Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All Skyline GTS/GTRs are US legal !?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • All Skyline GTS/GTRs are US legal !?

    Just got this email courtesy of GTRCanada member mtskye

    Looks legit. Long winded and full of legalese but read it and weep!
    [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.

    Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject Vehicles

    The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final determination
    must indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate
    vehicle eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for
    entry. VCP-17 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to vehicles
    admissible under this determination.

    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
    Comments???

    "Life's too short to drive boring cars!"

  • #2
    Yes...

    With caveats.

    1. MotoRex or approved "manufacturer" must alter the car to meet US DOT specifications.

    2. That is only the DOT side of things. There is still EPA to comply with. And EPA compliance is the harder of the two- Bag One emissions is a PITA to pass, and later cars (post '95) must have OBDII. For those who are following this, R34 ECU is different from R32-3, so backdating the OBD from older cars is not possible.
    Nick

    Comment


    • #3
      ...so this is old news then? :?

      "Life's too short to drive boring cars!"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by JohnnyZ
        ...so this is old news then? :?
        Only about 4 years old. If you look at the dates.... should have been Jan ,2000.....


        As Nick said , unless you know the mods , you cant make them legal. Need to be an RI.... And then thats only one side of it...
        Sean Morris



        Comment


        • #5
          gawd for a second I thought that John had multiple personalities and that he was answering his own questions until I noticed the "Veteran" undernieth the GTR symbol.

          anyway, very informative and interesting information!
          - Chris Chan
          NEO240SX Founder
          GTRCanada Co-founder
          WWW.NEO240SX.CA

          Comment


          • #6
            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
            And that's why this doesn't really help anyone wanting to legalize the cars themselves.

            J
            marginally literate keyboard warrior

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by StraightSix
              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
              And that's why this doesn't really help anyone wanting to legalize the cars themselves.

              J
              This is the exact reason. Now unless you worked on the first say 50 cars to come into the US , and did every compliance package on every car . Worked with the DOT on the compliance package would you know this information.
              Sean Morris



              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 13th-angel
                gawd for a second I thought that John had multiple personalities and that he was answering his own questions until I noticed the "Veteran" undernieth the GTR symbol.
                Well, it was an idea, obviously Sean didn't like it and took it out on his own :P

                "Life's too short to drive boring cars!"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Follow up...

                  Quick question here for Nick & Sean....
                  Hello guys, have heard a lot about you both. Your knowledgeable back round on Skylines is legendary.
                  I am hoping you might be able to shed a bit of light on this conundrum.
                  Wondering who J.K. Motors of Baltimore Maryland are?If they had the inititial crash test conducted how did MotoRex end up with the monopoly on imports?
                  According to the gov doc it would appear that all necessary mods are listed. Are they all there? Using this information what would a potential importer need to do to verify the existing records and satisfy the Dept of Transport?
                  And just curious, what are the EPA standards that must be met? Would you be able to refer a webpage with the current specifications and info as it relates to imports.
                  Many thanks and looking forward to hearing from you.
                  Cheers,
                  Martin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Follow up...

                    Originally posted by mtskye
                    Quick question here for Nick & Sean....
                    I am hoping you might be able to shed a bit of light on this conundrum.
                    Wondering who J.K. Motors of Baltimore Maryland are?If they had the inititial crash test conducted how did MotoRex end up with the monopoly on imports?
                    According to the gov doc it would appear that all necessary mods are listed. Are they all there? Using this information what would a potential importer need to do to verify the existing records and satisfy the Dept of Transport?
                    And just curious, what are the EPA standards that must be met? Would you be able to refer a webpage with the current specifications and info as it relates to imports.
                    Monopoly is a game you play - you know with fake money , houses , and hotels.

                    What Motorex does is no more of a monopoly than the game.....

                    Just because you are the only company doing something - does not make you a monopoly .

                    Most people are just not happy with the prices , so they call it a monopoly - thinking they know something about free enterprise . Which obviously they do not. If they did , then they would start their own company , do indpendent crash testing , and legalize the cars themselves. That would be free enterprise. Since Motorex has already done the EPA side of it , you can get an FOI on the EPA information , and its just that much easier.

                    As you may or may not tell , I have very little , OK I have no respect for anyone that calls Motorex a monopoly. They are far from it. They spent a lot of money for crash testing , a lot of time , stuck their necks out and got the cars legal.

                    Something no one else has done , either before them , or after them. There are some things being worked on now , but we can say that 3 types of cars(G-Wagon , Skyline , Smart) in about the last 20 years.

                    There are plenty of other places to purchase cars in the US . Motorex has never blocked anyone from doing any crash testing.

                    Motorex contracted with JK to do the crash testing. Before Motorex was an RI , JK did the package , and arraged the crash testing. As Nick said - we went to one of the crash tests. The test , the car , the time , was all funded by Motorex.
                    Sean Morris



                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I agree with Sean, that calling Motorex a monopoly is unfair, but i also think its an honest mistake people make when they call Motorex that. Its always been possible for anyone wanting to import the Skyline so long as the proper protocol is followed, but of course we know no one has done so. Motorex stands in a field of one, so people just assume they own the exclusive rights to.

                      I myself was under the same impression for some time.

                      Live and learn 8)

                      "Life's too short to drive boring cars!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        For clarification...

                        First off, this pertains to the US. This may or may not be of any use to Canadian folks.

                        Every time you read JK Motors and MGA Research...

                        MotoRex contracted JK...

                        JK contracted MGA...

                        MotoRex spent the money to make it legal.

                        JK fulfilled their agreement up to a point... (the reason why R34 GT-Rs are not quite legal yet)

                        MGA is a DOT certified lab that does crash testing. Like EPA and CARB certification, there aren't too many labs that do that sort of certified work.

                        So... MGA does the actual lab tests. JK prepares the documentation and test cars used that is presented to the DOT and EPA under contract to MotoRex. And MotoRex owns the IP rights to the test results and all associated materials as sucessfully petitioned to the DOT.

                        MotoRex doesn't block anyone from doing their own testing.

                        MotoRex doesn't tell people they can't do their own Federalizations.

                        What MotoRex does is give people the choice to use their service to get a US DOT and EPA legal GT-R or GT-S. The choice is- you have the option to have a GT-R legally on the streets of the US now... or have an illegal car (or none, it's your choice)on the streets. Other benefits of MotoRex's dealings with the DOT is that every (and I mean EVERY) Skyline that goes through Customs gets reported directly to MotoRex- since they are the only ones who are able to properly modify the car for certification- as seen in the eyes of the DOT and EPA. Nothing like fast tracking the process.

                        The conundrum occurs when we discuss who actually IS MotoRex... I would argue that there are four or five people that I would consider to be MotoRex... and some of them are not part of their current company.

                        The other issue is not every Skyline chassis goes through Customs. That is what we would call an illegal car- like an illegal immigrant. So, they can probably get in... but they can also be crushed, deported, seized, all in accordance to the law here.
                        Nick

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What about all the r34 gtr that are in the US?

                          If the Motorex entity (gotta be politically correct here :wink put the dough to get those cars running legal in the US I hardly see it as a monopoly. If Motorex prevented any individual to enter into the process Motorex went through, that would be monopoly but thats not the case. There is no unfair competion here.

                          It take balls to put up the dough and the time. I guess it was dream that took a long time to come to life. If your the first one to take the risk, your the first one to get return.

                          We are lucky (for how long :?) here in Canada to be able to import 15 y/o cars but I guess if I had a large sum of $ I may have went trough to get some r34 gtr legal in the maple leaf country and keep the exclusivity to my self and sell them only to few good friends

                          There are high costs and risk to enter and develop a totally new market. In fact Motorex has done the same thing I would have done, having had the opportunity.

                          Has JZ said, live and let live. And if your not about the state of the world, do something, don't just complain about it ...
                          Along the way, I lost two wheels

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            R34 GT-R in the US...

                            There are a couple with plates...

                            Most have dealer plates.

                            There is a big, big issue with OBD compliance.
                            Nick

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by GTRPower
                              First off, this pertains to the US. This may or may not be of any use to Canadian folks.
                              True but we're still interested in what happens down there where you guys are.

                              "Life's too short to drive boring cars!"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X