BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 240 |
By: Guillen |
Transportation |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Under current law, the Department of Public Safety suspends the provisional driver's license issued to a person under 18 years of age who has been convicted of two or more moving violations committed within a 12-month period. The period of driver's license suspension for such a person who does not request a hearing on the matter is 90 days. Interested parties contend that extending the license suspension would help keep young drivers safe. C.S.H.B. 240 seeks to address that concern by making statutory changes relating to the suspension of the driver's licenses of certain persons younger than 18 years of age.
|
||||||||
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
|
||||||||
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 240 amends the Transportation Code to prohibit a holder of a provisional license whose license has been suspended for the mandatory 90 days on the basis of having been convicted of two or more moving violations within a 12-month period and who does not request a hearing on the suspension from operating a motor vehicle until the 91st day after the last day of the original 90-suspension period if the Department of Public Safety (DPS) determines that the moving violation is a third or subsequent moving violation unless the person is accompanied by a person who holds a license that qualifies the person to operate that type of vehicle, who is 21 years of age or older, and who has at least one year of driving experience. The bill requires DPS to send notice to a parent or guardian of such a person whose license is suspended of the suspension and application restrictions if the parent or guardian's address is in the records of DPS.
|
||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2013.
|
||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 240 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and highlighted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||
|