<html>

<head>
<meta name="bill" content="SB68">
<meta name="title" content="Analysis as Reported From House Committee (12/10/2013)">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered)">
<title>SB68 - Analysis as Reported From House Committee (12/10/2013)</title>


</head>

<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="#954F72"><img src="/halogo.gif" width="158" height="120">

<div>

<p><b>INCREASE MAXIMUM WIDTH OF OFF-ROAD VEHICLES</b></p>



<p><b>Senate Bill 68 (Substitute S-2)</b></p>

<p><b>Sponsor:  Sen. Geoff Hansen                                               <i>(Enacted
as Public Act 249 of 2013)</i></b></p>

<p><b>House Committee:  Natural Resources </b></p>

<p><b>Senate Committee:  Outdoor Recreation and Tourism</b></p>



<p><b>Complete to 12-10-13</b></p>



<p style='text-align:justify'><b>A SUMMARY OF SENATE BILL 68 AS
REPORTED FROM HOUSE COMMITTEE </b></p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'><a name="StartText"></a>The bill would amend Part 811 (Off-Road Recreation Vehicles)
of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to increase the maximum
width of off-road recreation vehicles that are allowed to operate on state forest
trails.</p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>Currently, under
Part 811, a vehicle can operate on a forest trail only if it is less than 50
inches wide.  The bill would increase the allowable width by eliminating that
provision and establishing a new prohibition against operating an off-road
recreation vehicle wider than 50 inches on a forest trail.  </p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>Additionally, the
bill would change references to four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles (ATV) so as to
now apply to ATVs with <i>four or more wheels</i> in subsections that apply to
the operation of ATVs by children under 12 years old.</p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>The bill would
also change the definition of &quot;forest trail.&quot;  Currently,
&quot;forest trail&quot; means a designated path or way capable of travel only
by a vehicle less than 50 inches in width.  The bill would refer to &quot;a
designated path or way that is not a route.&quot;  [Route is defined as a
forest road or other road that is designate for purposes of Part 811.]</p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>MCL 324.81101,
324.81129, &amp; 324.81133</p>



<p style='text-align:justify'><b>FISCAL IMPACT:</b> </p>



<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:1.8pt;margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify'>Senate Bill 68 would
have a minimal fiscal impact on the Department of Natural
Resources.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Department may need to address narrow areas on some
trails to ensure the accommodation of larger ORVs.</p>



<p style='text-align:justify'><b>BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND
DISCUSSION:</b></p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>Currently, Part
811 prohibits vehicles that are 50 inches or wider from being operated on
forest trails.  This has generally accommodated most traditional ORVs. 
However, side-by-side vehicles have become popular and operate in the same
general footprint as traditional ORVs.  According to testimony, popular models
of side-by-side vehicles measure 50 inches, which would make them illegal to
operate on forest trails.  This change to Part 811 has been suggested to
accommodate these slightly larger vehicles.  </p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>According to
testimony, side-by-side vehicles would not likely result in any additional
damage to forest trails than caused by traditional ORVs.  Additionally, the
Department of Natural Resources has indicated that current forest trails will
not need to be widened to accommodate 50 inch vehicles, except at certain trail
pinch points which have already been identified.</p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in'><b>POSITIONS:</b></p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>Michigan
Department of Natural Resources supports the bill. (12-3-13)</p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>Michigan United
Conservation Clubs supports the bill (12-3-13)</p>



<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>A representative
of Polaris testified in support of the bill. (12-3-13)</p>



























































<p style='text-align:justify'>                                                                                        Legislative
Analyst:   <a name="Analyst"></a>Jeff Stoutenburg</p>

<p style='text-align:justify'>                                                                                                Fiscal
Analyst:   Viola Bay Wild</p>

<div style='border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in'>



</div>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>&#9632;</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members
in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of
legislative intent.</span></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>