BILL ANALYSIS

C.S.H.B. 113

By: Minjarez

Transportation

Committee Report (Substituted)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

It has been suggested that automated motor vehicles should not adhere to the same registration requirements as driver-operated motor vehicles. C.S.H.B. 113 seeks to distinguish between automated and driver-operated motor vehicles during the vehicle registration process.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

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. 113 amends the Transportation Code to require an applicant for registration of an automated motor vehicle to indicate in the required vehicle description on the registration application that the vehicle is an automated motor vehicle.

EFFECTIVE DATE

September 1, 2019.

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE

While C.S.H.B. 113 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

The substitute does not include the following:

· the requirement for an automated motor vehicle operating on a Texas highway with the automated driving system engaged to be equipped with the most recent software updates and a failure alert system that alerts the owner of the vehicle to a failure of the automated driving system;

· the requirement for certain equipment of an automated motor vehicle to be inspected; and

· the requirement for the Department of Public Safety to adopt rules governing the inspection of automated driving systems and failure alert systems.