I was reading about importation of Skylines and was comparing the importation of a Skyline to any other form of commerce/importatin, and I came to the realization that if Motorex can "legalize" Skylines, regular people have to be able to do the same. Any prhibition that Motorex can get around/comply with HAS to be a challenge that the average joe can overcome, so long as he knows what about the skyline is not compliant AND what paperwork and documentation must be filed in order to verify compliance.

So for those of you who know more about the specifics than do I, what are the legal hurdles (both physically and bureaucratically) that hold up inporters such as RBMotoring?

Does anyone have links to the federal code section that is tripping up others?

To require that a person or persons use a particular importer to acquire a product that that importer does not manufacture would amount to an unfair inhibition on interstate commerce. While it has been clearly established that anyone may own a Skyline, and that USE is an entirely different thing, it still runs contrary to general principles of trade law that only one importer may receive legal status to license a particular vehicle (or any product) for use in America.

I am sure that those who respond will have a million arguements to what I have said, but just because the government makes it very difficult does not make it impossible. hundreds of custom "hot rods" are built in america every year, and most of them are street legal (licensed) but lack basic legal requirement such as particular bumper designs or crash testing. If a Skyline were to be "built" in a similar fashion, there could be no legitimate legal challenge by NHTSA that would prohibit it from being legaly driven on US roads.

I believe RBMotoring has to go through Motorex.

Anyway, here's why we can't import Skylines on our own.

The Skyline was never sold in the US, meaning that it doesn't pass emissions cause US emissions standards are apparently a PITA. This really isn't a problem, because a few simple changes can make it legal in this respect. This is the cheaper part of Motorex importation.

The problem comes with the other reason that Skylines are illegal in the US, there is no crash test data on them. In order to get crash data, you have to provide 3 of your own Skylines to be wrecked, then the 4th can be your's to drive. That's not cheap. Motorex spent the money to do that and thus got the rights to import Skylines. They may even have a copyright on that information, I'm not sure.

edit: If you have 3 Skylines to spare to be wrecked, you too can import your own, legally, without registering it as a show car (and thus be able to drive it, show cars aren't allowed that much driving time).

Do a search on this. Someone comes to this realization pretty much once a week and posts about it, so there are plenty of posts about it.

I don't knwo how MotoRex can limit the results of their crash data to ONLY their own vehicles. On top of that, there is no crash data on kit cars or 1-off builds that people construct in their shops all over the US. Think about hot rods, and even "choppers" that are popular for motorcycle riders. These are built as 1-off untested vehicles that are still somehow legal for use in the US. NHTSA must distinguish these vehicles from skylines to so strictly limit their use, and I don't know that there really is a distinction.

Somehow it's different because they're built as specialty vehicles. The Skyline is imported. Motorex has it's crash data, just as Nissan has it's for say, my Sentra, and for the 240SX, the G35, etc. They don't have to share it, intellectual property.

Crash test date SHOULD (I believe) be the property of NHTSA. It must be a matter of public record so that insurance companies can use it to rate the vehicles.

Public to you and public to insurance companies are two very different things...

gabossie wrote:Public to you and public to insurance companies are two very different things...

...until someone gets in a wreck in a skyline, or gets hit by a skyline and the insurance company has to disclose the crash data in discovery.

Public recored is public record, but few people bother filing a FOIA request for the info.

If insurers choose to write the policy, the do so knowing only that the car meets federal crash impact requirements. There are so few in the country, there can't be much data on accident statistics either. It is the insurer's *option* to write a policy for a vehicle with limited data. Just FYI, NTHSA does not crash test every vehicle sold in this country, and they are not required to. It is not the government's place to take ownership of data paid for and acquired by a private citizen or company. Surely you're not disputing the right to intellectual property, and to profitting from research and investment.Not sure what "unfair inhibition on interstate commerce" means, but what interstate commerce is taking place? No one has to use Motorex to acquire a Skyline. No one has to use Motorex to legalize one. Anyone is free to jump through the same hoops that Motorex does with the DOT and EPA to legalize these cars on their own, provided he/she can prove they can bring the vehicle up to code. This is where Mrex's intellectual property comes in.

It is the property of the NHTSA, but since Motorex paid to get it done, they have rights to it. I can't wreck my Sentra, then claim that since I too have access to the crash data, the wreck only really cost $XX, rather than the zillions it really did, why? Because Nissan put up the money (the cars) to get their product approved. Motorex put up the money to get the cars tested and approved for use on US roads, it would be silly if they didn't have some kind of authority over it. Many more companies would be importing Skylines because they'd only have to deal with emissions, since crash testing has already been done.

DAEDALUS wrote: If insurers choose to write the policy, the do so knowing only that the car meets federal crash impact requirements. There are so few in the country, there can't be much data on accident statistics either. It is the insurer's *option* to write a policy for a vehicle with limited data.

I am saying that is someone were a passenger in a skyline and they were hurt in a wreck, the insurance company of the party at fault would unquestionably have the right to study the crash test data available for the Skyline for liability assignment. The insurance company issuing the policy to the Skyline has the option to decline to do so, just as you stated, but if they do choose to insure the vehicle there would certainly be an inspection of the data to ensure (after the fact) that the vehicle was in fact safe for use on the road.

DAEDALUS wrote:Just FYI, NTHSA does not crash test every vehicle sold in this country, and they are not required to.

True. My point is, if not all cars are tested, why is the skyline required to go through testing?

DAEDALUS wrote:It is not the government's place to take ownership of data paid for and acquired by a private citizen or company. Surely you're not disputing the right to intellectual property, and to profitting from research and investment.

If Motorex did their own testing in their own lab, thne they have the right to exclusivity of that data, UNLESS the US Government had to use that data to certify that vehicle for road-worthiness. If this is the case, any data used by NHTSA is a public record, because drivers have the "right" to knwo to a reasonable degree of certainty that the other cars on the road are safe AND that they do not present an unnaturally high possibility of injury (and liability) should that generic driver strike one of these "unique" vehicles on the street.

DAEDALUS wrote:Not sure what "unfair inhibition on interstate commerce" means, but what interstate commerce is taking place? No one has to use Motorex to acquire a Skyline. No one has to use Motorex to legalize one.

Interstate commerce is any commerce that takes place in the united states and involves the transfer of money, goods, or services across any state border. The constitution protects citizens against restrictions thereof, such as monopolization. if the US government allows ownership of skylines in the US (as it does), they may NOT require that any one particular vendor be used to "legalize" that vehicle fo ruse on public roads. The same thing happened when the Ferrari F40 came to America- at first (for "safety"), Pirelli P-Zero tires had to be used, but other manufacturers who made tires of the same quality argued that that was an unfair restriction on the marketplace, and NHTSA reniged the requirement that all F-40s run P-Zero tires because it was an unreasonable restriction on commerce.

DAEDALUS wrote:Anyone is free to jump through the same hoops that Motorex does with the DOT and EPA to legalize these cars on their own, provided he/she can prove they can bring the vehicle up to code. This is where Mrex's intellectual property comes in.

That was the gist of what I was saying. If the code requires emissions/fuel system changes, and sturctural reinforcement, that is fine. But to say that Motorex must make those changes is unlawful. If a person will modify the vehicle to pass state and federal emissions tests, and will fill out the paperwork and documentation to do so, then they can legally "legalize" the vehicle themselves.

Where is the requirement written that is in regards to the 4-car crash-test rule?

nametakennow wrote:It is the property of the NHTSA, but since Motorex paid to get it done, they have rights to it. I can't wreck my Sentra, then claim that since I too have access to the crash data, the wreck only really cost $XX, rather than the zillions it really did, why? Because Nissan put up the money (the cars) to get their product approved. Motorex put up the money to get the cars tested and approved for use on US roads, it would be silly if they didn't have some kind of authority over it. Many more companies would be importing Skylines because they'd only have to deal with emissions, since crash testing has already been done.

I am asking where the requirement lies that says that the skyline must be crash tested at all. If it came over in parts and was assembled, just like a hot rod is built from parts, then why must it be crash tested when a hot rod is not?

ALL cars have to pass the emissions test, but why the crash test?

Assuming that there is some legitimacy to the crash-test requirement, if I can demonstrate that I have done the same modifications (structurally) that MotoRex does, then how can my vehicle NOT be compliant with the NHTSA requirement?

http://www.nissaninfiniticlub....26235Some links are broken, but the sites have all the info you need to know, you just have to piece it all together.

phenryiv1 wrote:I am saying that is someone were a passenger in a skyline and they were hurt in a wreck, the insurance company of the party at fault would unquestionably have the right to study the crash test data available for the Skyline for liability assignment. The insurance company issuing the policy to the Skyline has the option to decline to do so, just as you stated, but if they do choose to insure the vehicle there would certainly be an inspection of the data to ensure (after the fact) that the vehicle was in fact safe for use on the road.

I disagree. What does structural integrity of a vehicle have to do wth liability in an accident? No one is more or less at fault because of how strong their doors or bumpers are. Risk assessment is completely internal to the actuaries of the insurance industry.

phenryiv1 wrote:True. My point is, if not all cars are tested, why is the skyline required to go through testing?

Where there is no substantially similar U.S. - certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1)(B) (formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the Act) 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 the Secretary of Transportation decides to be adequate. Under 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1) (formerly section 108(c)(3)(C)(i) of the Act), import eligibility decisions may be made "on the initiative of the Secretary of Transportation or on petition of a manufacturer or importer registered under [49 U.S.C. § 30141(c)].

The laws are very comprehensive and very detailed. A Skyline is *not* a kit car or a one-off. Those are covered in separate articles of the USC. If you can convice Customs that all the parts you're shipping over are not from a production vehicle, then you could be on your way to driving a Skyline. If you can't convince them, then you'll be in for quite an expensive lesson. Understand that getting away with something once does not make it legal. The Skyline *is* a production vehicle; regardless of what you can convince one person signing a piece of paper. If the issue ever comes up in the future (during an audit, for example, or at the DMV), you might not be able to convince anyone then, and the vehicle will be impounded, and you have lied on a document you signed that probably states you can be penalized by law for lying on that document.A Skyline is not "substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. § 30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act), 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."

phenryiv1 wrote:If Motorex did their own testing in their own lab, thne they have the right to exclusivity of that data, UNLESS the US Government had to use that data to certify that vehicle for road-worthiness. If this is the case, any data used by NHTSA is a public record, because drivers have the "right" to knwo to a reasonable degree of certainty that the other cars on the road are safe AND that they do not present an unnaturally high possibility of injury (and liability) should that generic driver strike one of these "unique" vehicles on the street.

Again, I disagree. No question the data needs to be reviewed by the NHTSA to ensure the vehicle meets government requirements. But how does that make it a public record? The data is still not owned by the government. Manufacturers of weapons systems have to share their data with the government on pretty much everything, and handling of the data is monitored constantly. But that does not make it a public record.

phenryiv1 wrote:Interstate commerce is any commerce that takes place in the united states and involves the transfer of money, goods, or services across any state border. The constitution protects citizens against restrictions thereof, such as monopolization. if the US government allows ownership of skylines in the US (as it does), they may NOT require that any one particular vendor be used to "legalize" that vehicle fo ruse on public roads. The same thing happened when the Ferrari F40 came to America- at first (for "safety"), Pirelli P-Zero tires had to be used, but other manufacturers who made tires of the same quality argued that that was an unfair restriction on the marketplace, and NHTSA reniged the requirement that all F-40s run P-Zero tires because it was an unreasonable restriction on commerce.

As I stated before, the government is not restricting who can legalize Skylines. *Anyone* can legalize them if they do the legwork. Do you think Pirelli just gave their competitors the secrets to materials and processing they used to create their P-Zeros? Of course not. Their competitors had to do their own work, and they had to prove they met the manufacturer's requirements for the vehicle. If no one bothered to compete with Pirelli, they would have a monopoly on F-40 tires. Would you then cry foul, and insist that anyone should be able to make tires for the F-40?

phenryiv1 wrote:That was the gist of what I was saying. If the code requires emissions/fuel system changes, and sturctural reinforcement, that is fine. But to say that Motorex must make those changes is unlawful. If a person will modify the vehicle to pass state and federal emissions tests, and will fill out the paperwork and documentation to do so, then they can legally "legalize" the vehicle themselves.

You can modify a vehicle all you want. You can make it as strong as an oil tanker, and analytically prove it is stronger than any other vehicle in the world. The law requires destructive testing OR "such other evidence as the Secretary of Transportation decides to be adequate."

phenryiv1 wrote: if I can demonstrate that I have done the same modifications (structurally) that MotoRex does, then how can my vehicle NOT be compliant with the NHTSA requirement?

I don't know if Motorex is protected by intellectual property laws or not. But they're not going to tell you what they do. Hypothetically, their list of modifications could include popping a rivet on the underside of a gusset in the trunk. This rivet does absolutely nothing for structural rigidity, but it is one modification out of many, and on the list they gave to the NHTSA. Even if you tore their cars apart, unless you pop this rivet into your R33, you won't have done the same mods Motorex does.

Straight from the US Code of Law:

"Except for release of confidential information authorized under part 512 of this chapter, information made available for inspection under paragraph (a) of this section does not include information for which confidentiality has been requested and granted in accordance with part 512 of this chapter, and 5 U.S.C. 552(b). To the extent that a petition contains material relating to the methodology by which the petitioner intends to achieve conformance with a specific standard, the petitioner may request confidential treatment of such material on the grounds that it contains a trade secret or confidential information in accordance with part 512 of this chapter."

DAEDALUS wrote:http://www.nissaninfiniticlub....26235Some links are broken, but the sites have all the info you need to know, you just have to piece it all together.

Thank you.

[quote=" DAEDALUS I disagree. What does structural integrity of a vehicle have to do wth liability in an accident? No one is more or less at fault because of how strong their doors or bumpers are. Risk assessment is completely internal to the actuaries of the insurance industry.

Where there is no substantially similar U.S. - certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1)(B) (formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the Act) 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 the Secretary of Transportation decides to be adequate. Under 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1) (formerly section 108(c)(3)(C)(i) of the Act), import eligibility decisions may be made "on the initiative of the Secretary of Transportation or on petition of a manufacturer or importer registered under [49 U.S.C. § 30141(c)].[/quote]

Structural integrity ONLY matters because if I am driving a regular car (my I30) and I strike driver B in a Skyline and it is my fault, my insurance (or I, on my own) hold liability for injuries and other damages. If I can demonstrate that driver B was driving a car whose structural integrity (or lack thereof) is not on par with other vehicles on US roads, most (many, at least) states allow for me to make a push for a proportional reduction in damages based on the fact that that vehicle had a greater risk of injury in an accident. (NOTE: This is not meant to imply a higher CHANCE of an accident, but simply that a person in this car was more likely to sustain heavy injuries than is someone driving a fully-tested vehicle.) It is like this (best parallel that I can think of). If you remove your bumpers for show and replace the OEM bumper cover with a body kit, and in doing so leave out, say, the styrofoam "absorber" that is under the bumper cover (because it happens to not fit under your aftermarket bumper cover), and then I cause a wreck with you, IF I can demonstrate that your decision to leave out the absorber caused you greater injuries (due to the loss of force dispersion), then I can prove that your actions in some way contributed not to the accident, but to the extent of your injuries. If the jury agrees, your damages (damage recovery, financially) can be proportionally decreased. Some states do the same thing for people who are in accidents without seatbelts. The lack of seatbelts does not cause an accident, but not wearing one CAN increase your chances of incurring serious injuries in an accident. Some states have an automatic 30% reduction in legal recovery for not buckling up.

BTW- that code section is very helpful. More on that later.

[quote=" DAEDALUS The laws are very comprehensive and very detailed. A Skyline is *not* a kit car or a one-off. Those are covered in separate articles of the USC. If you can convice Customs that all the parts you're shipping over are not from a production vehicle, then you could be on your way to driving a Skyline. If you can't convince them, then you'll be in for quite an expensive lesson. Understand that getting away with something once does not make it legal. The Skyline *is* a production vehicle; regardless of what you can convince one person signing a piece of paper. If the issue ever comes up in the future (during an audit, for example, or at the DMV), you might not be able to convince anyone then, and the vehicle will be impounded, and you have lied on a document you signed that probably states you can be penalized by law for lying on that document.A Skyline is not "substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. § 30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act), 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." [/quote]

I definately see your point here. I suppose that the "trick" here would be to actually receive proper certification for the car. As they become more rare, or if you actually made a "frankenstein" skyline, there might be come chance that you could meet the "unique vehicle" requirements that are necessary for exception.

Unlike many of the prople in this forum, I am not trying to beat the system, I am trying to circumnavigate MotoRex. I am glad that you have to do legwork to bring a vehicle like this into the country, but I do have problems with some of the distinctions made in the code. I am still looking into it. Your clips and links have been helpful, though. Having a friend who is the Deputy Director (Big, BIG Whig) at NHTSA is helping.

[quote=" DAEDALUS Again, I disagree. No question the data needs to be reviewed by the NHTSA to ensure the vehicle meets government requirements. But how does that make it a public record? The data is still not owned by the government. Manufacturers of weapons systems have to share their data with the government on pretty much everything, and handling of the data is monitored constantly. But that does not make it a public record.[/quote]

National security concerns are not on the same plane with automobile crash data, but I do see your point. I refer back to the first long passage regarding legal liability. Also, the FOIA system applies to ALMOST anything. Tom Clancey found that out when he was writing. As long as the document is not sensitive to national security, it is pretty much open game. Now, your last quote (from your other post) seems to create a protection, so I need to look into it further. On its face, it looks like your last passage does block certain info from FOIA disclosure.

[quote=" DAEDALUS As I stated before, the government is not restricting who can legalize Skylines. *Anyone* can legalize them if they do the legwork. Do you think Pirelli just gave their competitors the secrets to materials and processing they used to create their P-Zeros? Of course not. Their competitors had to do their own work, and they had to prove they met the manufacturer's requirements for the vehicle. If no one bothered to compete with Pirelli, they would have a monopoly on F-40 tires. Would you then cry foul, and insist that anyone should be able to make tires for the F-40?[/quote]

No, no, not at all. BUT the market had to meet the standards set for performance, just as Pirelli had. AT FIRST, the importation documents for the F-40 listed NOT perfornace standards for tires, but simply said that all F-40s on the road had to be equipped with the P-Zero. Other tire makers created tires that were as good as the P-Zero, so they petitioned for a modification in the code regarding importing F-40s.

Now, to shoot myself in the @$$, other manufacturers had to provide samples of the tires for testing to ensure that the tire, when installed on an F-40, met the federal standards. I DO see where I may have just owned myself with my example. [quote=" DAEDALUS You can modify a vehicle all you want. You can make it as strong as an oil tanker, and analytically prove it is stronger than any other vehicle in the world. The law requires destructive testing OR "such other evidence as the Secretary of Transportation decides to be adequate." [/quote]

Actually, this would be the out, because one could prove that their modifications were substantially similar to the ones done by MotoRex, but that WOULD be a time-consuming process in and of itself.

when Mrex filed their paperwork, it is my understanding, that they also filed with it a form that requests the info be kept confidential. this is a legal process they did and so the information they have is theirs. yes, you can legalize you own skyline using their info if you can figure out what it is just like you can start producing coca-cola or a big-mac if you can deduce the exact formula or processes involved in doing so.

I have skim read most of this thread and will try and throw in some stuff I am fairly confident you all didn't get at....ONE--MotoRex had JK Technologies of Boston, Mass do the crash testing for them. The cost of this is unknown and the point of much speculation. When asked how much it would cost for the information, JK Technologies response was "A couple million dollars", which means, in effect, they still HAVE the data, they have only SOLD it to MotoRex, you see? The distinction is that MotoRex doesn't have proprietary ownership of this information, they have paid for it's use.TWO---Now that the Skyline has been (and HAS been for quite some time now) determined substancially similar to a vehicle imported into the United States, any RI could do this legalization, but, as you pointed out, they would have to figure out exactly what MotoRex has done to make it legal, right? Well, if you had read the petition submitted by JKT, you would see that there was attempt made to blanket an entire section of modifications due to proprietary interest, but only the drawings of WHAT was done was blanketed, not what was done. So the dashboard, seats, and seat belt retainers (and I think some section of the frame) must be reinforced. All of this can be verified by the following data, and cross referenced with the provided link.

(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)

So there are several possibilities that exist which could lend themselves toward someone else being able to do the work. One, which is popular within the Military Establishment, is reverse engineering a car that MotoRex has done. I know of one place that has already done this, with what would appear to be quite successful results. The other would be to petition the government, demonstrating the case that MX is using unfair pricing, stifling competition, and in the end harming the end consumer, and get the information from the government---in the same sense that this happened to Microsoft in the past. Despite what you may think, our government is not at all happy with a monopoly in this instance. I have heard rumours (yes, I know, rumours) that there have been encouragments given to other RI's to get into doing Nissan Skylines, even going so far as US Customs providing them with the vehicles necessary to begin their first complainces with. If Customs has done this, then is it not reasonable to assume that the NHTSA, DOT, and EPA will do what they can to help these companies succeed in complying these vehicles? I think the end of the MX monopoly is quickly drawing to a close, which is the better for anyone, since competition in any industry, from cotton candy to nuclear bombs, drives down prices, increases the level of quality and service, and allows people more choice. RB Motoring, they are to be doing the work soon, right? Automobile Concepts in FL are working on their first two cars as we speak. There are possibly others---my purchasing agent in Asia has told me that he spoke with an RI somewhere who is working on their first Skyline, but I haven't researched to verify this. WebAutoWorld in FL is also working towards getting their first cars, or maybe has even gotten them within the last week since I spoke with them.So rest assured, MX will be forced to clean up their act(speaking from what I hear from their end customers/potential customers)or go the way of the horse and buggy.

mB

SAPrez wrote: I have skim read most of this thread and will try and throw in some stuff I am fairly confident you all didn't get at....ONE--MotoRex had JK Technologies of Boston, Mass do the crash testing for them. The cost of this is unknown and the point of much speculation. When asked how much it would cost for the information, JK Technologies response was "A couple million dollars", which means, in effect, they still HAVE the data, they have only SOLD it to MotoRex, you see? The distinction is that MotoRex doesn't have proprietary ownership of this information, they have paid for it's use.TWO---Now that the Skyline has been (and HAS been for quite some time now) determined substancially similar to a vehicle imported into the United States, any RI could do this legalization, but, as you pointed out, they would have to figure out exactly what MotoRex has done to make it legal, right? Well, if you had read the petition submitted by JKT, you would see that there was attempt made to blanket an entire section of modifications due to proprietary interest, but only the drawings of WHAT was done was blanketed, not what was done. So the dashboard, seats, and seat belt retainers (and I think some section of the frame) must be reinforced. All of this can be verified by the following data, and cross referenced with the provided link.

*SNIP*

So there are several possibilities that exist which could lend themselves toward someone else being able to do the work. One, which is popular within the Military Establishment, is reverse engineering a car that MotoRex has done. I know of one place that has already done this, with what would appear to be quite successful results. The other would be to petition the government, demonstrating the case that MX is using unfair pricing, stifling competition, and in the end harming the end consumer, and get the information from the government---in the same sense that this happened to Microsoft in the past. Despite what you may think, our government is not at all happy with a monopoly in this instance. I have heard rumours (yes, I know, rumours) that there have been encouragments given to other RI's to get into doing Nissan Skylines, even going so far as US Customs providing them with the vehicles necessary to begin their first complainces with. If Customs has done this, then is it not reasonable to assume that the NHTSA, DOT, and EPA will do what they can to help these companies succeed in complying these vehicles? I think the end of the MX monopoly is quickly drawing to a close, which is the better for anyone, since competition in any industry, from cotton candy to nuclear bombs, drives down prices, increases the level of quality and service, and allows people more choice. RB Motoring, they are to be doing the work soon, right? Automobile Concepts in FL are working on their first two cars as we speak. There are possibly others---my purchasing agent in Asia has told me that he spoke with an RI somewhere who is working on their first Skyline, but I haven't researched to verify this. WebAutoWorld in FL is also working towards getting their first cars, or maybe has even gotten them within the last week since I spoke with them.So rest assured, MX will be forced to clean up their act(speaking from what I hear from their end customers/potential customers)or go the way of the horse and buggy.

mB

First of all, WOW. I applaud you for the time that it must have taken to assemble this information. Second, your monopoly discussion is vert similar to what I was getting at early on, but I got off on the tangent about insurance liability and FOIA as it relates to the crash test data.

Basically, I think that you are correct, and hopefully that is the case. I would love to see the monopoly end and for other people to be able to import skylines, put in the wrench time, and drive an enthusiast car on our roads, without paying an arm and a leg for legalization.

motorex contracted with G&K or J&K or whoever it was to have the work done and as such, they cannot resell it. they did the work but do not own it, much like even thought I produce intellectual proeroty daily, I do it because I am paid to do so by my company and thus, even though I created it, it is not mine to do so as I please.

but I too applaud this information sharing and appreciate your take on things. there is always another side to the story and we can all learn a lot by talking through things.

Found out from Tyndango just now....JK Technologies filed the petitionG&K handled the emissions for this petition, so it is two different companies.Besides, I was just going on what the woman told me. Now, if only I HAD a few million dollars.....

mB

Man, SAPrez...dude, that link you copied is invaluable. I have been looking for that info for about 3 years! Thank you soooooo much!

No problem---glad to be of service. Information dissemination is definitely one of the things I take the most pride in....

mB

How come you cant import a skyline for reasearch. Make a replica chassis. Then register it legal as a kit car. Destroy or mothball the real skyline like the feds require. You also could apply for a speacialty vehicle smog exemption.

It is the same thing replecar makers do except you could almost have a concourse level replica because the skylines parts are much easier to get.

I am not encouraging any illegal activity. Nor am i saying import a skyline and try to get it past dmv. I am just saying you guys should call a kit car maker like factoryfive see if they bite. I think they would get a return on their investment rather quickly considering they are just providing a chssis to bolt skyline sheet metal to. Also this car will be lighter and stronger than a skyline production model.

You *can* do that....however nobody has done it yet because well....it's not a whole lot cheaper than the way Motorex does it.

And also, most people want to have a car that was manufactured by Nissan, not some machine shop in Idaho. Because if you did it the way you say, you would have to actually make all the parts (except for the engine) in house at this theoretical company's grounds.

EZcheese15 wrote:You *can* do that....however nobody has done it yet because well....it's not a whole lot cheaper than the way Motorex does it.

And also, most people want to have a car that was manufactured by Nissan, not some machine shop in Idaho. Because if you did it the way you say, you would have to actually make all the parts (except for the engine) in house at this theoretical company's grounds.

There are compaines that make steel bodied 32 fords. Others make chassis and suspensions. None of these parts are even close to being made in 1932. Yet people love building these cars.

Also Considering most of the running gear only needs proof of ownership you can use many parts from an actual skyline. Because you will be making the car your self legaly you have more liberty than an importer.

I guess the issue is you could make a "better" dream car this way including something of your own design and just use the skyline runing gear. Oddly people use other cars runing gear and make 32 fords. I guess people don't like skylines as much as duce coupes.

there's a difference between what looks like a skyline and what -is- a GTR... functionally there would be little difference between a fake and a real 32 ford.... except maybe the copy is better.. not likely with a copy of a GTR.

If you only wanted a copy of a car.. get a 2dr anything car and slap on a nice body kit.. who'll know.. right??

XQsThaipoes wrote:There are compaines that make steel bodied 32 fords. Others make chassis and suspensions. None of these parts are even close to being made in 1932. Yet people love building these cars.

Well, it's not exactly like you could go somewhere to pick up brand new body panels for a 32 Ford. Of course they have to make a kit for that! And seriously, if they could, I highly doubt anyone would want to be driving around with 70 year old technology. Anyone that's building up a 32 coupe is putting A LOT of time and money into creating something that will definitely be more powerful and handle better than the original.

Quote »Orinally posted by XQsThaipoes"]I guess the issue is you could make a "better" dream car this way including something of your own design and just use the skyline runing gear. Oddly people use other cars runing gear and make 32 fords. I guess people don't like skylines as much as duce coupes.[/quote]I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few Skyline-faithfuls that are just as enamored with it as those that are duece-coupe fanatics. But, the thing is, why start from the ground up and build a kit (re: REPLICA) when you can own the original OEM? Especially when trying to duplicate all the technology in a Skyline would easily cost more than purchasing through Motorex?

well all u guys can just come to canada and buy a nissan cifero with all parts interchangeable from the nissan skyline and re enter it into usa unde the nafta agreement with canadian title and no fuss about motorex again also i have al japanese engines and complete front cuts whatever modela and make some might just need to be ordered as it gt out of stock fast but check this car out http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade...9.htmh ... 9.htmthese cars come with twin turbo or single even in a rd28 diesel they take any bolt on off a nissan skyline or 300zx only in canada at the moment but hopefuly soon in usa if u buy one

Cars that are imported into Canada are not elgible to be imported into the U.S. under the NAFTA agreement. They must be sold directly from the Manufacturer in Canada...in which case a Cefiro is not. Likewise with an '89 GTR.

american government is in control of the united states people are no longer in control. Welcome to communist america. Soon the government will be choosing what job and school you will be going to.

If a coperation has enough they can pay off the government to not have them make anyone else able to do it. Just like that 1970 skyline that guy imported and tried to charge him 10k. They took him to court and was a rediculous crap. Like i said there are no freedoms anymore. I am just waiting for our big meator to hit