse it before modifications can be made. They can be their own worse enemy.....I know....I was an LEO for 34 years. Hopefully, if this turns out to really be a problem, it will be addressed by Arizona. If one person defeats the ticket in court, especially during a court trial, it will become Case Law and motor homes will be exempted.

Dennis, I'm not a member of that group and I don't want to join another one. I read through most of their thread over there and I don't see the same issue raised over there that we have raised. And that is that this extra tax only applies to motorhomes if we accept that a motorhome is considered a "Passenger Carrying Vehicle." And that it whether it has two or three axles because the three axle thing is only directed at Passenger Carrying Vehicle. So what the guy that got the tickets needs to do is use that as his defense. Federal Law identifies Passenger Carrying Vehicle as a vehicle that carries passengers for hire. Everything from taxis to buses. AZ, at least not that I can find, defines it. I'd argue that since AZ doesn't define it that they should use the standard definition and that is it means bus and not motorhome.

We may see the answer soon. 10Ponies, the guy who got the ticket, says he's going to court on it and will post the judges' decision.

Until then, I think this post has opened up a very lively discussion but we're not lawmakers. Lots of laws are ambiguous, either intentionally or unintentionally, the way they're written. My experience with motor vehicle codes has been that the lawmakers seem to intertwine commercial and non commercial vehicle laws without actually spelling out their differences. It would be nice to have one code for commercial vehicles and one for non commercial, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

IMHO, the real purpose of this thread is to alert anyone buying fuel in Arizona to be careful that they are using the correct pump. I'll continue to pay the extra 8 cents as I can buy 12,500 gallons of fuel for that $1000 fine. I've spoken to one of the supervisors in the tax collection arm of the DOT and he assured me of two things. One, RVs are included and two, they're stepping up enforcement. That was good enough for me....be safe...Dennis

We're getting close, but I don't think that's definitive either. I think AZ has made a mistake by not specifically defining "Passenger Carrying Vehicle" or at least I can't find their definition. So I think absent a definition then the standard definition should be used which is a vehicle used for hire. So now all we need to know is why the guys with the ticket books in AZ don't see it that way.

From AZ revised statutes 28-1095

"Recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle that is designed and customarily used for private pleasure, including vehicles commonly called motor homes, pickup trucks with campers and pickup trucks with a fifth wheel trailing device.
Here the statutes clearly define motorhomes as recreational vehicles not passenger carrying vehicles.
I'm going to go get a beer.