RI's recently mentioned

[RazorGTR]

I figured I would start a new thread on this to keep things tidy. In persuant on the two companies in question that have been mentioned about legalizing Skylines, WebAutoWorld and Automotive Concepts.

This is what I've found on Web Auto World.

Home Page

You will need PDF to view these documents:

Petition #1

Petition #2

According to my source they petitioned for the Skyline but have not recieved clearance as of yet.

On Automotive Concepts;

I don't believe they are complying anything themselves. Right now with the OBD II issues that MotoRex is experiencing from 1996 onwards it seems to co-inside with this. Automotive Concepts was contacted and they are only doing pre-96's at this time. Again this coinsides with the issues MotoRex has been going through.

This is some more interesting reading. Not so much on this company but still should be gone through.

Vehicle Importation Guidelines

[SAPrez]

Thank you Razor---although I don't know the relavance of those two petitions, they did spark a novel idea I am pursueing right now....I'll update you if anything comes of it.

mB

[SAPrez]

In the interest of Open Source information I gleaned the following information from extensive searching through the Federal Register.
Other than THIS I could find no petitions by any of our well-known RI's, not Motorex, not RB, not Automobile Concepts, or webautoworld.
Currently members of my staff are on the phone trying to get in contact with personal in the Office of Vehicle Compliance trying to track down these petitions, whether they are even necessary since the VCP is already known and documented, and these following "modifications" are what are necessary to bring the vehicle into compliance.

One thing of note is to see how "J.K." of Boston, Mass, tried to confidentialize their test findings---while the NHTSA did allow them to confidentialize their drawings proving the case, they did not allow the fact that their data proved the Skyline met NHTSA and DOT standards to be confidentialized.
Again, our in-house legal attache is picking through this information, as well as directing a concerted effort to get to the bottom of all of this information through the Office of Vehicle Compliance, I do not have all the answers yet and will provide them as they become available.

mB

(the following is available at the following webaddress....)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
************************************************** ****
[Federal Register: January 19, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 12)]
[Notices]
[Page 3002-3004]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ja00-146]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-99-5507; Notice 2]


Decision that Nonconforming 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR
Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of decision by NHTSA that nonconforming 1990-1999
Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars are eligible for importation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces the decision by NHTSA that 1990-1999
Nissan GTS and GTR Passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply
with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible
for importation into the United States because they have safety
features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply
with, all such standards.

DATES: The decision is effective as of the date of its publication in
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United
States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially
similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into
and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of
the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared,
and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Where there is no substantially
similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits
a nonconforming motor vehicle to be admitted into the United States if
its safety features comply with, or are capable of being altered to
comply with, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards
based on destructive test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides
to be adequate.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this determination
in the Federal Register.
J.K. Motors of Baltimore, Maryland (Registered Importer No. R-90-
006) petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR
Passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States.
NHTSA published notice of the petition under Docket Number NHTSA-99-
5507 on April 16, 1999 (64 FR 18963) to afford an opportunity for
public comment.
As stated in the notice, the petitioner claimed that 1990-1999
Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars have safety features that comply with
Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence . . .

[[Page 3003]]

(based on comparison of components to those on comparable U.S.-
certified models, such as the Nissan 300ZX Turbo), 103 Defrosting and
Defogging Systems (based on engineering analysis and comparison of
components to those on comparable U.S.-certified models, such as the
Nissan 300ZX and 300ZX Turbo), 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems (based on engineering analysis and comparison of components to
those on comparable U.S.-certified models, such as the Nissan 240SX,
300ZX, 300ZX Turbo, and Maxima), 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems (based on
engineering analysis and comparison of components to those on
comparable U.S.-certified models, such as the Nissan 300ZX and Maxima),
106 Brake Hoses (based on comparison of components to those on
comparable U.S.-certified models and on visual inspection of
certification markings), 109 New Pneumatic Tires (based on visual
inspection of certification markings), 113 Hood Latch Systems (based on
comparison of components to those on comparable U.S.-certified models,
such as the Nissan 300 ZX Turbo), 116 Brake Fluids (based on visual
inspection of certification markings), 124 Accelerator Control Systems
(based on engineering analysis and comparison of components to those on
comparable U.S.-certified models, such as the Nissan 300ZX Turbo, which
also utilize dual return springs, either of which is capable of closing
the throttle when the other is disconnected), 202 Head Restraints
(based on results of dynamic tests conducted for petitioner by MGA
Research Corporation to establish vehicles' compliance with Standards
208 and 301), 203 Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering
Control System (based on results of dynamic tests conducted for
petitioner by MGA Research Corporation to establish vehicles'
compliance with Standard 208), 204 Steering Control Rearward
Displacement (based on results of dynamic tests conducted for
petitioner by MGA Research Corporation to establish vehicles'
compliance with Standard 208), 205 Glazing Materials (based on
comparison of components to those on comparable U.S.-certified models
and on visual inspection of certification markings), 206 Door Locks and
Door Retention Components (based on results of dynamic tests conducted
for petitioner by MGA Research Corporation to establish vehicles'
compliance with Standards 208 and 301, in which forces exerted far
exceed those specified in Standard 206), 209 Seat Belt Assemblies
(based on comparison of components to those on comparable U.S.-
certified models and on visual inspection of certification markings),
216 Roof Crush Resistance (based on comparison of roof structure to
that of comparable U.S. certified models, such as the Nissan 300 ZX,
and on engineering analysis), 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion (based on
test data), and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials (based on
comparison of components to those on comparable U.S.-certified models).
Petitioner also stated that based on engineering analysis the 1990-
1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars comply with the Bumper Standard
found at 49 CFR part 581. The petitioner observed that the bumpers are
of a customary plastic/nylon design impregnated with body color and
that they are mounted with high energy absorption components.
The petitioner also contended that 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR
passenger cars are capable of being altered to comply with the
following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: (a) substitution of a lens
marked ``Brake'' for a lens with an ECE symbol on the brake failure
indicator lamp; (b) installation of a speedometer/odometer calibrated
in miles per hour. Petitioner stated that it is also silk screening its
own custom faces to meet the standard. Petitioner further stated that
the remaining controls and displays are identical to those found on
comparable U.S.-certified models, such as the Nissan 300ZX.
Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: (a) Installation of U.S.-model headlamps and front
sidemarker lights; (b) installation of U.S.-model rear sidemarker
lights and reflectors; (c) installation of a high mounted stop lamp, if
the vehicle is not already so equipped. The petitioner asserts that the
tail lamp assemblies meet the standard in all respects.
Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: installation of a tire
information placard. Petitioner stated that the rims that are equipped
on the vehicle have DOT certification markings and are identical to
those found on comparable U.S.-certified models, such as the Nissan
300ZX Turbo.
Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: replacement of the passenger
side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component.
Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: installation of a U.S.-model
warning buzzer in the steering lock electrical circuit on all models
and installation of a U.S.-model seatbelt warning system on 1990-1993
models. Petitioner stated that the components installed on GTS models
will be identical to those found on the Nissan Maxima, and the
components installed on GTR models will be identical to those found on
the Nissan 300ZX Turbo.
Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems: installation of a
relay (identical to that found on the Nissan 300ZX) in the power window
system of 1990-1993 models so that the window transport is inoperative
when the ignition is switched off. Petitioner stated that 1994-1999
models are already equipped with this component.
On May 12, 1999, under 49 CFR part 512, NHTSA's Office of Chief
Counsel granted J.K.'s request for confidential treatment of structural
drawings submitted with the petition to demonstrate the capability of
the vehicles to be conformed to Standard Nos. 201, 207, 208, 210, 214,
and 301, but denied J.K.'s request for confidential treatment of test
data submitted with the petition that confirmed the vehicles'
conformity with the standards. The material for which confidentiality
was denied has been placed in the public docket, together with a copy
of the petition.
Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact: The
petitioner stated that compliance with Standard 201 was demonstrated in
dynamic tests conducted for the petitioner by MGA Research Corporation
to establish the vehicles' compliance with Standards 208 and 301. These
tests were conducted after the petitioner had made structural
modifications to the dash area of the vehicles.
Standard No. 207 Seating Systems: The petitioner stated that
compliance with Standard 207 was demonstrated in dynamic tests
conducted for the petitioner by MGA Research Corporation to establish
the vehicles' compliance with Standards 208 and 301. These tests were
conducted after the petitioner had made structural modifications to the
seat frames.
Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: (a) Replacement of the
driver's side airbag on 1990-1993 models, and the driver's and
passenger's side airbags on 1994-1999 models with components
manufactured to petitioner's specifications based on the results of
static and dynamic tests conducted by MGA Research Corporation. These
tests were conducted after petitioner had made certain structural
modifications to the vehicle; (b) installation of an airbag warning
label on each sun visor. Petitioner stated that the vehicle is

[[Page 3004]]

equipped with a seatbelt warning lamp and buzzer that are identical to
components found on comparable U.S.-certified models. The petitioner
also stated that the vehicles are equipped with combination lap and
shoulder restraints that adjust by means of an automatic retractor and
release by means of a single push button at all front and rear
designated seating positions.
Standard No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages: The petitioner
stated that compliance with Standard 207 was demonstrated in dynamic
tests conducted for the petitioner by MGA Research Corporation to
establish the vehicles' compliance with Standards 208 and 301. These
tests were conducted after structural modifications at seat belt
assembly anchorage points. That are depicted in structural drawings
that were granted confidentiality by NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel
under 49 CFR part 512.
Standard No. 212 Windshield Retention: application of adhesives to
the windshield's edges.
Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection: The petitioner stated that
compliance with Standard 214 was demonstrated in dynamic tests on both
sides of the vehicle conducted for the petitioner by MGA Research
Corporation. These tests were conducted after certain structural
modifications to the vehicle. The petitioner observed that no doors
opened on impact in the course of these tests.
Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: The petitioner stated that
compliance with Standard 301 was demonstrated in dynamic tests
conducted for the petitioner by MGA Research Corporation. These tests
were made after fuel system modifications made in conjunction with
those necessary to meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requirements.
The petitioner additionally stated that a vehicle identification
number (VIN) plate must be attached to the left windshield post and a
reference and certification label must be added in the left front door
post area to meet 49 CFR part 565.
No comments were received in response to the notice of petition.
Based on its review of the information submitted by the petitioner,
NHTSA has decided to grant the petition.

Final Decision

Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides
that 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR Passenger cars are eligible for
importation into the United States because they have safety features
that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: January 12, 2000.
Marilynne Jacobs,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 00-1125 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
************************************************** ****
(end)

Razor, I expect you and hopefully everyone else to pick through this one and see if there is anything that we are missing. I will keep everyone updated and what our team can find out!

mB

[firefighter0143]

i called up western cascade (located in wa)there on the RI list on the NHSTA
for importations of a skyline to motorex.
they gave me an option of
1. import the car to canada, then have the car towed to motorex.
does this sound legal?
but if it is...id be saving a lot of money instead of buying the car directly from motorex

[flylwsi]

sounds sketchy.
and even then...
the car would have to be at least 15 years old...

i like r32's, but do you want a 15 yr. old used car that was probably driven hard?

still sounds sketchy.

[SAPrez]

I agree---
Any plan to circumvent the law can only lead to trouble.....People trying to do such are the majority whose cars get seized.
Problem #1---Like Flylwski said, the car would have to be 15 years old.
Problem #2---Canada has their own customs fees, so what are you really gaining by sending it to Canada versus bringing it into America? I mean, come on, the customs fee here in the US is 2.5% of the purchase price of the car.

In any case, let me stress the point again----DO NOT TRY TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW, OR ANY AGENCY OF THE LAW. You are only inviting horrible misfortune on yourself.
(FYI--And, if you were wanting us to locate a vehicle for you, we will not sell it unless you are going to comply it legally.)

Michael Bernard
SKYLINE AMERICA
[email protected]
D r i v e Y o u r D r e a m

[Moppie]

SAPrez if I read your above post correctly (and it was difficult, give the amount of BS and sales fluff it contains) your claiming to be able to sell a street legal skyline to someone, with out having to go through Motorex, the ONLY know RI able to legaly legalise a skyline.

[SAPrez]

I am sorry Moppie as my train of thought is hard to follow sometimes.
Automobile Concepts in North Miami, Florida is currently working on their first two compliances. When these are done they will be equilivant to MotoRex.
Now, I know what everyone says---this place and that place has already tried complying...etc---but after extensive discussion with the owner I am quite assured that they will have no problem getting these done. They are also taking on more Skylines, and since THEY are paying the compliance bonds (unlike MX), that is further reassurance of their confidence in this matter.
The verdict is still out on RBM---are they or are they not doing compliance?

mB

[nisco]

the more the merrier!

[SAPrez]

agreed!

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by SAPrez

The verdict is still out on RBM---are they or are they not doing compliance?

Sean has stated several times in these forums that RB is not currently legalising skylines. And I find it hard to believe that some whos has been nothing but straight up and honest on these and several other forums should become vauge and hard to do get an awser from over the phone.


You on the other hand have taken 47 posts to come out with the very simple information about how you are claiming to be getting US legal skylines.

And whats with the @hotmail emails for you and your "staff"?
Not exactly the most proffesional image for a company.

[firefighter0143]

ummm rb motorings arnt legalizing skylines right now shoot even motorex isnt right now either

[Skyline_R32_Canada]

noooooooooooooo.....REALLY?????

[SAPrez]

Sorry Moppie if I ever gave you the indication that I am not being 100% straightforward in how I claim to do anything.....
Mr. Morris has, on numberous occassions, stated that he is NOT RB Motoring, he simply WORKS for them (also G&K, and also MotoRex at times....). What I was referring to is that, if you CALL RB, they seem to indicate that they do it, whereas the community on the message boards say they don't. That was the vagueness I was commenting on. Mr. Morris is never in the least bit vague about anything.
About the email addresses---will be updating them with our domain as soon as I figure out how to do this......I agree, not exactly professional, but it is functional.
Just wondering---did I do something to offend?

mB

[nisco]

how come some of you guys are comin down hard on SAPrez?.... all companies/ businesses start off rough.. but hes in the field where yeah.. many have said theyre gonna do something.. and dont.. and others have tried and failed....
with everyones knowledge on these boards.... (which is extensive) you guys should be helpin him out in a positive way.. not trying to rain on his parade

because you got a few hundred thousand people complaining about not being able to get a good deal on an imported skyline...
supply and demand.. the more RI's and the more companies being able ot get them(skylines) in the us for a reasonable fee will have everyone benefit..
SAPrez.. if i could id help you out.. but i myself have been rumaging through this forum and others to get a good deal of knowledge of the illustrious skyline... so all i can say for now.. id good luck and more power to you