Can you drive a UTV (utility task vehicle) on public roads in South Carolina?

Official title

Opinion regarding the registration, license and use of utility task vehicles (UTVs) in South Carolina.

Requester

Requested by Major Jason Budreau, Greenwood Police Department.

Plain-English summary

A major with the Greenwood Police Department asked the Attorney General two questions about utility task vehicles (UTVs). A Greenwood resident owned UTVs through a Montana LLC, kept them registered, licensed, and insured in Montana, and had been driving one on South Carolina roads. The questions: can he legally do that, and if not, what charge applies? And can SCDMV refuse to register and license UTVs without the Legislature signing off?

The office started with a limit it draws often: it cannot find facts in an advisory opinion, so it would not say whether this particular person was breaking the law or what charge fit. That is for local law enforcement, magistrates, and solicitors. What it would do is lay out the relevant law.

Under the Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing Act, every motor vehicle driven on a state highway must be registered and licensed. There are exemptions, including one (§ 56-3-150) for a nonresident's "foreign" vehicle that is properly registered in its home state. The office concluded that exemption almost certainly does not save the UTV. SCDMV brands UTVs "off road use only" based on the manufacturer's certificate of origin, and the Act tells SCDMV not to register and license off-road-only vehicles. Because a "foreign vehicle" is defined as a vehicle "of a type required to be registered," and UTVs are not that type, the office reasoned a court would likely find UTVs are not foreign vehicles and so get no exemption. The reciprocity statute (§ 56-3-170) did not help either: it is discretionary ("may"), and the office did not think reciprocity would extend to vehicles that cannot lawfully be driven on state highways in the first place.

The office also pointed to a pending bill, 2023 H.B. 3409, that would define "utility terrain vehicle" and set up registration and on-road operation rules for them. It read the very existence of that bill as a signal that current law does not allow UTVs on state highways. Bottom line: absent legislative authorization, the office could not say a UTV may lawfully be driven on South Carolina highways, regardless of where it is registered, and SCDMV's refusal to register them falls within the administrative authority the Act already gives it.

What this means for you

UTV owners (including out-of-state registrants): The opinion concludes that a UTV registered to an out-of-state business and branded off-road-only likely does not qualify for either the nonresident foreign-vehicle exemption or reciprocity, so the office could not say it may lawfully be driven on South Carolina highways. The office stressed this is its prediction of how a court would read the law, not a binding ruling.

Law enforcement and prosecutors: The office expressly declined to say what charge, if any, applies to a specific driver, citing its policy of deferring to magistrates on probable cause and to local officers and solicitors on charging decisions. It framed its discussion as background law to assist, not a directive.

SCDMV: The opinion supports SCDMV's position. It reads the Act as giving SCDMV administrative authority to refuse to register and license UTVs that carry an off-road-use-only brand, and says the office will not use an opinion to override that agency discretion.

Legislators: The office treated UTV road use as a gap the General Assembly has not filled, and pointed to pending H.B. 3409 as the vehicle for resolving it. The clear implication is that on-road UTV use needs a statute, not just an agency or AG interpretation.

Common questions

Can I drive a UTV on a public road in South Carolina if it's registered in another state? The opinion concludes that, as the law stood in 2024, you likely cannot. It reasons that UTVs branded off-road-only are not the kind of vehicle the nonresident exemption or reciprocity covers, so out-of-state registration does not make on-road use lawful here.

Why won't SCDMV register my UTV?
Because the manufacturer's certificate of origin marks it for off-road use only, and the Act directs SCDMV not to register and license off-road-only vehicles. The opinion says that refusal is within SCDMV's authority.

Did the Attorney General say the Greenwood driver was breaking the law? No. The office said it cannot decide factual questions in an advisory opinion, so whether a specific person violated the law, and what charge would apply, is left to local law enforcement and the courts.

Is there a way UTVs could become street-legal here?
The opinion points to pending legislation (H.B. 3409) that would define utility terrain vehicles and set rules for registering and operating them on state roads. The office read current law as prohibiting on-road UTV use until the Legislature acts.

Background and statutory framework

The South Carolina Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing Act requires registration and licensing for every motor vehicle driven on a state highway (S.C. Code Ann. 56-3-110). The Act exempts certain nonresident "foreign" vehicles (§ 56-3-150) that stay properly registered in the owner's home state, and separately allows SCDMV to grant reciprocity to other states (§ 56-3-170). A "foreign vehicle" is a vehicle "of a type required to be registered" brought in from another jurisdiction (§ 56-3-20(16)).

The hinge of the analysis is the "off road use only" brand. Section 56-1-10(37) defines that brand and directs that SCDMV "shall not register and license" such a vehicle under Section 56-3-350, which lets SCDMV refuse registration for vehicles "mechanically unfit or unsafe to be operated or moved upon the highways." Because UTVs carry that brand on their certificate of origin, the office concluded they fall outside the class of vehicles "required to be registered," and therefore outside the foreign-vehicle exemption.

The office applied standard statutory-construction rules from South Carolina cases (the goal is legislative intent; clear text is applied literally; courts reject absurd results), citing Hodges v. Rainey, Sloan v. Hardee, Original Blue Ribbon Taxi Corp., and Cricket Store 17, LLC (which holds that "may" generally signals discretion). It contrasted UTVs with all-terrain vehicles, which the Code defines and addresses through titling statutes and "Chandler's Law," and noted the absence of any comparable statute for UTVs. Pending 2023 H.B. 3409 would close that gap; the office read the bill as confirming that, under current law, UTVs may not be licensed for highway use.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-regarding-the-registration-license-and-use-of-utility-task-vehicles-utvs-in-south-carolina/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/acel4gk0/budreauj-os-10945-final-opinion-9-12-2024-pdf.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

September 12, 2024

Major Jason Budreau
Greenwood Police Department
P.O. Box 40

Greenwood, SC 29648

Dear Major Budreau:

We received your letter requesting an Attorney General’s opinion regarding the registration, license, and use of utility task vehicles (UTVs) in South Carolina. By way of background, you informed us:

An individual lives in Greenwood, South Carolina, and has an LLC in Montana and owns the vehicles he operates which are registered, licensed, and insured to the LLC. He has brought his UTV to Greenwood on occasion and operates this UTV on the highways of South Carolina, again, which is licensed, registered, and insured in Montana. The law in South Carolina as interpreted will not allow the operation of this type of vehicle to be registered and licensed, nor can you operate a UTV on the highways of South Carolina. The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (SCDMV) has determined this type of vehicle is for offroad use primarily, is not taxed per state law, and is not allowed to be registered or licensed.

You present the following questions:

Can this individual operate his UTV on the roadways in South Carolina that is registered and licensed in Montana? If not, what would the appropriate charges to be written?

Can SCDMV make the decision not to register and license the UTV without approval of the Legislature?

Law/Analvysis

We begin by noting this Office is unable to determine facts in an advisory opinion. As we have recognized in prior opinions, “[b]ecause this Office does not have the authority of a court or other

iBER WS CUILDENG «© POST OPFICE BON 11549 «© COLUMBELA, SC 29211-1849 a PSLEPRONE GU3-734-3670 4 PACSIMILE S03-253-6283

Major Jason Budreau
Page 2
September 12, 2024

fact-finding body, we are not able to adjudicate or investigate factual questions.” Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 1207271 (S.C.A.G. April 4, 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 1989 WL 406130 (April 3, 1989)). Therefore, because it would involve a determination of facts, we cannot render an opinion as to whether the individual referenced in your letter may lawfully operate the subject UTV on South Carolina highways. See Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2022 WL 3650096 (S.C.A.G. August 15, 2022) (“[T]he question of whether a particular action is lawful involves questions of fact which cannot be resolved by a legal opinion of this Office.”). Further, it is this Office’s longstanding policy “to defer to magistrates in their determinations of probable cause, and to local law enforcement officers and solicitors in deciding what charges to bring and which cases to prosecute.” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2017 WL 5053042 (S.C.A.G. October 24, 2017). However, we provide the following law in the hope it may be helpful to you.

The South Carolina Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing Act (the Act)’ provides generally, “Every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer and special mobile equipment vehicle driven, operated or moved upon a highway'! in this State shall be registered and licensed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.” S.C. Code Ann. 56-3-110 (2018). However, the Act sets forth several exemptions to this general licensing and registration requirement, including “a vehicle driven, operated, or moved upon a highway pursuant to the provisions of this chapter relating to nonresidents.” S.C. Code Ann. § 56-3-120(1) (2018). Relevant to your inquiry, section 56-3- 150(A)-(B) of the South Carolina Code (2018), titled “Exemption of certain foreign vehicles of nonresident owners; verification process; penalties,” provides:

(A) A foreign privately owned and operated passenger vehicle of a nonresident, otherwise subject to registration and license as provided by this chapter, may be operated within this State without being registered and licensed pursuant to this chapter, subject to the conditions that at all times when operated in this State the vehicle:

(1) is duly registered or licensed in the state, territory, district, or country of residence of the owner; and

(2) has displayed on it a valid registration card and registration or license plate or plates,

(B) The vehicle of a nonresident must be registered and licensed pursuant to this chapter upon the earlier of a nonresident's:

(1) subsequent establishment of domicile in this State; or

'§.C. Code Ann. §§ 56-3-10 to -15010 (2018 & Supp. 2023).

• §.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-10(6) (Supp. 2023) (providing under Title 56, “‘Highway’ means the
  entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part of it is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel).

Major Jason Budreau
Page 3
September 12, 2024

(2) operation of the vehicle in this State for an accumulated period exceeding one hundred fifty days.

As used in Chapter 3 of Title 56, ““Foreign vehicle’ means every vehicle of a type required to be registered brought into this State from another state, territory, or country other than in the ordinary course of business by or through a manufacturer or dealer and not registered in this State.” S.C. Code Ann. § 56-3-20(16) (Supp. 2023).

Our State appellate courts have not addressed the foreign vehicle exemption under section 56-3-

150. As ‘such, we must rely on the rules of statutory construction to discern the intent of the
     General Assembly. See Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000) (“The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.”’). “[[Jn ascertaining the intent of the legislature, a court should not focus on any single section or provision but should consider the language of the statute as a whole.” In re Hosp. Pricing Litig., King v. AnMed Health, 377 S.C. 48, 59, 659 S.E.2d 131, 137 (2008). “When a statute's terms are clear and unambiguous on their face, there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning.” Sloan v. Hardee, 371 S.C. 495, 498, 640 S.E.2d 457, 459 (2007). “If, however, the language of the statute gives rise to doubt or uncertainty as to legislative intent, the construing court looks to the statute's language as a whole in light of its manifest purpose.” Ex parte Cannon, 385 8.C. 643, 655, 685 S.E.2d 814, 821 (Ct. App. 2009). “The construing court may additionally look to the legislative history when determining the legislative intent.” Jd “Statutes, as a whole, must receive practical, réasonable, and fair interpretation, consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of lawmakers.” Original Blue Ribbon Taxi Corp. v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 380 S.C. 600, 609, 670 S.E.2d 674, 678 (Ct. App. 2008) (quoting 7NS Mills, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 331 S.C. 611, 624, 503 S.E.2d 471, 478 (1998)). “[C]Jourts will reject an interpretation leading to an absurd result clearly unintended by the legislature.” Jd. at 608, 670 S.E.2d at 678.

For purposes of this opinion, we assume UTVs meet the statutory definition of “motor vehicle” as used in Title 56. See S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-10(7) (Supp. 2023) (providing under Title 56, “‘Motor vehicle” means every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated upon rails”). This Office previously opined vehicles owned by a business outside South Carolina likely constitute “foreign privately owned and operated passenger vehicles of a nonresident” under subsection (A) of section 56-3-150. Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2006 WL 2593087 (S.C.A.G. August 25, 2006). However, we understand SCDMV will not license and register? UTVs because they are branded for off road use only on their manufacturer certificate of origin. Under Title 56,

3 We note SCDMV will register all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) for the limited purpose of receiving a title. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 56-19-110 to -1030 (2018 & Supp. 2023) (establishing laws related to the titling of ATVs); https://www.scdmvonline.com/Vehicle-Owners/Types-Of-Vehicles/All- Terrain-Vehicles (last visited August 8, 2024).

Major Jason Budreau
Page 4
September 12, 2024

“Off Road Use Only” means a brand added to a vehicle's title by [SCDMV] to designate a vehicle's Manufacturer Certificate of Origin or equivalent document of origin designating a vehicle is not manufactured for use on public roads. /SCDMV] shall not register and license the vehicle pursuant to Section 56-3-350 [of the South Carolina Code (2018)]. Vehicles brought into this State from a foreign jurisdiction without a title that clearly says “Off Road Use Only”, or its equivalent, which do not meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards may be subject to this brand at
[SCDMV|]'s discretion.

S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-10(37) (Supp. 2023) (emphasis added). Section 56-3-350 provides, “[SCDMV] shall refuse to register and license or transfer registration upon one or more of the following grounds... The vehicle is mechanically unfit or unsafe to be operated or moved upon the highways.” Because the General Assembly has not defined or specifically addressed the use of UTVs on South Carolina highways through legislation, we must defer to SCDMV’s administrative authority granted to it under the Act in refusing to license and register UTVs. See Op. 8.C. Att’y Gen., 1999 WL 1425994 (S.C.A.G. October 27, 1999) (“[T]his Office will not attempt by issuing an opinion to supersede the administrative authority or discretion of any officer, agency, or public body.”).

Section 56-3-20(16) defines “foreign vehicle” as every vehicle of a type required to be registered brought into this State from another state, territory, or country other than in the ordinary course of business by or through a manufacturer or dealer and not registered in this State.” (emphasis added). The foreign vehicle exemption under section 56-3-150(A) provides that it applies to vehicles “otherwise subject to registration and license as provided by this chapter.” We believe the plain language of these statutes limits the applicability of the exemption under section 56-3-150 to vehicles that are of a type that are required to be licensed and registered for use on State highways. Relying on SCDMV’s determination that UTVs are designated for off road use only and therefore not subject to licensing and registration, we believe a court would likely find UTVs do not qualify for an exemption under section 56-3-150 because they are not foreign vehicles. See Sloan, 371 S.C. at 498, 640 S.E.2d at 459 (“When a statute's terms are clear and unambiguous on their face, there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning.”). Based on the foregoing, we believe a court would likely find a UTV owned by an out-of-state business entity and licensed and registered in another state would not qualify for statutory exemption under section 56-3-150.*

4 We also question whether a UTV would be considered a “passenger vehicle” as used in section 56-3-150(A). See S.C. Code Ann. § 56-3-150(A) (“A foreign privately owned and operated passenger vehicle of a nonresident, otherwise subject to registration and license as provided by this chapter, may be operated within this State without being registered and licensed pursuant to this chapter, .. .”) (emphasis added). The 1962 South Carolina Code defined “passenger-carrying vehicle” as “every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer and every such vehicle, except a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, which is designed, used and maintained for the transportation of persons

Major Jason Budreau
Page 5
September 12, 2024

In addition to the statutory exemptions to licensing and registration under the Act, section 56-3- 170 of the South Carolina Code (2018), provides for vehicle reciprocity between this State and other states, countries, territories, and districts.

Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter, [SCDMV] may grant to any other state, country, territory or district reciprocity with respect to the operation of any vehicles in this State without being registered and licensed under the provisions of this chapter if such other state, country, territory or district extends under its laws, rules and regulations like privileges to vehicles registered and licensed in this State, subject to the conditions that every such vehicle is at all times, when operated in this State, duly registered or licensed in such state, territory, district or country in accordance with the lawful requirements of such state, country, territory or district and that there is displayed thereon a valid registration card and registration or license plate or plates.

S.C. Code Ann. § 56-3-170 (emphases added). Initially, we believe the language used in the statute grants SCDMV discretion in determining whether to grant vehicle reciprocity, rather than mandating reciprocity. See Cricket Store 17, LLC v. City of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 428 S.C. 270, 276, 834 S.E.2d 209, 212 (Ct. App. 2019) (“The use of the word ‘may’ signifies permission and generally means that the action spoken of is optional or discretionary unless it appears to require that it be given any other meaning... .” (alteration in original) (quoting Kennedy v. S.C. Ret. Sys., 345 8.C. 339, 352-53, 549 $.E.2d 243, 250 (2001))); id. (“[W]hen the question arises whether ‘may’ is to be interpreted as mandatory or permissive in a particular statute, legislative intent is controlling.” (alteration in original) (quoting Robertson v. State, 276 S.C. 356, 358, 278 S.E.2d 770, 771 (1981))). Further, although this statute grants reciprocity with respect to any vehicles, we believe a court would hold reciprocity does not extend to vehicles of a type that may not be legally driven on State highways under South Carolina law. We believe interpreting this statute otherwise would lead to a result clearly unintended by the General Assembly. See Original Blue Ribbon Taxi Corp., 380 S.C. at 609, 670 S.E.2d at 678 (Statutes, as a whole, must receive practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation, consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of lawmakers.” (quoting TNS Mills, Inc., 331 S.C. at 624, 503 S.E.2d at 478)); Id. at 608, 670 S.E.2d at 678 (“[C]ourts will reject an interpretation leading to an absurd result clearly unintended by the legislature.”).

but not operated for the transportation of persons for compensation, except such vehicles which are used exclusively for transporting persons to and from schools, Sunday schools, churches and religious services of any kind or to or from picnics or specialty prearranged excursions.” S.C. Code Ann. § 46-33 (1962). This statute has been repealed. Because we can find no South Carolina caselaw or legislative or agency guidance addressing the meaning of this term as used in the Acct, we are unable to opine in an advisory opinion as to whether a UTV would be considered a passenger vehicle under section 56-3-150,

Major Jason Budreau
Page 6
September 12, 2024

As mentioned previously, the General Assembly has not defined or specifically addressed the use of UTVs on South Carolina highways through legislation. Cf S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-10(20) (Supp. 2023) (defining ATV as “a motor vehicle measuring fifty inches or less in width, designed to travel on three or more wheels and designed primarily for off-road recreational use, but not including farm tractors or equipment, construction equipment, forestry vehicles, or lawn and grounds maintenance vehicles”); §.C. Code Ann. §§ 56-19-110 to -1030 (2018) (establishing laws related to the titling of ATVs); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 50-26-10 to -70 (Supp. 2023) (establishing “Chandler’s Law,” which defines ATV and sets forth ATV use safety laws). We note, however, a bill specifically addressing UTVs was introduced in the South Carolina House of Representatives in January 2023; it continues to reside in the House. 2023 H.B. 3409 (January 10, 2023). It would “define the term ‘utility terrain vehicle’ and provide for the registration and operation of them on the highways and streets of the State.” Id. Further, the bill would amend the definition of the term “off-road use only” under section 56-1-10 to provide SCDMV shall not register and license such vehicles “unless otherwise specified” in Title 56. Id. In addition, it addresses health and safety concerns regarding UTV operation. See e.g. Id. (providing for maximum speed limits, passenger age limits, and use of protective gear when operating a UTV on State roads). We read this bill as demonstrating the General Assembly’s interpretation of the Act as prohibiting the licensing and registration of UTVs for use on State highways. See Ex parte Cannon, 385 S.C. at 655, 685 S.E.2d at 821 (“The construing court may additionally look to the legislative history when determining the legislative intent.”). Absent legislative authorization, we cannot say UTVs may lawfully be driven on State highways, regardless of registration and licensing in another state.

Conclusion

This Office is unable to determine facts in an advisory opinion. As we have stated in prior opinions, “[b]ecause this Office does not have the authority of a court or other fact-finding body, we are not able to adjudicate or investigate factual questions.” Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2006 WL 1207271 (S.C.A.G. April 4, 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 1989 WL 406130 (April 3, 1989)). Therefore, because it would involve a determination of facts, we cannot render an opinion as to whether the individual referenced in your letter may lawfully operate the subject UTV on State roadways. See Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2022 WL 3650096 (S.C.A.G. August 15, 2022). Further, it is this Office’s longstanding policy “to defer to magistrates in their determinations of probable cause, and to local law enforcement officers and solicitors in deciding what charges to bring and which cases to prosecute.” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2017 WL 5053042 (S.C.A.G. October 24, 2017). However, in an effort to assist you, we have addressed the State law we believe is relevant to your inquiry.

Generally, “Every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer and special mobile equipment vehicle driven, operated or moved upon a highway in this State shall be registered and licensed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.” S.C. Code Ann. 56-3-110. Section 56-3-150 provides an exemption to this general licensing and registration requirement for foreign vehicles of nonresident owners, However, we believe the applicability of the exemption under this statute

Major Jason Budreau
Page 7
September 12, 2024

is limited to vehicles that are of a type that are required to be licensed and registered for use on State highways. Relying on SCDMV’s determination that UTVs are designated for off road use only and therefore not subject to licensing and registration, we believe a court would likely find UTVs do not qualify for an exemption under section 56-3-150 because they are not foreign vehicles. Accordingly, we believe a court would likely find a UTV owned by an out-of-state business entity and licensed and registered in another state would not qualify for statutory exemption under section 56-3-150.

In addition to the statutory exemption under section 56-3-150, section 56-3-170 provides for vehicle reciprocity between this State and other states, countries, territories, and districts. Initially, we believe the language used in the statute grants SCDMV discretion in determining whether to grant vehicle reciprocity, rather than mandating reciprocity. Further, although section 56-3-170 grants reciprocity with respect to any vehicles, we believe a court would hold reciprocity does not extend to vehicles of a type that may not be legally driven on State highways under South Carolina law. The General Assembly has not defined or specifically addressed the use of UTVs on South Carolina highways through legislation; however, a bill specifically addressing UTVs was introduced in the South Carolina House of Representatives in January 2023. We read this bill as demonstrating the General Assembly’s interpretation of the Act as prohibiting the licensing and registration of UTVs for use on State highways. Absent legislative authorization, we cannot say UTVs may lawfully be driven on State highways, regardless of registration and licensing in another state. We note, this opinion is intended as a general discussion of the law. It should not be read as an attempt to comment on any pending litigation or criminal proceeding. Until a court or the General Assembly specifically addresses the issues presented in your letter, this is only an opinion on how this Office believes a court would interpret the law in the matter.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth McCann
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

(Vol O- Gor

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General