Vehicle Import and Car Importing FAQ

Change the Vehicle Import Laws ! Sign the Petition ! Stop the Seizures !

2011-11-20T13:02:00.001-08:00

The Department of Homeland Security spends a shockingly disproportionate amount of its budget not on security initiatives, but on customs seizures. In particular, importers of grey-market vehicles have been targeted by monies taxpayers have intended to be used to secure our country against terrorism and terrorist activity. We call upon the Executive Branch to immediately cease this wasteful activity, and furthermore to change the DOT/EPA exemption time on grey-market vehicles from 25 years to 15 years (to match the vehicle regulations of Canada), recognizing that the 25-year rule was enacted due to support from special interests such as Mercedes Benz North America.

"The grey market was successful enough that it ate significantly into the business of Mercedes-Benz of North America and their dealers. The corporation launched a successful million-dollar congressional lobbying effort to stop private importation of vehicles not officially intended for the U.S. market"

"The Motor Vehicle Safety Compliance Act was passed in 1988, effectively ending private import of grey-market vehicles to the United States. No evidence was presented that grey-import vehicles' safety performance differed significantly from that of US models, and there have been allegations of improper lobbying, but the issue has never been raised in court."

This is the reason your Nissan Skyline is illegal.

Is My Imported Car Legal?

2011-11-17T10:01:00.001-08:00

I see this a lot. This is one recent post on NAGTROC from a member, on a 1999 GT-T Skyline he is selling.

Fast and Furiousssssssssssssss
I'm trading a 1999 GT-T R34 Nissan Skyline in MINT condition! It has 34k miles on it! Also, it is FULLY LEGAL in USA! Tagged, Licensed, Registered!

Now here is the problem, you have an owner, a seller trying to sell a car, and they are claiming it is a legal car, but no proof. So what kind of proof? What kind of paperwork are you looking for on a legally imported car?

I will try and arm you with some information, and questions to ask, and some paperwork to look for. Is the vehicle on the vehicle import eligibility list? If its not on the list, how is someone claiming that the car is legal? Is the car over 25 years old? If it is then it is exempt if imported correctly, and in original configuration.

The first thing you are looking for, is what is called a Bond Release. The Bond Release doesn't really say much, but it releases the vehicle that was legally imported by a Registered Importer. Here is a copy of a letter you can obtain from the DOT, NHTSA, OVSC. That is Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Vehicle Safety and Compliance. They can be reached at (202)366-5291. I still have that number memorized after 12 years.

The bond release does not actually say the car is legal, rather that the bond that is paid to ensure compliance is released. This is as close as you get to the NHTSA saying an imported car is legal.

My copy of Code of Federal Regulations. Its seen some use.

In addition to the DOT/NHTSA, you also have the EPA, or Environmental Protection agency to satisfy. When the vehicle was imported, a 3520-1 should have been completed. You should at least try and get a copy of the EPA paperwork. Underneath the hood, you should be looking for an EPA compliance sticker, with information on the company that did the compliance. At 21 years old, in its original configuration, a car is legal to import and exempt from EPA requirements. This means that 1989, and 1990 Nissan Skyline GT-R's are EPA exempt.

Porsche 959 BAR label for CARB

If you are in California, there will be an additional label, a BAR label. California is an entire blog post, an entire book of its own. It has its own requirements, its own testing. Its not impossible, but its very difficult. Read difficult as time consuming and expensive. So its not likely that a car has a BAR label. Most people are very proud of the label, I know I am.

People try and import cars everyday. Most are not even aware that they are doing something wrong. Lots of cars make it though customs though subterfuge, and others just fall though the cracks. Many of them get seized.

Anyone trying to sell a legal car will have all this paperwork at their fingertips. If they don't then something is wrong, and don't buy the car unless you want to take the risk of possible seizure.

Source: NAGTROC

California Announces Groundbreaking Advanced Clean Car Rules

2011-11-16T11:03:00.001-08:00

Proposed regulations will deliver cleaner air, slash greenhouse gases, rapidly increase numbers of zero-emissions vehicles

SACRAMENTO - Today the California Air Resources Board released a comprehensive summary of its proposed Advanced Clean Cars regulation package, setting tough new emissions standards for
cars and light trucks from 2015 through 2025.

The package continues California’s leadership role in developing innovative and ground breaking standards for vehicles. It is designed to clean the air, fight climate change, deliver savings to consumers and drive job development in California. Thanks to the rules, vehicles sold in 2025 will cut fuel costs at the pump
by at least 40 percent along with a 50 percent reduction in the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions.

“California once again leads the nation in setting the toughest standards that will deliver the cleanest vehicles,” said ARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. “This package assures the development of environmentally superior cars that will continue to deliver the performance, utility, and safety vehicle owners have come to expect.”

The Advanced Clean Cars program combines the control of smog- and soot causing pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2015
through 2025. The package also includes a zero-emission vehicle mandate as the focused technology-forcing element, requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of zero-emission
vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018-2025 model years.

“California’s groundbreaking requirement for steadily increasing numbers of zero-emission vehicles provides the underpinning we need for a rapid shift to cars that reduce our dependence on petroleum and toward cheaper and cleaner alternative domestic fuels like electricity and hydrogen.”

The Advanced Clean Cars package of regulations is designed to deliver:

* A 47 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, compared to today’s levels;
* A further 75 percent reduction in smog-forming emissions by 2025;
* One in seven new cars sold in 2025 (15.4 percent) be a zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicle;
* A total of 1.4 million zero-emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road in California by 2025;
* A reduction of 40 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2025, the equivalent of taking eight million cars off the road; and,
* A savings of $5 Billion in operating costs in 2025 for California drivers. This will rise to $10 Billion in 2030 when more advanced cars are on the road.

The proposed Advanced Clean Car package has been in development over the past three years and is composed of four separate but related regulations:

1. Greenhouse gas standard for cars and light trucks, model years 2017-2025
This regulation builds on California’s first-in-the-nation greenhouse gas standard that was later adopted by the federal government as part of a national program in 2009. The current proposal to strengthen the greenhouse gas standard was developed in tandem with the federal government over the past three years,
toward accommodating manufacturers’ desire for a single national program within California’s separate motor vehicle emission control program. It is designed to parallel the national greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards rule the U.S. EPA and the Department of Transport are releasing today under their
coordinated rulemaking.

The proposed new standard drops greenhouse gas emissions to 166 grams per mile, a reduction of 47 percent from current levels. This will be achieved through existing technologies (such as hybrid cars), the use of stronger and lighter materials, and more efficient drivetrains and engines.

2. Reducing Smog-Forming Emissions
California will need to reduce smog-forming pollution by an additional 75 percent from 2016 levels to help meet more stringent federal air quality standards expected in the next few years. Since California continues to have the nation’s worst air quality, and has more than 26 million cars on the road, it is
necessary to further reduce smog-forming pollution from cars. This regulation will drive the development of the cleanest cars yet that use today’s diesel, gasoline-powered, or typical gas-electric hybrid internal combustion engines.

3. Zero Emissions Vehicle Regulation
This regulation builds on the program in place since 1990 and is designed to rapidly increase ZEV production to early commercial volumes, establishing a sustainable and growing market
for these advanced technology vehicles. This will place California on a path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, a goal adopted by many nations and believed necessary to
stabilize climate temperature.

ARB analysis demonstrates that the ZEV regulation is required to put 1.4 million ZEVs on the road by 2025 (15.4 percent of new vehicle sales in that year) in order to be on track to reach the 2050 greenhouse gas reduction goal. A transitional model – the plug-in hybrid car – will play a significant role over the next twenty years but by mid-century, 87 percent of cars on the road will need to be full zero-emission
vehicles to achieve our climate goals.

4. Clean Fuel Outlets
This regulation is designed to address the pending commercialization of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by requiring the construction of hydrogen fueling stations. Construction of the new stations will provide a convenient fueling infrastructure, first within the major air basins but ultimately throughout the state.

A summary of the Advanced Clean Car regulation will be posted
later today at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/clean_cars/clean_cars.htm .

ARB's mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through effective reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering effects on the economy. The ARB oversees all air pollution control efforts in California to attain and maintain health based air quality standards.

Office of Communications 1001 I Street, Sacramento CA 95814. Ph:
(916) 322-2990

Toyota Landcruiser BJ40 : Over 25 Years Old

2011-11-02T09:03:00.000-07:00

Toyota Landcruiser BJ40 : Over 25 Years Old

A quick video of the Toyota Land Cruiser BJ40 just getting out of the Port of Long Beach, CA. Check back for a better video!

If a Toyota Landcruiser is over 25 years old it is DOT exempt for importation. Over 21 years old it is EPA exempt. This Toyota Landcruiser is a diesel model, a BJ40, and came from Japan. IVI can help you find and buy a car overseas and import it to the US. They can arrange transport and clearance in Japan. Once the vehicle arrives in the US, IVI can clear customs, and arrange for the vehicle to be trucked to your location.

Customs Seizes Porsche Stolen in 1988

2011-11-01T16:11:00.000-07:00

Cars always have their VIN numbers. They always have a way of identifying them. If a car is missing a VIN, it raises a whole lot of questions, none of them which don't normally end up in the car getting seized, and someone getting arrested. In this case a 1976 Porsche 911 that was stolen in 1988 was recovered. The car was missing the engine, and had a low declared value. Customs opened the container, and inspected the vehicle, finding the car to be stolen. Normally when a car is being exported, the title needs to be cleared with customs. However, if the car was exported without driveline, they might have not declared it as a vehicle, rather as vehicle parts, which is legal.

Now, nearly 23 years later, the car has been recovered, found in a container scheduled to be shipped from the Los Angeles/Long Beach Seaport to the Netherlands. The car was discovered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers after “targeting and examining” the container, a press release from the agency says.
The officers ran a check of the VIN in law enforcement databases, and found that the car has been reported stolen on November 24, 1988. Nevada law enforcement confirmed that the stolen record was still active. The 911 was then seized, and released to Nevada officials to be returned to the insurance company that currently holds the title.

The 930 is sitting a little high in the back; that’s because it’s missing its 3-liter flat six. Even without that vital piece of hardware, CBP estimates that the car is worth “approximately $27,552.” Apparently, one factor that led the authorities to open the container was the vehicle’s declared value of $12,552, which must have seemed a bit on the low side. Our book says that 930s in number 1 condition – which this one definitely is not – are worth a little over $55,000.
“CBP maintains an aggressive approach in detecting and intercepting shipments containing stolen cargo heading overseas,” said Todd C. Owen, CBP’s director of field operations in Los Angeles. “This seizure is a prime example of how CBP’s outbound team combines intelligence, expertise and strategic targeting to recover stolen vehicles.”

The 930 is one of 51 vehicles and 49 engines seized at Long Beach on their way out of the country between October 2010 and August 2011. Of those 100, 24 turned out to be stolen, 63 were undeclared, seven were undervalued and six had fraudulent documents.

Source: Hemmings

The $96,500 Next Level Motorsports.com Scam

2011-10-19T12:00:00.000-07:00

Update 10-20-11 Oh my...not sure what to say about this. I think I talked to this guy in Feburary this year, and told him to stay far away from Next Level. He questioned me, and I told him I had no time for him if he didn't want to listen. The guy that contacted me also mentioned the FBI connection. If it is, then there is a new member of the Darwin society at large, $96k lighter in the wallet.
Here we go again. Another importing scamming business or two. Preying on peoples hopes and dreams, and their lack of knowledge of importation laws. Here is a clue, if its not a MotoRex car, and its not over 25 years old, ask a lot of questions. Call a lot of people before you send anyone $1. Ask me, I have 12 years experience with importing, and I am happy to help you, IF you will listen to what I have to say. If you are an idiot, then please don't contact me.

Next Level has gone big, putting ads in Dupont Registry, putting ads all over the place, but they are just another scam. I could go though all the names, and all the companies over the years, but please just don't believe it, if someone tells you they can import a car newer than 25 years old. Sure Canada is 15 years, but we don't live in Canada

Here is the story, if anyone can help him or just spread the word about these guys so this never happens again!

Well This story has been going on a while, and I’m fed up and I know I’m not going to get my car now……Please spread this story around the internet so no one ends up like me…..

It’s amazing, hearing stories about people getting scammed on TV and the internet, and all you think is “well that sucks.” I’ve bought hundreds of things on the internet and never had a problem other than a shipping delay or not receiving the right order, but this has always been corrected by the company I ordered from.
I never thought in a million years that I would ever be scammed, I only thought that those who were scammed were those that lacked common sense and were naive. If that’s the case, I’ve joined that group……..
I’ve wanted a Skyline since I was in my teens. And I thought I found one through Eric Thomas of Next Level Motorsport. I thought I did my homework too. I used to work for the FBI and I had my contacts check and see if there were any complaints against this company. My aunt is also a private investigator, I had her do the same. The business checked out. I had Eric send me his business license, and Eric’s business partner Justin Pace, who owns JDM Exchange and handles all of the logistics send me export certificates, HS-7′s, and Bill’s of Lading of other cars he (allegedly) imported. I extensively googled his name, and I found one, at most two posts of people who though he was a scam, but no one who actually stated that they were scammed by him. That seemed sufficient for me (In hindsight though, I should have listened to my gut instinct), so I went ahead and pulled the trigger. Now I realize that all of these documents were forged.

Despite nearly everyone’s warnings on this site in December, I went ahead and purchased the 2002 Nissan Skyline R34 GT-R V-SPEC II Nür, the cream of the crop of skyline’s, for $96,250 USD. There is no typo on the price there. That price included the car itself and compliance work. The car only had 12,000 km on it.
My plan was to hold onto it for a couple years, and then sell it for a profit so that I could buy a cheap house along with the money I earned in those 2 years. Now I’m nearly flat broke. If I am lucky, my car was illegally imported. If it’s not in the country (legally or illegally), then this will be a long and arduous civil case.

Just a little background about this deal. I have dealt with Justin primarily, and I’ll give him credit where credit is due, he is an EXCELLENT bullshitter. He acts like he knows a lot about importing, and he seems to have all of the answers. He is very good at diverting questions you ask him. I didn’t know a lot about importing, and what I did know he mentioned to me and “explained” how it worked, and like an idiot I bought it. He even has contacts in Japan, I actually talked to them and they told me that they had been dealing with Justin for a while. These are the extreme measures he took to fool me.
When push came to shove though, and I asked for the Bill of Lading which he stated he has, I noticed he started ducking me. I’ve asked for this document over a dozen times, and he has failed to provide it, each time providing a different excuse, such as power being out, internet not working, being sick, and this isn’t even a comprehensive list.

More stuff has popped up on the internet about these guys since I purchased the car. Justin Pace, owner of JDM Exchange in San Francisco and who lives in Antioch, CA and Eric Thomas, owner of Next Level Motorsport in Williston, VT are SCAMMERS.
I am former Marine with two year long deployments to Iraq, who is a combat veteran.
If anyone else is a member of other car forums, please spread this message along, I don’t want to see anyone else get scammed. Below are the following links of where I found connections to these guys (mostly Justin), they have popped up in the last couple months after I did further research. Apparently Justin used to own a company called JapImportUSA. I can’t find anyone who was scammed by them, but there is a lot of talk about them

http://www.automotivehelper.com/topic269079.htm

http://www.automotivehelper.com/topic309019.htm

http://www.automotivehelper.com/topic227557.htm

http://www.drifting.com/forums/buy-a…t-selling.html

http://www.bizfind.us/34/137555/jap-…a-co/reno.aspx

http://www.supraforums.com/forum/sho…-Possible-Scam

http://forums.evolutionm.net/sale-ca…raigslist.html

Eric and Justins websites
http://nextlevelmotor.com (now gone)

https://jdmexchange.net/HOME.html

Apparently there was a girl in Alabama who was scammed by Justin too

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/390328…skyline/page-3

I’ve spoken to Justin dozens of times, and **** a few times, and all three of us even had a conference call last night to try to sort things out.

Message to ****. I know you locked down registration, but feel free to invite Justin and Eric onto the forums, it’s only fair to allow them to defend themselves, even though I don’t see how that is possible when I paid for the car, it was supposed to be delivered June 22nd, and I still haven’t received it, or any documentation. If you could make this a sticky it would be much appreciated.

Source: NICO and MySkylineGTR.com http://charlottewoodequestriancenter.com/myskylinegtr/2011/10/07/soldier-scammed-out-of-96250-by-next-level-motorsport/

Decision That Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Are Eligible for Importation

2011-09-03T13:42:00.001-07:00

Here is the latest list of vehicles that have been determined eligible to import to the US under the Registerd

Importer Program.  There are 11 new vehicles on this list, that get added to the list of vehicles capable of being modified to meet

US FMVSS.

Decision That Certain Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Are Eligible 
for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of decision by National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) that certain nonconforming motor vehicles are 
eligible for importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces decisions by NHTSA that certain motor
vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for
importation into the United States because they are substantially
similar to vehicles originally manufactured for sale in the United
States and certified by their manufacturers as complying with the
safety standards, and they are capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards or because they have safety features that
comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all
applicable FMVSS.

DATES: These decisions became effective on the dates specified in Annex
A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).

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 FMVSS 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/or 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 FMVSS.
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
FMVSS 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 decision in
the Federal Register.
NHTSA received petitions from registered importers to decide
whether the vehicles listed in Annex A to this notice are eligible for
importation into the United States. To afford an opportunity for public
comment, NHTSA published notice of these petitions as specified in
Annex A. The reader is referred to those notices for a thorough
description of the petitions.
Comments: Safe Ride News (Safe Ride), a Division of the Willapa Bay
Company, Inc., submitted comments to petition dockets NHTSA-2011-0057,
NHTSA-2011-0019, and NHTSA-2011-0061 expressing its concern that a
nonconforming vehicle's ability to meet all safety requirements
intended to protect child occupants (specifically those required by
FMVSS Nos. 208 Occupant Crash Protection and 225 Child Restraint
Anchorage Systems) be verified before the vehicle is released by a
Registered Importer (RI). Safe Ride also questioned whether it is
advisable for the agency to permit the importation of older vehicles
that cannot be required to meet safety standards put into place after
their date of manufacture.
Addressing the first issue raised by Safe Rides, it is worth noting
that under the agency's existing regulations, a nonconforming vehicle
cannot be found eligible for importation unless it is shown to be
capable of being modified to conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect
on its date of manufacture. Moreover, such a vehicle cannot be released
by an RI for the purpose of being licensed or registered for on-road
use until the RI proves to NHTSA's satisfaction that the vehicle does
in fact comply with all such standards. In instances where
modifications are necessary to achieve compliance, the RI must provide
descriptions of the modifications required along with documentary and
photographic evidence that the modifications have been made. When
modifications require components that are different from those
installed in a substantially similar U.S.-certified version of a
vehicle, proof that the substituted components will bring the vehicle
into compliance with all applicable FMVSS are also necessary. With
regard to the second issue raised by Safe Rides, the agency notes that
it lacks authority to deny import eligibility to an older model vehicle
on the basis that the vehicle could not be made to comply with FMVSS
put into place after the vehicle's date of manufacture.
No other substantive comments were received in response to the
subject petitions.
Based on its review of the information submitted by the
petitioners, NHTSA has decided to grant the petitions.
Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject Vehicles: The importer of a
vehicle admissible under any final decision must indicate on the form
HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle eligibility number
indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. Vehicle eligibility
numbers assigned to vehicles admissible under this decision are
specified in Annex A.
Final Decision: Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA
hereby decides that each motor vehicle listed in Annex A to this
notice, which was not originally manufactured to comply with all
applicable FMVSS, is either substantially similar to a motor vehicle
manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United States, and
certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, as

[[Page 54291]]

specified in Annex A, and is capable of being readily altered to
conform to all applicable FMVSS or has safety features that comply
with, or is capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

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

Issued on: August 24, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Annex A--Nonconforming Motor Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible for
Importation

1. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0061:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2007 Dodge Durango multipurpose passenger
vehicles manufactured for the Mexican market.
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2007 Dodge Durango
multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured for the Mexican market.
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 76 FR 32391 (June 6, 2011).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-534 (effective date July 19, 2011).
2. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0055:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R Motorcycles.
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles:
2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R Motorcycles.
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 76 FR 30425 (May 25, 2011).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-533 (effective date July 11, 2011).
3. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0057:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2006 Mercedes-Benz CLS class passenger cars
manufactured prior to September 1, 2006.
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2006 Mercedes-Benz
CLS class passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006.
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 76 FR 30426 (May 25, 2011).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-532 (effective date July 7, 2011).
4. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0028:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2005-2006 Porsche Carrerra (997) passenger
cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006.
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2005-2006 Porsche
Carrerra (997) passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 2006.
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 76 FR 14117 (March 15, 2011).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-531 (effective date April 26,
2011).
5. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0170:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2006 and 2007 Aston Martin Vantage
passenger cars.
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2006 and 2007 Aston
Martin Vantage passenger cars.
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 76 FR 6841 (February 8, 2011).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-530 (effective date March 23,
2011).
6. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0173:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 1991 Rice Beaufort Double trailers.
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 1991 Rice Beaufort
Double trailers.
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 75 FR 81711 (December 28, 2010).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-529 (effective date February 3,
2011).
7. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0161:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2010 Harley Davidson FL Series Motorcycles.
Substantially Similar U.S. Certified Vehicles: 2010 Harley Davidson
FL Series Motorcycles.
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 75 FR 74145 (November 30, 2010).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-528 (effective date January 28,
2011).
8. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0062:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2008-2010 M&V GmbH Siegmar Fzb trailers.
Because there are no substantially similar U.S.-certified version
2008-2010 M&V GmbH Siegmar Fzb trailers, the petitioner sought import
eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B).
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 76 FR 32019 (June 2, 2011).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VCP-46 (effective date July 18, 2011).
9. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0019:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2005 Mercedes-Benz 350 CLS passenger cars.
Because there are no substantially similar U.S.-certified version
2005 Mercedes-Benz 350 CLS passenger cars, the petitioner sought import
eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B).
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 76 FR 28501 (May 17, 2011).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VCP-45 (effective date July 11, 2011).
10. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0034:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2002 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R motorcycles.
Because there are no substantially similar U.S.-certified version
2002 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R motorcycles, the petitioner sought import
eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B).
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 76 FR 14116 (March 15, 2011).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VCP-44 (effective date April 26, 2011).
11. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0108:
Nonconforming Vehicles: 1989-1996 ALPINA B12 2-door Coupe model
passenger cars.
Because there are no substantially similar U.S.-certified version
1989-1996 ALPINA B12 2-door Coupe model passenger cars, the petitioner
sought import eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B).
Notice of Petition:
Published at: 75 FR 51164 (August 18, 2010).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VCP-43 (effective date October 4,
2010).

Seized R34 GT-R in Florida. Nur or 1999?

2011-08-31T11:23:00.000-07:00

If you play with fire, you get burned, and here is a perfect example. It looks like Florida might finally be seizing the flood of illegally imported cars that come though their state. That is good, its only taken them about 12 years. I guess they might have been more concerned with illegal things like cocaine more than a couple of illegal S15's, GTI-R's, and Nissan Skylines being imported. Florida DMV is a joke, and they will let anyone register about anything. Just pay them the money they ask for.

Lots of people assume they are not doing anything wrong, however ignorance of the laws is not an excuse. An exporter will ship any car to you, the same thing, its not illegal for them to ship it to you, however ICE in the US may have other ideas. Just because someone else has the same car, or did the same thing, or has a friends, buddys uncles stepson that did it, does not make it legal.

This poor guy has this car shipped to the US, it gets sezied and now he is trying to off it for $68,000. The car in Japan, if is what he said it is, would be worth the low $40k range. However, looking at the photos, its not what he thinks it is.

NISSAN GTR spec vll , nissan only frabricated 700 units, all the parts are original NISMO. car had carbon fiber hood and trunk and rear view mirrors brembo brakes upgrade turbos and many many many more upgrades... I bought this car and imported months ago with the goal to drive it here in FL. but the DOT shut me down after months of trying what i payed for the car and importaion is way more than asking price MY LOST YOUR GAIN.. CAR IS FOR EXPORT ONLY...

This car does not look like a Vspec II. My first clue- the grey seats. The grey seats are an indication of an early car - a 1999. The pictures are not high enough resolution to really tell much, but I am pretty sure its a 1999. The guy thinks its a Vspec II Nur, but its more than likely not. Its possible someone changed the seats, but it would be a downgrade,not an upgrade. If I had the chassis number, I could tell what year it was probably produced. The car is odd too, it has old Nismo wheels. Old Nismo logo on the intercooler. Wrong hood from what I can see.

So whats the lession we all should learn from this? Play with fire, you get burned. Eventually this stuff catches up to you. However, there are lots of hardheaded, or ignoarant people out there, that the rules just "Do Not Apply" to them. For those people, happy to see your property get seized. Next time, do your due diligence and research, contact me, and I can do it correctly.

Right Hand Drive (RHD) Vehicle Importation to the USA

2011-08-26T09:07:00.000-07:00

The NHTSA regulates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards(FMVSS) in the US. Most vehicles originally produced for the United States are left hand drive, however there are no regulations stating the driving position of the driver. As long as the driver has standardized controls and displays, and the vehicle meets eligibility standards, it is legal in the NHTSA's eyes. For instance the Nissan Skyline GT-R was legalized as a right hand drive car and is noted as such in the eligibility list under VCP-32. This notice as of December 2010 says the NHTSA will no longer accept petitions that a LHD and RHD car are substantially similar just based on arguments alone, rather the vehicles must be crash tested. IMPORT ELIGIBILITY PETITIONS FOR RIGHT-HAND DRIVE (RHD) VEHICLES

An RI can petition NHTSA under 49 CFR 593.6(a) to decide that a nonconforming vehicle is eligible for importation if the vehicle is substantially similar to a vehicle of the same model and model year that was certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). If there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle, the RI must petition the agency under 49 CFR 593.6(b) and support its petition with dynamic crash test data to demonstrate that the vehicle is capable of being modified to the FMVSS for which such testing is prescribed. This is to notify you that NHTSA will no longer accept petitions filed under 49 CFR 593.6(a) for RHD versions of vehicles for which no U.S.-certified RHD model was produced. The agency does not consider these vehicles to be substantially similar to U.S. certified left-hand drive (LHD) versions. Import eligibility petitions for these vehicles must therefore be filed under 49 CFR 593.6(b) and include dynamic crash test and crash avoidance data to demonstrate compliance. The reasons for this decision are set forth below. In our administration of the vehicle import and certification program, we have gained the understanding that only manufacturers who chose to certify an RHD version of a vehicle to all applicable FMVSS will possess the necessary incentive to conduct due care evaluations to establish the conformity of the RHD version to those standards. Very few RHD vehicle models have been certified by their manufacturer for sale in the United States during the past 25 years. When NHTSA has asked manufacturers whether crash test results for the left-hand drive (LHD) version of a specific vehicle could be extrapolated to apply to a non-U.S. certified RHD version of the same vehicle, the manufacturers have consistently informed us that they have no data to support this position because the RHD version was not intended for sale in the United States. NHTSA has also been informed by at least one manufacturer that designing a vehicle platform for both LHD and RHD markets requires crash testing of each version separately in order to meet differing occupant protection standards. This is attributable in part to the fact that the orientation of the engine/drive train and auxiliary components in relation to the driver’s seating position in an RHD vehicle is not a mirror image of that in the same model produced in an LHD configuration. The unique requirements of U.S. and other market occupant crash protection systems, including air bags, seat belt tensioners, occupant protection system control systems (including control logic), interior materials, chassis structural components, and assembly methods all effect crashworthiness and militate against the development of a single platform for both LHD and RHD markets. We are also aware that RHD vehicles intended for markets other than the United States and manufactured on the same production line as similar LHD vehicles do not necessarily have the same features required to meet all applicable FMVSS, since those standards would not apply, or would differ from those that do apply, in the market for which the RHD model is produced. For example, unbelted occupant, side impact, and upper interior occupant protection requirements do not exist in many foreign markets or cannot be compared to US requirements. In addition, vehicle assembly tooling, component attachment points, methods of assembly and mechanical fastening may be different between LHD and RHD vehicles even when those vehicles are produced on the same assembly line.

JDM Mini Trucks | Japanese Mini Truck For Sale

2011-08-20T08:38:00.000-07:00

JDM Mini Trucks. These mini trucks are widely used on farms, for hunting, and even movie sets.

They have full amenities, small enough to get nearly anywhere, and are legal for off road use.

http://ImportAVehicle.com International Vehicle Importers will import your vehicle from any country for a competitive price. At IVI, we understand the difficulties of importing a vehicle in to the USA. There are risks when importing a vehicle in to the USA.

25 Years and Older Vehicles Importation to the USA

2011-04-28T21:41:00.001-07:00

Most of the world has some kind of vehicle importation laws. Most of these laws are written to protect local markets, local manufacturers. Many countries in the world have an exemption, where cars over 15 years old are allowed to be imported. Canada is one local example of having a “15 year rule'”. Here in the US we have a weird stack of rules. It may not make sense, but don’t try and figure it out, just understand it.
Vehicles over 25 years old are Department of Transportation(DOT) exempt from meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards(FMVSS). Over 21 years old are Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) exempt. To meet California smog exemption requirements, the car must be older than 1976. This does not make cars newer than 1976 impossible to import to California, but there are extra requirements, and testing.

We have started to work with a company in Japan, R- International, which gives you direct access to Japanese car auctions. Sign up for their website, for a free preview of the dealer auctions. Today, there are over 21,000 cars available at auction. Only a few of these cars are eligible for import to the US, but an example of eligible cars are below.

1975 Toyota Celica. The auction starts at 100,000 yen or about $1200. Twin cam, wing mirrors, all good stuff.

1981 Toyota Landcruiser. This 4wd diesel landcruiser is a fairly rare sight in the US. Diesels of this vintage are smog exempt in California.

1982 Nissan Cedric. 2 liter, turbo. wing mirrors. Who else has a Cedric in the US?

1984 Nissan President Limo. Check out the plush lazyboy seats. I am not sure if you could drive this, I think you need to be “driven” in it. This is pimptastic.

1967 Nissan Cedric. Another very unique car. 151k km. The auction starts at 30,000 yen or about $368.

These are just a few examples of the cool cars available overseas. Are you looking for a new unique project? Once you have signed up and have an idea of what kind of car you want, contact us. We can help you organize payment, get the car deregristered, and arrange shipping to the US. Once its on its way to the US, we will organize the customs brokering and paperwork clearance for you. Then once its here, and legally imported, we will arrange transportation to your location, and assist with registering your over 25 year old car. Contact us for cost estimates.
For the last 22 years, we have been involved in the vehicle export and import business. Over the years we have shipped thousands of cars overseas. Cars, trucks, boats, and motorcycles to Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. We have experience in both container and Ro-Ro shipping.
Importation is not difficult if you know what you are doing, but if you do it wrong, you can end up with huge shipping charges, and the possibility of getting your cargo seized. Our experience will ensure that you will minimize any risks associated with vehicle import.
Source: R-International and Import a Vehicle

This is the Reason the Nissan Skyline is Illegal in the USA

2011-03-18T22:59:00.000-07:00

Its heard all the time on the internet, the Nissan Skyline is illegal in the USA. To the layperson, they may hear this and take it as gospel. It used to be you would hear its illegal because it is right hand drive. You would hear that it is illegal because it was too fast. Neither of which is true. Here is the true reason that the Nissan Skyline is illegal in the US, Mercedes Benz North America.

What does Mercedes Benz have to do with a Nissan Skyline? Picture yourself as Mercedes Benz North America, the official distributor of Mercedes Benz. As the distributor you setup the dealer networks, handle parts and warranty, import the cars, setup pricing, and make money off each Mercedes Benz sold in the US. Enter the “gray market” cars. Gray market cars are cars that are imported, but not though official distributors. The gray market cars don’t have a warranty, they are not supported by a dealer network, but here is what they are……CHEAPER. In the consumer driven dollar and cents market place, the cheaper car, is the one the consumer wants.

In December 1984, Time Magazine published this article about gray market luxury cars. In the article, they mention that the change in the dollars value via the exchange rate, can mean up to a $12,000 savings for a buyer of an imported gray market car, vs a model purchased at a US dealer. They mention that as many as 50,000 automobiles could have been brought into the US in 1985.

Example: a Mercedes 500 SEL, when bought from an authorized dealer in the U.S., is about $52,000. The same model bought in West Germany and imported by a U.S. buyer goes for some $40,000 after the extra charges.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923836,00.html#ixzz1H0r4a8CU

Read the rest of the post at my blog.

State Titled Nissan Skyline Gets Seized : Skyline Owners USA

2011-03-02T10:40:00.000-08:00

As most people know, I am very involved in the Nissan Skyline community in the USA. Since the Motorex days of importation, I have been dealing with owners, importers, EPA, DOT, CARB, legal and "illegal" cars.

From Motorex to Kaizo, and now onto state titled cars, I have written enough information to be a book. Now the current chapter goes onto Steve- Vandrel from Skyline Owners USA forum, getting his Skyline seized by ICE. Here is his story and pictures.

Most people in tuner communities throughout the United States can agree on one thing, and that is that ‘Skyline’ is a very dirty word. Since the dawn of the Nissan Skyline it has stood as a iconic figure to nearly everyone who takes interest in modified vehicles from Japan, setting numerous records on all playing fields and maintaining a well rounded reputation in many categories. The Skyline, even at an old age, still stands proudly at the top of the automotive food chain. While few in the country can actually claim to have owned one either presently or previously, they carry quite the market interest as forbidden fruit that most all wish to someday own.

It is never a surprise to hear that a Skyline is being seized by the U.S. Government, though it often will peak people’s interest to hear the details behind it and get the full story. History has proven that in most cases since the fall of Motorex, when a Skyline gets seized the owner of the vehicle generally doesn’t have the knowledge or means to handle the situation and walks away empty handed, leaving the government to auction the vehicle off and collect a profit for their personal benefit. Since Motorex was shut down the government has spent countless hours and tax dollars to fund joint operations between government agencies in order to hunt down and seize Skylines that they label as ‘contraband’. In a broad spectrum it sounds pretty rediculous, to think that the government spends tax payer’s dollars to collect up a handful of cars because they (the government) say they are unsafe, while at the same time there’s thousands of illegal immagrants crossing into the U.S. every day, not to mention budget deficets and illagal activities that occur day in and day out effecting the personal lives of American citizens. So what is the governments real motivation for seizing Skylines? They obviously are not making a profit out of the deal, many people are already aware that Skylines can be purchased overseas for a fraction of U.S. market value, that leaves one to question the overall motive.

It’s a well known fact that Skylines are limited on importation into the U.S. Nearly everyone in the world that knows about cars knows that it’s nearly impossible under today’s rules to easily and affordably import a Skyline into the United States. The rules are very clear, and while they are set forth in the interest of saftey to the public and environment, one still has to sit back and question “What is the REAL reason?” If a private citizen of the U.S. wanted to purchase and import a Skyline that is newer then 25 years of age they have to jump through numerous different channels and rules in order to satisfy the U.S. Government and comply with the laws and regulations in place. So what exacally is involved in the process, in a nutshell? A person that desires to import an approved Skyline, a 1996 R33 GTS for example, would first have to source the vehicle and finalize purchase to obtain complete ownership. The individual would then have to make laison with a RI (Registered Importer) that is listed on the NHTSA’s (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) official RI list as well as a ICI (Independent Commercial Importer), both of which can be found on the NHTSA’s import information website. Under federal law, the import and modification for FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) of non-conforming vehicles newer then 25 years of age must be conducted by a authorized RI and is subject to inspection upon completion. To satisfy the regulations set by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), non-conforming vehicles newer then 21 years of age must be modified and completed by a ICI. The RI assigned to conduct the importing of the vehicle would have to notify the NHTSA upon it’s completion and then its at the NHTSA’s discretion to inspect the vehicle prior to release to the owner or reserve the right to conduct a inspection at a later time, this is commonly known as a “Bond Release” which essentially is a release statement from the NHTSA to the RI and owner stateing that they have reviewed the submitted package for said vehicle and that they acknowledge it’s completion and meeting FMVSS. Subsequently the EPA also delivers a document to further approve it’s conformance (if applicable). At this point the RI can release the vehicle to the owner and the owner can then apply for a titled in their respective state.

So what makes importing such a headache and prevents other Skyline models from being imported? One would think since Motorex imported R32’s, R33’s and R34’s years ago that they’d be legal as well, that is where things get sticky. When Motorex originally petitioned to the NHTSA to obtain approval to import Skylines they jumped through all the hoops the government required except one, crash testing. Most people did not learn of what Motorex did until the following of their shut down by the government and one would have to ask the question, WHY? Where Motorex screwed the pooch was the crash testing of Skylines to obtain a stamp of approval from the NHTSA on it’s safety compliance package to meet FMVSS. The law requires non-conforming vehicles not approved for import to be crash tested and have the subsequent data approved by the NHTSA before the vehicles can be cleared for import, sounds easy right? Motorex did infact hire a company to conduct crash testing, however, they only crash tested one car, a R33, and the submitted data was then approved. All good and well? Not so much. The approval that Motorex pushed through the NHTSA was that R32’s, 33’s and 34’s were to be imported and the crash testing data from the R33 was used for all 3 models under a substantially similar clause that was later challenged in 2006 when the VCP-17 approval of Skyline imports for R32’s, 33’s and 34’s was reconsidered by the NHTSA. It was decided that the 3 models were far to different and the fact that there was no crash test data to support the R32’s and R34’s sealed their fate and got them removed from the non-conforming approval list at the NHTSA. The approval for import was later redesignated VCP-32 and only covered 1996-1998 R33’s both GTS and GTR varients. In a nutshell, only specific Skylines can be imported as of 2006 and there’s still a constant uphill battle over OBDII that still has yet to see the end of the tunnel.

A interesting topic that is commonly discussed amongst Skyline owners is what happens to the cars that slipped into the country by unknown measures, both carrying U.S. titles and not. Taken from a recent affidavit: “If a vehicle is not on the list, it cannot be lawfully imported into the United States, even if efforts can be made after importation to bring it into compliance with FMVSS because that vehicle would not have been legally imported into the U.S. and would have violated Customs and Border Protection (CBP), US/DOT and EPA regulations in its importation into the U.S.”. Unfortunetly that means that if a Skyline does not carry a “Bond Release” from the NHTSA and applicable EPA forms then it’s not legal. But who is to blame in a situation where a private citizen of the U.S. purchases a Skyline in good faith and assuming that all is well? Does the government expect all citizens to be legal experts and carry NHTSA importation information pamplets around when shopping for vehicles? Sure, it can be argued that the information is out there and publicly available but let’s be honest, how many private citizens do you know of that know what documents a non-conforming vehicle is suppost to carry in order to be deemed legal, let alone know what the NHTSA is. I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of citizens probably wouldn’t have the slightest clue as to what the NHTSA is if the term was said to them. One would think that when purchasing a vehicle that carries a valid U.S. title that it would be fine and dandy and so long as it’s not listed as stolen or flagged at a DMV when applying for a title transfer. I for one know I’ve never asked a dealership for a bond release or EPA conformance document, and I highly doubt there’s very many people out there who have asked for the same when purchasing any vehicle from anyone for that matter because quite frankly it's not something that's required for every car in the country. Again, who's to blame? I suppose it's our faults for not being duty experts on cars with steering wheels on the wrong side.

In the end it comes to one simple question that the American public has to ask the federal government, “Just how much of tax payer’s money is spent to fund joint operations to seize Skylines across the U.S.?”. I think the same can be asked about the budget approved for the agency overall and just where all the money is going. In 1984 a organization was created to expose government waste of funds, named the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). CAGW has helped expose high-profile cases of tax payer funds being waste, most noteably the Department of Defense's $640 toilet seat and $436 hammer. Sounds funny to think about it but it’s quite true that those are just two examples of where our hard earned money is spent by the government on items that everyone knows are not quite that expensive at all. Taking into consideration that the government will spend $640 on a toilet seat that would normally cost you and I $15 at the local home repair store, again, leaves one to speculate on where the money truly goes and just how big the budget is for agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations (HIS), formally known as the United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I think most American citizens can agree that investigations are not free, especially when you factor in travel expenses and associated assets required to seize property from private citizens.

It is clear as of today that the U.S. Government has not put a hold on its goal to seize Skylines and in 2011 the first known case came to light when ICE launched an investigation into the heart of the community in the U.S. that consists mostly of owners of Skylines, Skyline Owners USA (SOUSA). The exact details are still being gathered and studied, however it is evident that the government is turning up the pressure to either meet a deadline or please someone with a lot of authority. In the past years their investigation efforts were skewed and very unclear with no rhyme or reason as to the direction they were heading and what their end-state goal was. Today, it is more clear than ever that the goal is “To get them off the road”, as stated by the Resident Agent in Charge of a local ICE office in North Carolina.

As the owner, founder and community leader for Skylines Owners USA I am dedicated to absolute and unquestionable protection of all members of the community and I have come to the determination that action must be taken in order to safeguard the members of the community. As of March 1st, 2011 I no longer have anything to lose by challenging the U.S. Government regarding Skylines and those who own them presently in the United States. On February 11th, 2011 I received a phone call from my wife while I was at work, she stated that it was of the upmost importance that I leave work immediately and head home because Homeland Security was at the doorstep and they wanted to talk to me. Needless to say I left work with little notice and rushed home to get the scoop on what was taking place at my residence. Just before turning the corner to my street I fully expected to see an extraordinary amount of government vehicles and personnel on my property, and to my surprise I saw quite the opposite which was one car and two people. Matters were discussed over the course of several hours and in the end it was evident that someone somewhere had passed on some ‘bum scoop’, that I was running a business with the sole intent of trafficking illegal non-conforming vehicles into the U.S. by the dozens. In addition they were under the assumption that I possessed a warehouse where I kept all of the vehicles and also did all my automotive repair and modification work at. I learned that nearly all of their information was based off of some word of mouth “tip” they received and later did some research to investigate and monitor my activities. Needless to say they were quite puzzled by the situation they got themselves into and the lack of actual facts they possessed when talking to me. I do not disregard or deny that there is public information posted around various sources of the internet that may create a image that I was operating a business of some fashion and was able to import cars, however I made it very clear and provided documentation for the one and only vehicle I had imported, and legally might I add, under the 25 year rule that essentially makes all motor vehicles domestic and imported completely exempt from FMVSS and any and all regulatory standards via the NHTSA, not to mention the EPA at 21 years of age. I willingly turned over all documents I possessed for both the vehicle I imported legally as well as my personal Skyline to the agents for verification purposes on if they were actually legal vehicles. My personal Skyline carries a very lengthy history which I of course explained to the agents in the best details I could to include a basic official statement of my knowledge of the vehicle’s history and origin. Over the course of 2 weeks my papers were being cross-checked by various government agencies to include the OVSC department of the NHTSA as well as the EPA, I of course on the day they first arrived at my house had prepared myself for the worst case scenario since I knew it was a 50/50 chance on its legitimacy. I was contacted by ICE a week after the first visit and then notified that my vehicle was found to be illegal and that it was going to be seized, at that point they stated I could not alter or sell my vehicle and that I had to wait for them to issue the warrant to seize the vehicle before I could do anything at all. A date and time was setup for them to come issue the warrant, on March 1st, 2011 at roughly 10:30AM they visited my residence and we sat down to finalize the paperwork for the seize of the vehicle and turn over custody of the “contraband” to the U.S. Government. I made it very clear that my intent was to retain ownership for the time being and export the vehicle from the country, and that I had already made arrangements for a sale to be conducted as well as export of the vehicle, which of course shocked them completely since all past Skylines seized were not owned by someone who carried the ability to execute a export on the spot.

With no material item left in my possession that would cause me to worry about being questioned or investigated by the federal government any further, as stated before, I have nothing to lose by challenging them and I intend to do so to the fullest of my abilities and resources. Future discussions with ICE have been mentioned and are tentatively planned, however do not expect hourly or daily updates as much of what is to be discussed will be legal-sensitive content for the good of the community. All Skyline owners in the United States can rest assure that “We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!”.

As someone in some movie said -"Shit, just got real."

Source: NICO Forums , and Skyline Owners Forum

3520-1 : EPA Form : Importing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines

2011-01-24T15:54:00.000-08:00

The 3520-1 is the EPA form required when importing motor vehicles, and motor vehicle engines to the US. In addition to the 3520-1, you must fill out an HS-7 for the DOT.

HS7 Form : Importation of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment

2011-01-24T15:32:00.000-08:00

The HS7 is the Department of Transportation form that is required to be filled out and turned into customs when importing a vehicle to the United States. In addition to the HS-7 you need to fill out a 3520-1 for the EPA when importing motor vehicles and equipment.

Southern California importer of off-highway vehicles ordered to pay $250,000 judgment

2011-01-18T22:33:00.001-08:00

Southern California importer of off-highway vehicles ordered to pay $250,000 judgment

Importer illegally sold uncertified vehicles to statewide dealership

EL MONTE, CA -
An investigation by the Air Resources Board led to a $250,000 judgment issued in October 2010 by the San Bernardino County Court against Montclair, Calif. based NST, Inc. for the illegal sales of uncertified off-highway vehicles. ARB investigators found NST, Inc., also known as New Star, owned by John Cheng, illegally sold at least 52 off-highway recreational vehicles such as ATVs, dirt bikes and go-karts to California dealerships starting around May 2006. Investigators discovered the illegal sales while conducting routine dealer inspections.

“California has clean air laws in place to protect residents from these recreational vehicles that can pollute up to 100 times more than a passenger car," said ARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. "Businesses that sell equipment and vehicles illegally will pay penalties, especially businesses that are repeat offenders.” NST was issued a Notice of Violation for selling ARB non-certified vehicles. Because a settlement could not be reached, the case was referred to the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office for prosecution. A judgment was ultimately entered in the amount of $250,000 for Health and Safety Code and Business and Professions Code violations. In 2006 NST settled with ARB for $80,000 for the importation, sale and delivery of non-certified pocket bikes and scooters. Because the owner of the company was a repeat violator, ARB officials sought the highest financial penalty in the 2010 case. Additionally, dealerships and distributors throughout California that bought from NST and subsequently sold the illegal vehicles to consumers were also cited.

Vehicles that do not meet California's tough emission requirements pose a real danger to residents. They create higher amounts of smog-forming pollutants, which can then exacerbate respiratory ailments and negatively affect other health conditions such as shortness of breath, headaches, birth defects, cancer or damage to internal organs. Smog is a combination of smoke and other particulates, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and other chemically reactive compounds which, under certain conditions of weather and sunlight, may result in a murky brown haze. The primary source of smog in California is motor vehicles.

The Air Resources Board is a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency. ARB's mission is to promote and protect public health, welfare, and ecological resources through effective reduction of air pollutants while recognizing and considering effects on the economy. The ARB oversees all air pollution control efforts in California to attain and maintain health based air quality standards.

SEMA Action Network Registration and Title Requirements for the 50 States

2011-01-15T08:36:00.001-08:00

SEMA Action Network has provided this online guide to registering and titling your hobby car in all 50 states. The great part about it, is that it is all consolidated into a single document. This makes referencing back and forth much easier, and you don’t need to have 4 or 5 websites open to figure out what needs to be done. For instance the California document is 58 pages long, and covers everything from emissions, to specialty constructed vehicles, and historic vehicles. Head on over to the site, and support the SAN.

As a whole, each document provides a great jumping off point for enthusiasts looking to get an overview of the registration and titling process in their state, as well as an informative reference for those in the middle of the process who are in need of clarification on the finer points of their state’s laws.

This site was created to serve as a useful supplement in the in the registration and titling of your hobby car. The information contained herein is current as of December 31, 2010. Please be advised that these state laws and regulations are subject to change. Please consult the current statutes and regulations for your state of interest to ensure the accuracy of the information contained within this volume.

Source: SEMA

Super Street : Update on Kaizo

2011-01-08T21:32:00.001-08:00

Hey its Super Street, not Time Magazine, but I would expect them to do a little better job of covering news within the automotive industry. I would also expect them to side a little closer to the side of the enthusiast, and not that of the ignorant tree hugger journalists.

As of today, Daryl Alison has entered a plea on "removing a label", but he has not yet been sentenced . He could, face up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine. It does say that Daryl allegedly did the things they mention in the beginning of the article. It just seems like it was edited poorly. If you want to read the LA Times story from the beginning of Novermber its here. Some more information on Kaizo.

As of now, owners of Kaizo chassis are up in the air. A few vehicles were seized and being held. A few owners got letters that they had 60 days to export or surrender back in August 2009. A few more owners got visited by ICE agents. This investigation started about a year and a half ago, and so far, about eight cars have been taken off the road. Eight cars, that were probably barely ever driven, most were registered, taxes paid, owned by enthusiasts, that did not believe they were doing anything wrong. I wonder how much money has been spent by ICE, chasing these cars. FBI , ICE, DOT, EPA, CARB all on the chase of about 50 chassis that were sold over the last three years. In that same amount of time, about 30,000,000 cars were sold new in the US. I feel safer already.

VCP 32 : How To Import a 1996 - 1998 Nissan Skyline GTR or GTS To the USA

2011-01-06T14:29:00.000-08:00

NHTSA-2005-22654

[Federal Register: March 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 40)]
[Notices]               
[Page 10591-10596]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01mr06-139]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-22654; Notice 2]

 
Final Decision To Partially Rescind Decision That Nonconforming 
1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR Passenger Cars Are Eligible for 
Importation

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

ACTION: Final decision to partially rescind decision that nonconforming 
1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars are eligible for 
importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces a final decision by NHTSA to partially 
rescind a prior decision by the agency that 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and 
GTR passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with all 
applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible 
for importation into the United States. As a result of this decision, 
only Nissan R33 model GTS and GTR passenger cars manufactured between 
January 1996 and June 1998 are eligible for importation. All other 
model and model year vehicles admissible under the prior decision are 
no longer eligible for importation. As a consequence, the agency is 
rescinding vehicle eligibility number VCP-17, which covered vehicles 
admissible under the prior decision, and issuing vehicle eligibility 
number VCP-32 to cover only those model and model year Nissan GTS and 
GTR passenger cars that remain eligible for importation. The rescission 
will only bar the future importation of the model and model year Nissan 
GTS and GTR passenger cars that are no longer eligible for importation, 
and will not affect the status of vehicles that have already been 
lawfully imported under vehicle eligibility number VCP-17.

DATES: The decision is effective on March 1, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle 
Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-5291).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Statutory and Regulatory 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 (FMVSS) 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 FMVSS. 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 FMVSS based on crash test data or other 
evidence (such as an engineering analysis) that NHTSA decides is 
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. Because NHTSA has little or no direct 
knowledge of many vehicles for which import eligibility is sought, the 
agency must rely on the petition and any comments that are submitted in 
making this decision. The agency then publishes its decision in the 
Federal Register. If NHTSA decides that the vehicle is eligible for 
importation, it will assign a vehicle eligibility number. The 
eligibility

[[Page 10592]]

number is entered on the importation declaration to inform Customs that 
the vehicle can be lawfully imported (by a registered importer or by a 
person who has a contract with a registered importer to modify the 
vehicle) even though the vehicle was not originally manufactured to 
comply with all applicable FMVSS or was not so certified by its 
original manufacturer for importation into, and sale in, the United 
States.

B. Import Eligibility Petition and Decision

    NHTSA was petitioned by a registered importer to decide whether 
1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR Passenger cars are eligible for 
importation into the United States. To afford an opportunity for public 
comment, NHTSA published notice of this petition under Docket Number 
NHTSA-99-5507 on April 16, 1999 (64 FR 18963). As stated in the notice, 
the petitioner claimed that 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars 
have safety features that comply with many standards that apply to 
passenger cars of the model years in question, and are capable of being 
altered to comply with other applicable standards. With respect to 
FMVSS No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, the petitioner stated that the 
driver's air bags on 1990-1993 models, and the driver's and passenger's 
air bags on 1994-1999 models, would need to be replaced with components 
manufactured to the petitioner's specifications based on the results of 
dynamic crash tests conducted by MGA Research Corporation. As indicated 
by the petitioner, these tests were conducted after it had made certain 
structural modifications to the vehicles.
    No comments were received in response to the notice of petition. 
Based on its review of the information submitted by the petitioner, 
NHTSA granted the petition on November 15, 1999, and assigned Vehicle 
Eligibility Number VCP-17 to vehicles admissible under that decision. 
The agency published notice of the decision on January 19, 2000 (65 FR 
3002).

C. Information Undermining Eligibility Decision

    After the notice of decision granting the petition was published, 
the agency obtained additional information regarding 1990-1999 Nissan 
GTS and GTR passenger cars from Nissan North America, Inc., the U.S. 
representative of Nissan Motor Company, LTD (Nissan) of Tokyo, Japan, 
the vehicles' manufacturer. Nissan informed the agency that it 
manufactured three distinct GTS and GTR models from 1990 to 1999, 
designated as the R32, the R33, and the R34 models, respectively. 
Nissan stated that the R32, the R33, and the R34 models differ in terms 
of their ``structural design and restraint performance,'' and that each 
of the models, which followed a chronological sequence, was ``newly 
designed and different from the type preceding it.'' Nissan confirmed 
that the company received official type approval from the Japanese 
government for each model separately, and stated that it was ``highly 
likely that each model type would perform differently in the crash 
tests required by the FMVSS.''
    Nissan also provided a chart showing production ``start'' and 
``end'' dates for the R32, the R33, and the R34 models. The R32 models 
were manufactured from May 1989 through November 1994; the R33 models 
were manufactured from August 1993 through June 1998; and the R34 
models were manufactured from November 1997 through August 2002. 
Included in the chart is information identifying the production 
``start'' dates when air bags were offered as an option and as standard 
equipment at both the driver's and the front passenger's seating 
positions on the R32, the R33, and the R34 model vehicles.
    The agency did not have this information at the time of its 
original decision to grant import eligibility to 1990-1999 Nissan GTS 
and GTR passenger cars. Instead, the agency heavily relied on the 
results of static and dynamic tests on two modified 1996 R33 model 
vehicles, which the original petition suggested were representative of 
the entire model year range covered by the petition. As indicated in 
the original petition, the petitioner had made structural modifications 
to these two vehicles and replaced the air bags at the driver's and 
front passenger's seating positions with components manufactured to its 
own specifications. With the benefit of the information provided by 
Nissan, it is now apparent that the petitioner did not demonstrate full 
compliance with the performance requirements of FMVSS 208 and other 
crashworthiness standards (e.g., FMVSS Nos. 210 Seat Belt Assembly 
Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting, and 301 Fuel System Integrity) for 
R32 and R34 models because petitioner did not identify these separate 
models or provide crash performance test data on them.
    The agency's decision to grant import eligibility to 1990-1999 
Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars also relied on the petitioner's 
assertion that the original equipment driver's air bag on 1990-1993 
models, and the driver's and passenger's air bags on 1994-1999 models 
would be replaced with components manufactured to the petitioner's 
specifications.
    However, the air bag production chart provided by Nissan shows that 
no driver's air bags were available in the R32 GTS model until August 
1991. For the R32 GTR model, no driver's air bag was offered until 
February 1994, and it was then offered only as optional equipment. 
Nissan did not offer passenger's air bags in the R32 model. Nissan 
began production of the R33 model in August 1993, offering both 
driver's and passenger's air bags as optional equipment on the GTS 
model. It was not until January 1995 that a driver's air bag was 
offered on the GTR model. As of January 1995, the driver's air bag 
became standard on both GTS and GTR models. One year later, in January 
1996, the passenger's air bag became standard on both GTS and GTR 
models.
    Nissan has informed the agency that it does not possess records 
that would allow it to determine whether any individual vehicle had air 
bags installed as optional equipment. Based on the information 
furnished by Nissan, the agency can only be assured that R33 model 
vehicles, produced by Nissan beginning in January 1996, had both 
driver's and passenger's air bags installed as original equipment.

D. Tentative Decision To Partially Rescind Import Eligibility

    On the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the 
original grant of eligibility to the 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR 
passenger cars, comprising R32, R33, and R34 model vehicles, was overly 
broad. As a consequence, the agency tentatively decided to rescind that 
decision in part, so that only Nissan R33 model GTS and GTR passenger 
cars manufactured between January 1996 and June 1998 would be eligible 
for importation if the tentative decision was made final. The agency 
published a notice of the tentative decision on November 28, 2005, 70 
FR 71375. The notice solicited public comments on the tentative 
decision.

E. Comments on Tentative Decision

    The agency received 35 comments in response to the notice of 
tentative decision. Nine of these were duplicates. Eliminating the 
duplicates, a total of 26 comments were received. Those comments are 
summarized below.

a. General Issues

    Ten commenters opposed any change in the existing decision that 
1990-1999

[[Page 10593]]

Nissan GTS and GTR ``Skyline'' passenger cars are eligible for 
importation. Two commenters expressed the opinion that Skylines are not 
unsafe vehicles. Three commenters observed that there are so few 
Skyline vehicles in the United States that their impact on motor 
vehicle safety is negligible. Three commenters observed that NHTSA 
should not rescind import eligibility for Nissan Skylines, thereby 
denying enthusiasts the opportunity to own these vehicles, on account 
of a single registered importer's fraudulent practices in certifying 
the compliance of these vehicles to all applicable standards. In 
contrast to these comments, three commenters were of the opinion that 
NHTSA should rescind import eligibility for all Nissan Skyline 
vehicles. Of these, one commenter believed the market for the Nissan 
Skyline was too limited for businesses to spend the capital necessary 
to re-engineer components required to fully comply with the FMVSS.
    Agency Response: Because they were not originally manufactured to 
comply with all applicable FMVSS, Nissan Skyline vehicles could not be 
lawfully imported into the United States unless they were determined 
eligible for importation, based on their capability of being modified 
to conform to those standards. That is the case regardless of how safe 
the commenters may believe the vehicles to be, and regardless of how 
many Skyline vehicles may actually be operated on U.S. roads.
    Although the agency's original import eligibility decision was 
overly broad because it was based on the premise that all vehicles 
within the 1990-1999 model years were built on the same platform and 
were all equipped with air bags, the agency does not believe it is 
necessary to entirely rescind import eligibility for all Skyline 
vehicles. There is sufficient information of record for the agency to 
conclude that certain of those models and model years are capable of 
being modified to conform to all applicable standards within the 
meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B).
    Although the agency has been informed that some Skyline owners have 
been defrauded by unscrupulous enterprises operating outside the laws 
and regulations that the agency administers, that is not the reason for 
the partial rescission action. The partial rescission is instead based 
on the receipt of new information from the vehicles' original 
manufacturer that caused the agency to question the breadth of its 
original eligibility decision.

b. Request To Delay Agency Decision

    One commenter, who described himself as a member of the armed 
forces, stated that he specifically requested a tour of duty in Japan 
so that he could return to the United States with a Nissan Skyline. 
This commenter requested the agency to delay the partial rescission for 
12 to 24 months so he and other military personnel may import vehicles 
before the rescission takes effect.
    Agency Response: An agency decision to partially rescind import 
eligibility for the Nissan Skyline would limit the model and model year 
range of those vehicles that can be lawfully imported, but would not 
render all Nissan Skyline vehicles ineligible for importation. This 
should assure that returning service members and others would continue 
to have a sufficient opportunity to import one of these vehicles. The 
agency notes that it lacks the authority to create special exemptions 
from the importation restrictions for any reason, including military 
service.

c. Challenges To Information Supporting Partial Rescission

1. The Three Models Would Perform the Same in Crash Tests
    Four commenters disagreed with the manufacturer's statement that 
R32, R33, and R34 model vehicles differ in terms of their structural 
design and restraint performance. The commenters acknowledge that there 
are structural differences among the platforms, which they view as 
minor, but predict that crash tests performed on each of those 
platforms would yield identical results. Several commenters recommended 
that the agency obtain the manufacturer's vehicle design documents to 
confirm the differences claimed by the manufacturer.
    Agency Response: The original manufacturer, Nissan, represented 
that the R32, the R33, and the R34 models differ in terms of their 
``structural design and restraint performance,'' and that each of the 
models, which followed a chronological sequence, was ``newly designed 
and different from the type preceding it.'' Nissan confirmed that the 
company received official type approval from the Japanese government 
for each model separately, and observed that it was ``highly likely 
that each model type would perform differently in the crash tests 
required by the FMVSS.'' The commenters have not provided any technical 
basis for disputing Nissan's statements. Based on its review of the 
petition and the petition's supporting information, including reports 
of crash tests conducted on two R33 model Nissan Skyline vehicles, in 
1999 the agency was persuaded that the petitioner had demonstrated that 
the R33 model Nissan Skyline was capable of being altered to comply 
with all applicable FMVSS. Aside from generally observing that the 
three Skyline models would yield similar crash test results, none of 
the commenters provided any sound evidence, such as crash test data, to 
show that the R32 and R34 models are also capable of being brought into 
compliance with all applicable FMVSS. There is nothing to refute the 
original manufacturer's claim that the three models would be highly 
likely to perform differently in dynamic crash tests. In light of the 
manufacturer's statement that the three Skyline models would perform 
differently in dynamic crash tests and the absence of crash test data 
to support the commenters' claim that the three models would perform 
the same, we decline to accept that claim.
2. Owner's and Parts Manuals Show Availability of Air Bags as Optional 
Equipment in Early Models
    One commenter stated that he obtained in Japan a 1992 Nissan 
Skyline GTR owner's manual showing that an air bag was offered for the 
vehicle. Additionally, this commenter stated that he purchased a parts 
manual for a 1992 R32 model vehicle showing the part numbers for an air 
bag. The commenter stated he was enclosing pages from both manuals with 
his comment to the Docket, but did not do so. Based on the information 
he reportedly found in the two manuals, the commenter requested 
clarification of Nissan's statement that no driver's air bag was 
offered for the R32 GTR model until February 1994, and that it was then 
offered only as optional equipment.
    Agency's Response: Based on the information provided by Nissan, 
that manufacturer offered an air bag as optional equipment at the 
driver's designated seating position on the R32 sedan and coupe 
beginning in August 1991. We are aware that vehicle owner's manuals 
often contain information covering optional equipment offered in a 
vehicle model. The same holds true for parts manuals. While an air bag 
was offered as early as August 1991 in the R32 sedan and coupe, Nissan 
states that it did not offer the air bag in the R32 GTR until February 
1994. We do not regard the commenter's information as refuting the 
information provided by Nissan.

[[Page 10594]]

3. Optional R32 Air Bags Are Nearly Identical to R33 Air Bags
    One commenter, an attorney representing a vehicle owner, claimed 
that an air bag was available as a factory option on 1990-1993 R32 
model Nissan Skyline vehicles. This commenter asserted that this 
optional restraint system is nearly identical to that found in 1993-
1995 R33 model Nissan Skyline vehicles and employs the same sensors and 
electronic control module. Although he conceded that there are 
differences between the chassis of the R32 and later R33 models, the 
commenter contended that the air bag systems installed in those models 
are substantially similar, in terms of both their components and their 
manner of operation, and observed that the R33 model was crash tested 
by the RI that petitioned NHTSA to determine the vehicle eligible for 
importation. The commenter also noted that 1990 to 1994 model vehicles 
are not required to have an air bag to comply with the automatic crash 
protection requirements of FMVSS No. 208, and may do so by means of an 
automatic restraint such as a motorized seatbelt. As a consequence, the 
commenter encouraged the agency to allow the original eligibility 
determination to stand, but to permit an alternate means of achieving 
compliance with FMVSS No. 208 (e.g., by adding automatic seatbelts).
    Agency Response: Contrary to the commenter's contention, 
information supplied to the agency by Nissan shows that no 1990 R32 
model Skyline vehicles were manufactured with air bags at the driver's 
designated seating position. It was not until August 1991 that Nissan 
began offering, as optional equipment, air bags at the driver's 
designated seating position in R32 model sedans and coupes. According 
to Nissan, no R32 model Skyline was equipped with an air bag at the 
passenger's designated seating position. With regard to the commenter's 
observation that nearly identical restraint systems were available for 
R32 and R33 model vehicles, the agency again notes Nissan's claim that 
the R32, R33, and R34 models differ in terms of their ``structural 
design and restraint performance,'' that each of the models was ``newly 
designed and different from the type preceding it,'' and that it was 
``highly likely that each model type would perform differently in the 
crash tests required by the FMVSS.''
    Addressing the commenter's suggestion that motorized seatbelts be 
allowed as an alternate means of achieving compliance with FMVSS No. 
208, the agency notes that the registered importer that petitioned 
NHTSA to determine the Nissan Skyline eligible for importation 
conducted crash tests on the vehicle after replacing its air bags with 
ones manufactured to the petitioner's specifications. The petitioner 
did not install motorized seatbelts in the vehicle to achieve 
compliance with the standard. Moreover, Nissan informed the agency that 
automatic seatbelts were not installed as original equipment in the 
1990-1999 Skyline models, and no dynamic crash test data is available 
to demonstrate that such a vehicle equipped with automatic seatbelts 
would comply with FMVSS No. 208. The mere statement that equipment such 
as automatic seatbelts could be added to a vehicle is not sufficient to 
prove that the vehicle is capable of being altered to comply with FMVSS 
No. 208, as would be required to establish that the vehicle is eligible 
for importation under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B). Such proof could only 
be obtained by conducting a crash test that replicates how the vehicle 
structures and restraint systems perform in a crash.
4. Agency's Reliance on Manufacturer's Comments Is Inconsistent With 
Past Import Eligibility Decision Practices
    Another commenter, a registered importer, observed that because 
Nissan had every opportunity to comment on the original import 
eligibility petition covering 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger 
cars, but elected not to do so, the manufacturer in effect conceded 
that no adverse safety impact would result from the granting of this 
petition. Noting that NHTSA received information from the manufacturer 
after the petition was granted, the commenter recommended that the 
agency officially announce, in the Federal Register notices that it 
publishes to solicit comments on future petitions, that it will ask 
manufacturers to assess the sufficiency of the proposed modifications 
identified by the petitioner. In particular, the commenter faulted the 
agency for accepting Nissan's statements that the R32, R33, and R34 
model vehicles are sufficiently distinct that they are likely to yield 
different crash test results. The commenter noted that NHTSA has 
disregarded manufacturer's comments in ruling on past petitions. The 
commenter further noted that NHTSA personnel have previously stated 
that minor differences in overall wheelbase would not have an overall 
impact on a vehicle's crashworthiness unless weight differences of more 
than 500 pounds were involved.
    Agency response: The agency does not believe that any conclusion or 
inference can be drawn from the fact that Nissan did not comment on the 
original eligibility petition for Nissan Skyline vehicles. Regarding 
the manner in which NHTSA obtained information from Nissan in this 
instance, the agency notes that it asked the manufacturer to provide 
vehicle production data on Skyline vehicles as part of an investigation 
unrelated to the original petition. Based on the information furnished 
by the manufacturer (such as the fact that air bags were not installed 
as original equipment on 1990 R32 models), the agency re-evaluated the 
eligibility decision. Contrary to the commenter's observation, the 
agency was not constrained from re-evaluating this decision on account 
of past instances in which it has granted import eligibility to a 
particular vehicle despite objections from the vehicle's original 
manufacturer.
    The information furnished by Nissan, which NHTSA did not have when 
it granted the original petition, compelled the agency to conclude that 
the petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that R32 and R34 model 
Skyline vehicles are capable of being modified to comply with all 
applicable FMVSS. In these circumstances, it was not appropriate for 
the agency to let its earlier import eligibility decision stand. 
Accordingly, NHTSA undertook to modify that decision prospectively by 
limiting import eligibility to R33 model vehicles in which both 
required air bags are installed as standard equipment. However, RIs are 
free to petition the agency to decide whether any other model or model 
year Skyline vehicle is eligible for importation.
    Unlike past instances in which a single eligibility decision has 
covered vehicles with minor differences in overall wheelbase, in this 
instance, the Nissan Skyline was produced in three distinct models over 
the 1990 through 1999 model years. In view of Nissan's statement that 
the three models differ in terms of their ``structural design and 
restraint performance,'' and would be ``highly likely to perform 
differently in the crash tests required by the FMVSS,'' NHTSA cannot 
justify maintaining import eligibility for the three models based on 
data submitted for one model alone.
5. Import Eligibility Should Be Retained for 1995 R33 Model Skyline 
Vehicles
    Six commenters asked the agency to retain import eligibility for 
1995 R33 model Nissan Skyline vehicles. The commenters noted that the 
body style of the 1995 R33 model is exactly the same

[[Page 10595]]

as the R33 models produced from 1996 to 1998. The commenters further 
observed that some of the 1995 R33 model vehicles were equipped with an 
optional air bag at the passenger's designated seating position. The 
commenters noted that even though Nissan is unable to advise the agency 
whether any particular vehicle was manufactured with an optional air 
bag, agency personnel might verify the air bag's presence by performing 
a vehicle inspection.
    The commenters further contended that 1995 models that were not 
originally equipped with an air bag at the passenger's designated 
seating position are capable of being retrofitted with readily 
available components. One commenter stated that a dual supplemental 
restraint system (SRS) could be installed in those vehicles. As 
described by the commenter, this system would include a complete dash, 
a passenger's air bag module, a dual SRS wire harness, and a dual SRS 
electronic control unit.
    Another commenter contended that it is possible to retrofit 1995 
Skyline vehicles with dual air bags, because these vehicles were 
originally designed to accept the optional passenger air bag on the 
assembly line. The commenter claimed that the steering column, the 
wiring harness, and air bag system mounting brackets are identical on 
1995 R33 model vehicles, regardless of whether they were originally 
equipped with or without the optional passenger air bag. The commenter 
further contended that the components needed to add the air bag at the 
passenger's designated seating position (e.g., rear SRS control unit 
mount and dashboard pad with blow out panel) could be readily purchased 
from the manufacturer and retrofitted to the vehicle.
    Agency response: The original petition stated that to achieve 
compliance with FMVSS No. 208, the driver's air bags on 1990-1993 
models, and the driver's and passenger's air bags on 1994-1999 models, 
would need to be replaced with components manufactured to the 
petitioner's specifications. The petition did not address the fact that 
many Skyline vehicles within the covered range of model years never had 
air bags installed as original equipment and that those components 
could therefore not be ``replaced'' in the manner described. Because it 
has no way to reliably determine whether any particular 1995 model 
Skyline vehicle was originally equipped with a passenger air bag, the 
agency is unwilling to retain import eligibility for that model year.
    With regard to the suggestion that 1995 vehicles be inspected to 
determine whether air bags are installed, our regulations at 49 CFR 
594.7(e) require the payment of $827 when agency personnel inspect a 
vehicle. The agency does not have the resources that would be needed to 
inspect each 1995 vehicle that may be imported.
    Only vehicles originally manufactured with all required air bags 
are within the scope of the original eligibility decision. Without the 
benefit of data, views, and arguments equivalent to what is needed to 
support an eligibility petition, the agency is unable to determine 
whether a 1995 R33 model Skyline vehicle that was not originally 
equipped with one or more required air bags may be properly retrofitted 
with an air bag system. Based on the information furnished by Nissan, 
our only assurance is that R33 model Skyline vehicles manufactured 
beginning in January 1996, which had dual air bags installed as 
standard equipment, can be modified in the manner described in the 
original eligibility petition.
6. Requested Relief for Vehicles Already Imported
    Ten commenters stated that they had purchased Nissan Skyline 
vehicles in good faith and lawfully imported those vehicles for 
personal use in reliance on the agency's existing import eligibility 
determination. These commenters requested the agency to grant a one-
time waiver from the requirements of standards the vehicles have not 
been proven to meet. Given the limited number of vehicles that fall 
into this category, the commenters contended that the granting of such 
a waiver would have a negligible impact on motor vehicle safety. In 
exchange for any such waiver, several commenters offered to accept 
certain conditions, such as those limiting on-road use, restricting the 
resale of the vehicle, and releasing the agency from liability for 
injuries that could result from operating a vehicle that does not 
comply with all applicable standards.
    One commenter asked the agency to consider exempting from the air 
bag requirements vehicles already imported and in the custody of a 
registered importer. This commenter observed that the agency has 
previously granted financial hardship exemptions from the requirements 
of FMVSS No. 208 to five manufacturers, including Saleen, Bugatti, 
Shelby America, Laforza, and Spyker. The commenter also observed that 
the agency also granted permission to a vehicle owner to deactivate an 
air bag based on a medical condition, even though the vehicle's 
registered importer did not properly install a required air bag.
    Agency response: An agency decision to partially rescind import 
eligibility for Nissan Skyline vehicles would only be effective 
prospectively, and would not affect the legality of the importation of 
those vehicles under the prior eligibility decision. As previously 
noted, NHTSA granted import eligibility to 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR 
``Skyline'' passenger cars on the basis of a representation in the 
original petition that the vehicle's airbags would be ``replaced'' with 
components manufactured to the petitioner's specifications. Because no 
comments were submitted in response to the notice of petition, this 
representation was not refuted. It was only later that the agency 
learned, through an investigation, that air bags were only installed as 
standard equipment on a limited range of vehicles produced within the 
models years covered by the petition. NHTSA has not released the DOT 
Conformance bonds on a number of Skyline vehicles that were not 
originally manufactured with required air bags, for want of evidence 
that those vehicles have been altered to comply with FMVSS No. 208 in 
the manner described in the petition. Comments relating to disposition 
of these and other vehicles already imported under the prior decision 
are outside the scope of this decision. Nevertheless, the agency is 
willing to consider, on a case-by-case basis, the concerns of those 
owning Skyline vehicles that were lawfully imported under the original 
eligibility decision but have yet to be bond released by NHTSA.
    We have considered the commenters' suggestions in light of the 
agency's authority under the laws and regulations that it administers. 
One commenter suggested that the agency grant owners of the affected 
vehicles exemptions from one or more applicable FMVSS, such as those 
granted to manufacturers under 49 U.S.C. 30113 and 49 CFR Part 555. As 
specified in those provisions, these exemptions can only be granted to 
a manufacturer, and only in circumstances where compliance with a 
standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer 
that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard. The agency 
lacks the authority to grant such an exemption to any other party. 
Although a registered importer may file with the agency a petition for 
a temporary exemption under Part 555, as explained in the agency's 
interpretations, the agency would regard such a petition as being filed 
on behalf

[[Page 10596]]

of the foreign manufacturer, and would consider the circumstances of 
the manufacturer, and not the importer, in deciding whether to grant 
the petition. Moreover, since an exemption under Part 555 would only 
apply to vehicles originally manufactured after the date the exemption 
is granted, used vehicles could not benefit from such an exemption.
    One commenter also suggested that the agency grant owners of 
vehicles that cannot be modified to conform to the air bag requirements 
of FMVSS No. 208 an exemption similar to the one described in 49 CFR 
595.5. This provision enables motor vehicle dealers or repair 
businesses to install retrofit air bag on-off switches without 
violating the prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 30122 against making inoperative 
safety equipment installed in a vehicle in compliance with an 
applicable standard. This regulation applies to a limited and narrowly 
tailored set of circumstances. The regulation seeks to preserve the 
benefits of air bags, while providing a means for reducing the risk of 
serious or fatal injury that air bags pose to identifiable groups of 
people, such as people who cannot avoid sitting extremely close to air 
bags by reason of their short stature, people with certain medical 
conditions, and young children. To obtain permission for the 
installation of an on-off switch, the vehicle owner must certify that 
the owner or another user of the vehicle is a member of one of the at-
risk groups. This regulation, which pertains to the prohibition on 
making safety equipment inoperative in 49 U.S.C. 30122, has no bearing 
on import eligibility decisions under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B).
    Several commenters offered to limit their vehicles' on-road use, to 
restrict the resale of their vehicles, or to release the agency from 
liability resulting from the vehicles' noncompliance in exchange for a 
waiver from compliance with one or more applicable standards. 
Addressing the offer to release the agency from liability, the agency 
notes that it is not subject to suit for exercising governmental 
functions of this kind. The remaining conditions are similar to ones 
imposed on the owners of vehicles imported for purposes of show or 
display under 49 CFR 591.5(j)(1). A vehicle cannot be imported for 
purposes of show or display unless it is found by the agency to have 
such historical or technological significance that it is worthy of 
being imported for those purposes. As a general rule, a vehicle is 
ineligible for importation for purposes of show or display if more than 
500 of the vehicles were produced, or if the vehicle has been found 
eligible for importation under 49 CFR Part 593, based on its capability 
of being modified to conform to all applicable standards. For these 
reasons, the agency has previously denied an application for the 
importation of a 1995 Nissan Skyline GTS-T under the show or display 
provisions. To be consistent with its past administration of these 
provisions, the agency remains unwilling to extend show or display 
status to Nissan Skyline vehicles. Moreover, the agency lacks the 
authority to impose mileage or resale restrictions on vehicles imported 
for any other purpose.

Final Decision

    Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby rescinds 
its decision, granted on November 15, 1999, that 1990-1999 Nissan GTS 
and GTR Passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United 
States. NHTSA hereby decides that Nissan R33 model GTS and GTR 
passenger cars manufactured between January 1996 and June 1998 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.

Vehicle Eligibility Number

    The importer of a vehicle admissible under any import eligibility 
decision must enter on the HS-7 Declaration form covering the entry the 
appropriate vehicle eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is 
eligible for importation. Vehicle eligibility number VCP-17 was 
assigned to 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars. NHTSA is 
rescinding that eligibility number and assigning eligibility number 
VCP-32 to Nissan R33 model GTS and GTR passenger cars manufactured 
between January 1996 and June 1998 that remain eligible for 
importation.

    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.

Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 06-1896 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

Kaizo Update : Paperwork Filed in Plea

2010-11-02T09:34:00.000-07:00

The LA Times just published an article on Kaizo, and Daryl Alison filing paperwork for a guilty plea on the misdemeanor charge of removing markings from an imported vehicle. Kaizo Industries agreed to plead guilty for a violation of the Clean Air Act for failing to file proper paperwork on imported Nissan Skylines, and other right hand drive imported vehicles.

"The defendants allegedly put bogus 17-digit Vehicle Identification Numbers on the cars in place of the actual Nissan VIN plate," the statement read. "To avoid California’s stricter registration and emission requirements, many of the cars were registered out of the state and sold to California residents with Florida and Arizona plates."
Federal and state investigators seized three Nissan Skylines last year after executing a search warrant at Kaizo Industries. The cars did not meet U.S. environmental and safety standards.
They confiscated nine other vehicles in connection with the probe, including what federal officials described as the “hero” car from the fourth installment of "The Fast and the Furious” movie series.

Kaizo is closed, and has been closed since June 2009, when its offices were raided by several government agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

For more information on the Kaizo drama, you can check out some of my past postings. There are many individuals that imported car bodies though Kaizo, and what happens to them remains to be seen. Overall, its a very small number of vehicles in the grand scheme of vehicles sold, or imported to the US. Even since this first started, the early R32 GT-R's have turned 21 years old, and are EPA exempt for importation. In a few years, these first R32 GT-R's will be 25 years old and DOT exempt. The only thing these seizures are doing, are hurting individual owners, tax payers. Most of these cars are just recreational vehicles for the owners. Most are driven only a few thousand miles a year, if at all. The 1999 Nissan Skyline GT-R is even listed on the "Show or Display" exemption, however EPA requirements make meeting those standards nearly impossible. Show or Display allows the car to be DOT Exempt.

The Nissan Skyline has become, and always was a big target. Do we really need law enforcement going after these few cars, cherished by the owners, rather than other bigger, more dangerous elements in our society? Thanks ICE, I feel safer already.

Source: LA Times Blog

ARB Grossly Miscalculated Pollution Levels

2010-10-09T10:00:00.001-07:00

The San Francisco Chronicle published an article on the California Air Resources Board overestimating pollution by 340 percent. The overestimated figure was a vital part of 2007 regulation that FORCES businesses to cut diesel emissions.

The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust-spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates in the air board's work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation - not the economic downturn.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11sg3aecJ

The chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols had this to say when questioned if any other ARB calculations could be incorrect.

"No, no, no, no, no, no, no and no," she said.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11sga0gat

Mary Nichols has known of some of the problems with the data, and rather than disclosing it to board members, chose to not share it with her fellow board members. ARB can do whatever they like with falsified information to hurt business within California for the boards own political gains.

One of the major recent problems was an air board estimate of premature deaths caused by particulate matter spewing from diesel engines. The first calculation found 18,000 deaths a year in the state had links to particulate matter. That has been revised down by nearly half.

The revision was ordered after the board scientist who oversaw that study was outed as having faked his scientific credentials.

Roberts and other board members were not told by Nichols that the scientist, Hien Tran, lied about earning a doctorate from UC Davis before they voted in favor of regulations based in part on his science. That vote took place in December 2008.

Nichols, who acknowledges she knew about the falsification prior to the vote, has apologized for not sharing that information with her fellow board members.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL&ao=2#ixzz11sgtE9lG

ARB – are they wanna be do gooders, or just harming business? California should just get rid of the ARB and adopt a single EPA federal emissions requirement. The EPA is the federal agency in charge of emissions and air pollution. The ARB making their own requirements puts an undo burden on business, something this economy can not support in the current climate.

This latest error is just the tip of the iceberg of a comedy of errors on the part of the ARB. They are not here to protect people, rather they do a great job of hurting business and jobs in California by imposing unrealistic expectations based on falsified “scientific” information.

Lets get rid of the ARB.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Right Hand Drive Roundup 2010 -Update

2010-09-30T18:35:00.001-07:00

Update 10/1: I received an email from someone that said an R33 GTS-t was seized in Southern California. The car was being seized because it was imported illegally, and the DMV documents, and CHP signatures had been forged on the documentation for the vehicle. The same inspector, the same task force.

What’s the Right Hand Drive Roundup of 2010? Good question. Something I am in the process of trying to figure out. There have been a few cars seized by the Auto Task Force of Orange County.

Here is what I know. Two cars were seized from an owners house. Both cars were titled in California.

Now here is where the rumors start. There were supposedly a few other cars that have been seized locally in Southern California. I don’t have any confirmation of it, but I have heard a couple versions of the same story, that point back to the original true story.

If you have any no bullshit stories about imported cars being seized within the last two weeks please email me – tyndago@gmail.com . I don’t want to hear rumors of a guy, that knows a girl, that heard of a car. I want to hear from actual owners, that have had a car seized. .

As far as I can tell, this is not directly related to Kaizo.

California - Replacement Engines - Japanese Replacement Engines - Engine Changes

2010-09-08T09:20:00.000-07:00

A few rules that are good to know from the ARB website, in regards to replacement engines, Japanese engines, engine swapping, and uncontrolled vehicles.

Replacement Engines

Entire engines can be replacement parts. As with any other replacement part, the engine must be identical to the original. If the replacement block or engine is obtained without emissions equipment, all the equipment from the original engine must be installed on the replacement block.
If the engine is not identical to the original then it is not a replacement part, instead it is considered an engine change.
Engine changes are a modification that must meet certain requirements to be legal (please see "Engine Changes").

Japanese Replacement Engines

Used engines imported from Japan can be used as replacement engines as long as the engine being used has been identified as functionally identical to the original engine. Please refer to the engine importers catalogue to determine if a replacement engine is legal for installation in your vehicle.

Engine Changes

Engine changes are legal as long as the following requirements are met to ensure that the change does not increase pollution from the vehicle:

* The engine must be the same year or newer than the vehicle.

* The engine must be from the same type of vehicle (passenger car, light-duty truck, heavy-duty truck, etc.) based on gross vehicle weight.

* If the vehicle is a California certified vehicle then the engine must also be a California certified engine.

* All emissions control equipment must remain on the installed engine.

* Vehicles converted to 100% electric drive, with all power supplied by on-board batteries are considered in compliance with the engine change requirements. All fuel system components must be removed prior to inspection. For additional information contact the ARB helpline at (800) 242-4450

After an engine change, vehicles must first be inspected by a state referee station. The vehicle will be inspected to ensure that all the equipment required is in place, and vehicle will be emissions tested subject to the specifications of the installed engine.

Exemptions for Uncontrolled Vehicles

Vehicles that were manufactured before emission control regulations took effect are called uncontrolled vehicles. Aftermarket parts regulations and anti-tampering laws do not apply to these vehicles.

Uncontrolled vehicles may have any aftermarket add-on or modified part installed as long as the vehicle can still meet the tailpipe emission standards for the year of the vehicle. Uncontrolled vehicles must retain any original or retrofit crankcase control (PCV) devices and NOx device required for the year of the vehicle.
The following vehicles are considered uncontrolled vehicles:

* 1965 and Older : U.S. Manufactured California Certified Vehicles

* 1967 and Older: U.S. Manufactured Federally Certified Vehicles

* 1967 and Older: Foreign Manufactured Vehicles

Source: ARB Website

A.B. 1740 : Specialty Constructed Vehicles : California

2010-08-28T12:30:00.001-07:00

As many of you have been reading about and hearing about the past few months, yesterday was the senate vote for Assembly Bill 1740 – the bill brought forth by assemblyman Kevin Jeffries relating to increasing the number of annual kit car registrations from 500 to 750 in the state of California. The bill was defeated. We received the following note from assemblyman Jeffries office explaining the defeat and what’s next.

Goodguys would like to thank everyone who rallied behind this bill and took the time to call, fax, write and e-mail California assembly members in support of this bill and our beloved hobby and industry. We will keep you posted on any new bills or developments through the year. Here is the note from Jeffries’ office:

Yesterday, AB 1740 (Jeffries), relating to increasing the number of annual kit car registrations from 500 to 750, failed on a party line vote, 3-5. Three Republicans, Vice-Chair Bob Huff (Diamond Bar), Tom Harman (Huntington Beach), and Roy Ashburn (Bakersfield) voted in favor of the measure. Five Democrats, Chair Alan Lowenthal (Long Beach), Christine Kehoe (San Diego), Fran Pavley (Santa Monica), Mark DeSaulnier (Walnut Creek) and Joe Simitian (San Jose) voted against the bill.

Assemblyman Jeffries, using arguments compiled from many in the kit car community, cited the fact that these 250 additional kit cars were a minuscule amount of cars compared to the nearly 23 million registered cars in California. Other witnesses from the community worked to debunk the Democratic assumption that there is a ‘typical’ kit car; these witnesses clearly explained that cars range in price from $10,000 to well in excess of that. The witnesses expressed the views of many- that, as a hobby, kit cars are more works of art, and can not be defined as ‘typical’ by any means.

In committee, Chairman Lowenthal suggested that instead of increasing the limit to 750, kit cars could simply be retrofitted with modern emissions controls or use a modern ‘green’ engine developed by General Motors. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association cited California Air Resources Board (CARB) studies that claimed that the ‘typical’ kit car polluted 200 times more than a regular 2005 model year car. The representative from CARB cited their ‘statistics’ claiming that most of the recent cars registered under the SB 100 exemptions were high polluting, large model engines. Senator Kehoe, also citing the fact that retro fits and emissions controls were available for kit cars, announced that she would be unable to support AB 1740.

Unfortunately, this negative vote in the Senate Transportation Committee marks the end of the road for this bill. With the bill 2 votes short of passage and no Democratic Senators willing to vote for the bill (or suggest any amendments that would allow them to vote for the bill) AB 1740 will not advance any further this year. Assemblyman Jeffries is committed to working on this issue again next year- whether the bill takes a form similar to this or something a bit different.

I personally want to thank each of you who have invested so much time and energy in this bill. AB 1740 would not have advanced this far without your dedicated hard work and outstanding perseverance. Many of you gathered signed letters, made phone calls and contacted elected officials. Thank you for your efforts and passion for your hobby.

As always, please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Please feel free to contact me with any bill ideas for the next legislative cycle, or if you have any questions about the legislative process. Thank you again for your outstanding efforts.

Andrew Shedlock
Office of Assemblymember Kevin Jeffries

Source: Goodguys

Who's 21st Birthday is Today?

2010-08-21T00:01:00.000-07:00

If you guessed R32 Nissan Skyline GT-R, then you would be correct. 21 years old. Legal to drink in the US. Cars don’t drink though. Well, nothing that makes them drive funny, unless by funny you mean fast.

So what does 21 years old really mean, when we are talking about cars ? Not originally imported cars ?
http://vehicleimport.blogspot.com/2008/12/overview-of-vehicle-import-requirements.html

1. Vehicles 21 Years Old Or Older
If the vehicle is at least 21 years old, there are no EPA compliance requirements upon importation. The age of the vehicle is determined by subtracting the calendar year of manufacture from the calendar year of importation. If the calendar year of manufacture is unavailable, the importer may substitute the model year or year of first registration. For instance, to qualify in 2001, the vehicle must have been manufactured in 1980 or earlier. The vehicle must be in its original unmodified configuration. Vehicles at least 21 years old with replacement engines are not eligible for this exemption unless they contain equivalent or newer EPA certified engines.

No approval or Customs bond is required by EPA. The importer must also prove to Customs, as required, that the vehicle or engine was manufactured prior to EPA regulation. Documents such as a title, or letter from the original manufacturer may be used for this purpose.The importer must file with Customs, upon entry, an EPA Form 3520-1 and declare code "E" on that form.

However , as with many other things government related that make no sense, you still must meet DOT, FMVSS requirements. Well, at least until its 25th birthday, then you are also DOT exempt. AND yet another HOWEVER, is California requirements, if you are in California.

Jeremy Boddy and Used JDM : Still Trying To Scam You

2010-07-29T20:02:00.001-07:00

Jeremy Boddy is at it again. Changing names and websites. Now on Trade Car View, as of July 21, 2010 they put up this notice of unrelated/unauthorized website.

Jeremy Boddy has gone from Drift Tuners to JDM Experts to Used JDM, and who knows how many names before and after.

His MO is to put up websites, offer importing services. Collect $2,000- $3,000 from people to find and import a car. Then he disappears. He uses multiple names, multiple accounts, and even gives himself referrals on forums. He has been found out on Freshalloy, Nico, and lots of other internet forums.

The guy is total scum. I don’t know how much money he owes people, but over the years I have been contacted by a number of people.

Source: Freshalloy

Another Seized Car : R32 GT-R : Canadian Border

2010-07-12T18:37:00.001-07:00

Why do people always think, that the law does not pertain to them? They think they are too special, or that ignorance of the law is an excuse. Here is a perfect example. An R32 GT-R, seized at the border by US Customs at the Canadian border. In Canada its legal to import cars that are over 15 years old, so for the last several years, the Canadians have been getting all the cool 80’s and 90’s Japanese cars.

FOR EXPORT ONLY OUT OF U.S.!!! We are a NY State Licensed Dealership selling this Skyline GT-R AWD, Twin Turbo, 5spd Manual, right hand drive Beauty with Only 67kmi (reads 108km on odometer). Car Looks and Drives Great with no issues! It has Newer Tires, Full Power Eqt, AC, Cruise, front and Rear wipers, Spoiler, Exhaust, Chassis Stabilizers, Leather wheel and More! It was seized by US customs at the Canadian Boarder. It Cannot Be Released Without BONDED EXPORT PAPERS. It comes with a US Customs Title and Must Be Picked Up by a BONDED CARRIER for EXPORT ONLY OUT OF THE UNITED STATES! NO EXCEPTIONS! Dark Blue Exterior, Greyish Blue Interior, Excellent Condition In/Out with low miles! Must Be Paid in Full Prior to Pick Up. The Car is near Buffalo, NY at an Export Facility!

If you don’t get caught, it must be legal right?

Source: Hemmings Blog

EPA Exempt Nissan Skyline GT-R : 21 Years Old

2010-05-28T14:54:00.001-07:00

Well not yet. I went into some more information on the 21 year EPA exemption in another post, and I decided to put up a video on Youtube. Videos are always more fun than just words. Subscribe to my videos for more vehicle import information.

Source : GT-R USA Blog

People Are So Very Confused

2010-05-27T09:37:00.001-07:00

Well it is legal. The car comes with a NY State Title. The vehicle was imported by the good old USA. When a government official lives in a certain area for a certain amount of time they are allowed to purchase a vehicle. When they return home, they have the option to bring their vehicle back with them and are given the needed paperwork. This is what was told to me. From other sources I have talked to, this seems to check out. This particular car came from Japan on a Army plane, so I was told.

Wow that's a new way to import. I didn't know government officials were given a free pass. This is another classic case of people hearing bits and pieces of information, and then twisting those little bits of information to fit themselves. Coming over on an ARMY plane, must make it legal. Or, so he was told it came over on an ARMY plane. I highly doubt this car has ever been on a plane, or an ARMY plane. Anything is possible, but it seems like to me, that if the military did move it, they would use something normal, like a ship.

As close as I can get to a “government official” being allowed a vehicle is as a temporary import, which is legal.

A non-resident of the US may import a car for a period not to exceed one year, however they can not sell the car in the US. Box 5 HS-7 So, that ones out.

A Diplomat or member of an organization designated under the international organizations immunities act can import a vehicle for personal use during the importers tour of duty. It has to be exported at the end of the tour of duty unless sold to another person who is eligible to import a vehicle under this exemption. Box 6 HS-7. So unless the guy selling it is a diplomat and selling it to another diplomat that one is out too.

There's more, member of the armed services of a FOREIGN country. That is someone from a country, that is not the US, importing a car for personal use while on duty in the US. It must be exported at the end of the importers tour of duty. Box 12, HS-7

So that about ends the temporary imports for government officials. Just because you write it, doesn’t mean that its legal, or that it was done legally. This is so true in the car importing world. Most people are ignorant of the laws, and either intentionally or unintentionally violate importation laws.

The asking price of $110,000 is a little out there. With the current market, the current going ons in the Nissan Skyline world, the $32k bid doesn’t sound too bad or too far off for a state legal car like this.

Source : Freshalloy , and Ebay

EPA Kit Car Policy

2010-05-26T12:05:00.001-07:00

This post is about the EPA’s stand on Kit Cars and the importation of vehicle parts, and assemblages of vehicle parts.There is also some information on what the NHTSA/DOT defines as vehicle parts.

The following represents a clarification of EPA's policy concerning the regulation of imported and domestically produced kit cars and kit car packages. Kit vehicles are understood by EPA to typically involve new bodies, used drivetrains and new or used chassis. Used components may or may not be refurbished. This policy applies to kits or assembled kit cars only. This policy does not apply to regular production vehicles offered for importation into or produced in the United States.

This only applies to kits or assembled kits. The next part is important.

The production, sale and importation of vehicle parts (engines, transmissions, chassis, vehicle bodies, etc.) are not regulated by EPA because parts are not considered motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. However if the parts constitute a disassembled vehicle or an approximate disassembled vehicle, the combination is considered a motor vehicle under the Clean Air Act. Any attempt to use this policy to circumvent the Clean Air Act or the Imports regulations will be considered a violation of the Clean Air Act and will be strictly enforced. An example of such circumvention is:

A kit car maker who also provides the engine and transmission before or after production/importation of the body/chassis.

The next question is: what constitutes a disassembled vehicle or an approximate disassembled vehicle ? Is a used fender an approximate disassembled vehicle ? Is a front clip an approximate disassembled vehicle ? Is a transmission illegal to import because it can be used in a vehicle ? There is no absolute definition, as the NHTSA/DOT has for importation.

The NHTSA /DOT is very clear on what they constitute as a motor vehicle under importation laws. http://vehicleimport.blogspot.com/2007/12/importation-and-certification-faq-all.html

If a vehicle is shipped without its engine and drive train, it would be treated, for importation purposes, not as a motor vehicle but instead as an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment items. In this instance, the vehicle would be entered under Box 1 on the HS-7 Declaration form, which covers motor vehicle equipment not covered by a standard, or manufactured before the date that an applicable standard takes effect. Any items included in the assemblage that are subject to an FMVSS (brake hoses, brake fluid, glazing, lighting equipment, seat belt assemblies, tires, rims) that were not manufactured to comply with the applicable standard, and/or were not so certified by their original manufacturer, must be removed from the assemblage and exported or destroyed before entry.

No engine, no drive train, and any items with the parts meeting FMVSS, the parts are legal to import.

So the real questions get back to the EPA’s policy on what exactly is parts, and what exactly constitutes an approximate disassembled vehicle.

Importing a large group of parts, and then building a road vehicle from those parts, does not make the parts a “kit car” even though people like to defer to that term. Its used by a lot of people, and states to describe cars that people have home built, or specially constructed vehicles.

Individual states handle the titling of specialty constructed, or home built vehicles. It is out of the EPA’s hands by that point. The Clean Air Act requires some states and areas to have an emissions testing program, but not every state or area requires it. There are even areas in California that smog testing is not required annually.

Source :http://www.epa.gov/OMS/imports/kitcar.htm and Vehicle Import Information

Guess Who Turns 21 Years Old 8-21-2010 ?

2010-04-21T18:59:00.001-07:00

Senior ICE Attorney Guilty of Accepting Bribes from Immigrants

2010-04-21T10:08:00.001-07:00

LOS ANGELES -- A senior attorney with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was found guilty Tuesday of three dozen corruption-related charges for taking a series of bribes from immigrants who were seeking documentation to remain in the United States.

Constantine Peter Kallas, 39, of Alta Loma, was found guilty of conspiracy, six counts of bribery, two counts of obstruction of justice, seven counts of fraud and misuse of entry documents, three counts of aggravated identity theft, nine counts of making false statements to the Department of Labor, four counts of making false statements to obtain federal employee compensation and four counts of tax evasion, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Kallas has been in prison since August 2008, about two months after he was arrested by FBI agents at the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino in Highland.
Kallas and his wife accepted a bribe there from an immigrant, according to government prosecutors.

The attorney allegedly offered immigration benefits in exchange for payments of up to $20,000.

Source : KTLA.com

Exporting from the USA to Australia : Car Guide

2010-02-13T06:58:00.001-08:00

This is a quick guide on exporting cars from the USA. Most of the details are answered in other areas of our site, these are just the basics for cars. Race cars, equipment,campers, and boats have different requirements.

1)Finding a car

Once you have found a car from any of the various sources out there,Ebay , Craigslist, Autotrader, etc. Most vehicles should be inspected. Please fill out a shipping form for us. It allows us to track, and gives us all the information we need to be able to help you in transporting the car.

2) Buying a car

We recommend you send the money to us in the USA so we can pay the seller. That way the seller does not have the money and the car at the same time. Some people in the US are concerned in dealing with out of country buyers, and many will not accept wire transfers, or foreign cashiers checks. Titles are very important, and we need to have an original title sent to us in Carson, CA.

3) Transporting a car

We can organize transport for you in the US, or you can arrange it yourself. Some sellers will drop off cars direct to us.

4) Import Approval

Please arrange for import approval as quickly as possible. Delays cost money. Getting it done right away gives everyone extra time.

5) Shipping Rates

Shipping rates vary on the size of the vehicle and where it is going.

6) Loading and Shipping Frequency

We load containers nearly every week to Brisbane. To Melbourne and Fremantle we load about every four weeks. Everything depends on the size and number of vehicles we are sending.

7) Container Tracking and Payment

We will send you an invoice with container tracking information, and request for payment once the container is loaded and “on the water”.

8) Customs Clearance, Cleaning, and Delivery in Australia

We will collect the container in Australia, unload it, clear customs and , clear quarantine once in Australia. After this process the vehicle will be able to be picked up, or we can arrange transportation to you.

COOL CARS BOATS AND RV'S @ PEACHEYS GARAGE OLD PACIFIC HIGHWAY ORMEAU. QLD.4208
FOR MORE INFO CALL :
MIKE : 0401933130
ADAM : 0416337870
DAVE : 0449152822
FAX 07 5547 5386

The Bugatti in the Lake

2010-01-18T20:44:00.001-08:00

Lot 250 has generated the most intrigue. A 1925 Bugatti Brescia Type 22 Roadster, which has lain at the murky bottom of Lake Maggiore for the past 70 years, has been raised from the depths and is expected to sell for €70,000 - €90,000.

Auctioneers Bonhams is unable to trace the exact history of the vehicle, although the remarkable preservation of the registration plates has helped. On April 11 1925, the brand new chassis ‘2461' was registered in Nancy, France, by Georges Paiva. Bonhams believes that in 1930, it was transferred to Paris and the ownership of Georges Nielly, who affixed a brass plate to the vehicle that still remains.

How and why the Bugatti made the 900 km journey from Paris to Ascona on the banks of Lake Maggiore is unknown. The most likely candidate as owner has emerged as Marco Schmuklerski, a Swiss architect who lived in Ascona between 1933 and 1936. Researchers believe that he may have studied at the Beaux Arts school in Paris, purchasing it from Nielly whilst in France, or bought it from a French tourist or client in Ascona. Either way, import duties were never paid; the story around Ascona holds that the taxes amounted to more than the Bugatti's value so it was dumped, unceremoniously, in Lake Maggiore when Schmuklerski left town.

After 73 years 52 meters underwater, Jens Boerlin and other members of Ascona's sub aqua club retrieved the wreckage on July 12 2009. Restoration, the creation of a replica, or public display are some of the most likely options for the new owner of the Roadster. For the winner of Lot 250, this year's Retromobile will certainly auction some fascinating history - along with a classic car.

An Interesting Way to List an R33 On Ebay : Replica

2010-01-05T12:40:00.001-08:00

I guess people will do whatever it takes to sling a car off on other people. Replica.

ICE Seizes $300,000 Cizeta V16 : Kaizo Related

2009-12-08T07:14:00.001-08:00

ICE agents seized a 1994 Cizeta V16 from Family Classic Car in San Juan Capistrano on Monday. According to the article in the Orange County Register, Family Classic car was surprised at the seizure, as the car was left after a car show that took place on Friday.

ICE said the Italian car is one of fewer than a dozen such vehicles produced by automotive engineer Claudio Zampoli in a joint venture with music composer Giorgio Moroder.

According to a news release, ICE investigators allege that Orange County resident Zampoli violated U.S. customs and environmental laws when he brought the car into the country in 2001.

In the affidavit filed in support of the seizure, Zampoli’s import agent stated on customs documents when the car was imported that it was worth $125,000, even though the car originally sold new for $600,000, ICE said.

ICE might have some wrong information according to Wikipedia. In 1991, the list price for a Cizeta-Moroder was an estimated €250,000 or US$300,000. Now the car is still in production (on demand), although again with a large price tag of $649,000, respectively $849,000 for the Spyder TTJ, exclusive of shipping, taxes and extras.

Family Classic Cars had a Kaizo R34 GT-R that they had registered and were offering for sale. This seizure seems to possibly be related to the Kaizo investigation.

“Make no mistake, the illegal importation of gray market vehicles like this is not just a technical violation,” said Miguel Unzueta, special agent in charge for the ICE Office of Investigations in Los Angeles. “Cars that don’t meet U.S. standards are outlawed for a reason. These vehicles can pose a real threat to public health and safety.”

Cars are not “outlawed”. In fact this vehicle would be eligible for a “Show or Display” exemption. This car has probably been driven/started less than a year old Prius. It poses no real threat to public health or safety. Most people that own this type of vehicle drive it very seldom, and it would put out less emissions than the fire you have burning in your fireplace. I would be interested to know how many miles or kilometers this car has on it since 1994. Just another case of ICE flexing its muscles at something minor and frivolous, wasting money.

Source : Orange County Register

GTR 13 Shirt : Public Enemy #1

2009-10-04T07:59:00.001-07:00

Check out the JDM Ego - Public Enemy GT-R Shirts. If you know, then you know. And even if you don't you should buy one. JDM Ego said they were going to start selling these soon. If you believe in GT-R's you should buy one.

For more on the story of why the GT-R is public enemy #1…click here.

Source : JDM Ego

The Kaizo Drama Thus Far

2009-10-03T13:47:00.001-07:00

This will be a summary of posts so far to bring people up to speed on the Kaizo drama. No charges have been filed by the DOJ(Department of Justice) against Kaizo or the owners of Kaizo. The DOJ and ICE(Immigration and Customs Enforcement) have been sending letters out to owners, and seizing vehicles – Guilty before proven innocent – thank you for due process. We appreciate it, big bad, Kevlar clad, gun toting agents, going after car owners with as dangerous things as a speeding ticket on their record. We appreciate the use of your budget in these times of 17% unemployment in California, and the inability of the California legislature to even keep the Department of Motor Vehicles open on Fridays.

We appreciate it, thanks for running everything so well. Thanks for going after the drugs, the terrorists, and dangerous illegal aliens. These 50 or so Kaizo cars, most around the $75,000 range, are a danger to everyone everywhere.

Some of the Kaizo owners have got together and retained the services of a customs attorney. There is strength in numbers, and anyone else that wants to be involved, help out, or has something to contribute, email me. tyndago@gmail.com

June 4,2009

ICE agents raid Kaizos office with guns drawn and Kevlar clad agents, they seize three vehicles, leave one vehicle, and take all computers and records from Kaizo. The first three cars seized included the blue “hero” car from Fast and Furious 4.

Seized

NOT Seized

Seized

A poster from an RX-7 forum posted up some information that he later asked me to take some specific references down. I altered what I had first posted, and he took his posts down from the forum. People getting a bit too “talky”.

... ICE said that pretty much the skylines from kaizo are contra band. They are taking a snippet of the law from one part, and another snippet of law from another part. (regarding chassis and smog/manufacturer liabilities). He did say they are not far off from doing it completely legit though... He asked if i knew anyone with a kaizo car, (dont worry i didnt rat you out :] ) but he said, that as long as you get your cali-smog expempt at the begining of each year, you are fine and there is nothing they can do against you. He also said tht AZ and FL are the only states that dont give a crap about such things and thats why they are so popular to have cars registered there.

July 2nd 2009

The initial government investigation against Kaizo was to check out charges of smuggling and violations of the Clean Air Act. The government always goes after the Clean Air Act. Everything is still in a holding pattern until any actual charges are filed. I also found out besides the "buggy" car that was not impounded(it had a VW engine in it), the black R34 had no driveline in it.

EPA Information

This section under "kit car policy".

The production, sale and importation of automotive bodies alone (i.e., no chassis, engine or transmission) are not regulated by EPA since such units are not considered "motor vehicles" under the Clean Air Act. EPA form 3520-1 is not required for imported automotive bodies. A motor vehicle from which the engine has been removed is still a motor vehicle and is not considered a body.

These regulations were written when most cars were body on frame, not “unibody” as most new cars are constructed. That is why they refer to the body, and the chassis as two separate parts.

DOT requirements.

A disassembled vehicle that is shipped without an engine and transmission is treated for importation purposes not as a motor vehicle, but instead as an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment items. Such an assemblage can lawfully be imported into the U.S., provided any equipment included in the assemblage that is subject to FMVSS, but was not originally manufactured to comply with that FMVSS or was not so certified by its original manufacturer, is removed from the assemblage prior to entry into the U.S. Equipment items that are subject to the FMVSS include tires, rims, brake hoses, brake fluid, seat belt assemblies, glazing materials, and lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

July 22, 2009

I spoke to a person today that informed me that they had a call from ICE on their vehicle. The ICE agent asked to come out and take photos of the vehicle. The person that received the call asked if the car was going to be seized, and the ICE agent said that it was not going to be seized. I advised him that he should speak to a lawyer before he allows anyone to come and investigate any of his property.

What I think that ICE wants to see is the body and the engine together. They are still investigating Kaizo, and looking to see if they supplied engines and bodies together.

All "public interest" legislation (and any distribution of money taken by force from some men for the unearned benefit of others) comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials. The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity, cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle.

-Ayn Rand

The law was made for one thing alone, for the exploitation of those who don't understand it, or are prevented by naked misery from obeying it.

-Bertolt Brecht

August 2, 2009

Some of Kaizos customers have been contacted by ICE, and agents have come out and photographed cars, and asked questions. Here is an excerpt of one of the agents visits to a Kaizo car.

How did you first hear about Kaizo? Do you have the "blue plate" (the one that the cars from Japan have with the VIN)? Did Daryl Alison discuss the legality of the "installation" (i said, "what installation". he said, "nevermind")? Did the car come with an engine? What is the primary use of this vehicle? Were you able to title it for road use? Were was the car previously titled? Did Daryl Alison provide to you a Japanese owners manual? Did Daryl Alison provide documents on the importation of the vehicle? Did Daryl Alison provide any original Japanese paperwork? He then proceeded to take detailed photos. Items of interest were head and tail light assemblies, side view mirrors, Kaizo serial numbers on firewall and door jam, speedo, odometer, and 3rd brake light. He was interested in the writing scribed on the lenses of all the exterior lights, and in obtaining a photo of the engine serial #.... which he was not able to do,

August 16, 2009

One Kaizo customer recently received a letter from the US Department of Justice about his vehicle. The letter is a little vague as it says “if my information is correct…” , this sounds like they are second guessing themselves. They then say that non-compliant vehicles are subject to seizure and forfeiture.

Then the letter states that the vehicle must be exported within 60 days of receipt of the letter. Based on the information we have, this vehicle was imported as parts, and reassembled by the owner here in the US. The US allows for vehicles to be imported into the US as parts, and there fore was not “illegally” imported as the US Department of Justice is implying.

September 3, 2009

Over at Supraforums someone posted this picture of two of Kaizos cars sitting at an impound yard near San Diego. The poster was told "they were going to crush them".

Charges have still not be brought against Kaizo, and in an interesting turn of events, these cars were not actually owned by Kaizo when they were seized. They were scheduled to be exported from the US . We are not going to disclose who the owner of these cars are, but it will probably come out in due time.

The blue R34 is the "hero" car from Fast and Furious 4, and the red car is a GTS with GTR fenders and an RB26. Its now after Labor Day, and still no charges in the Kaizo case. The government seems to be expending a lot of time and resources on these 50 or so cars and owners here in the US.

September 14, 2009

I had a call recently from someone that said the FBI was also in on this investigation. They had asked some information about some transactions. So now its FBI , ICE, DOT, EPA, CARB all on the chase of about 50 cars that were sold over the last three years. In that same amount of time, about 30,000,000 cars were sold new in the US. Way to use resources to chase after the dangerous car peddlers. The same guys that pay the taxes, and registration fees on the cars they put together here in the US.

Supraforums has an ongoing discussion on Kaizo here .

My latest post :

Quote:

Originally Posted by mignuts

Actually, from what they said, Kaizo was recognized in over 30 states as a manufacturer. The problem is that they never were an RI or ICI, so for them to even be bringing in these cars/parts was a bit questionable. Not even sure how Silvia's were starting to show up as well.

If you are a manufacturer, then you should not be an RI or an ICI. They are different things completely. They follow different rules and regulations on importing.

So if Kaizo was "recognized as a manufacturer" by a state, and states are the ones that deal with titling a car, then were they in the right ?

Importing auto parts is legal. Titling cars is legal. So is this not a state issue, not a federal issue now ? Up to the individual states, like marijuana laws in California ? Although Federally its not allowed, on a state level it is allowed with certain restrictions.

If Kaizo only sold rolling bodies less engine and transmission like say Rossion or Superperformance, then where are the differences ?

http://www.superformance.com/Faqs.aspx

" How complete is a Superformance roller?

Imagine a complete car – take out the engine and transmission (transaxle) and that is our replica. They are completely assembled and painted at our factory by experts that have produced over 2500 MKIII’s plus our other product lines. "

"How do I register my Superformance chassis?

Each state in the USA has different requirements and regulations with regards to the registration of your specially constructed vehicle. We highly recommend that you verify all requirements with your local DMV office.

SEMA has posted a list of state by state registration information : visit this link. SEMA SAN."

September 26,2009

While checking out my friend Carters Jung's book - Import Tuner , in the letters section was a letter and a few pictures of the Fast and Furious Kaizo R34 on a tow truck. They mentioned that they first thought it was the “stolen” GTS from North Hollywood from a while back. This is not that stolen car.

This is one of the cars that was seized at Kaizo. They mention in the article that the car was at Manheim Auto Auction in Oceanside. Since then a poster on Supraforums mentioned that they had seen the Kaizo cars being moved on a transporter. I wonder where they were being moved to ?

Still no charges, or other information in the Kaizo case yet.

Source : Import Tuner

September 30,2009

UPDATE . Two R34's and an R32 were seized today. My information says that they are not done seizing cars. If you have a car, I would be on the look out.

I was just informed that a Kaizo R34, an individual owners vehicle was seized this morning by ICE agents. The agents in full Kevlar served a seizure warrant to an owner in the LA area. I know the owner and the car. Again, they came to the owners residence, and seized the car from there. Details are sketchy right now, but as far as we know this is the first "owner" vehicle seized. Still no charges against Kaizo, but it seems like the government is seizing cars. The car in California was an SB100 car, so this could be one of the focuses.

SB100 is a specialty constructed vehicle exemption in California. It allows for up to 500 cars per year to be registered with no smog checks if the car is accepted as a 1960 or does not resemble any other vehicle.

Per California Vehicle Code §4750.1, the first 500 program applicants in each calendar year may choose whether the inspection is based on the model-year of the engine used in the vehicle or the vehicle model-year. If the engine or the vehicle does not sufficiently resemble one previously manufactured, the referee will assign 1960 as the model-year.

Its a good program for specialty vehicles. Cars that are driven very little, and mostly just used to go to shows.

580. A "specially constructed vehicle" is a vehicle which is built for private use, not for resale, and is not constructed by a licensed manufacturer or remanufacturer. A specially constructed vehicle may be built from (1) a kit; (2) new or used, or a combination of new and used, parts; or (3) a vehicle reported for dismantling, as required by Section 5500 or 11520, which, when reconstructed, does not resemble the original make of the vehicle dismantled. A specially constructed vehicle is not a vehicle which has been repaired or restored to its original design by replacing parts.

#1 SPCV can be a kit

#2 SPCV can be new or used parts (aka does not need to be a "kit")

#3 SPCV can be a vehicle reported for dismantling that does not resemble original car.

A SPCV can be any one of these three things. It does not need to meet all 3 requirements.

The last line is ambiguous and open to legal interpretation.

So does everyone that is reading this post feel safer now ? Do they feel better that a couple of vehicles have been taken off the road ? Are you going to help out, or stand on the sidelines and watch ? Are you going to get involved ?

Two R34's and R32 Seized in California : Kaizo Drama Increases : UPDATE

2009-09-30T09:54:00.001-07:00

UPDATE . Two R34's and an R32 were seized today. My information says that they are not done seizing cars. If you have a car, I would be on the look out.

I was just informed that a Kaizo R34, an individual owners vehicle was seized this morning by ICE agents. The agents in full Kevlar served a seizure warrant to an owner in the LA area. I know the owner and the car. Again, they came to the owners residence, and seized the car from there. Details are sketchy right now, but as far as we know this is the first "owner" vehicle sezied. Still no charges against Kaizo, but it seems like the government is seizing cars. The car in California was an SB100 car, so this could be one of the focuses.

SB100 is a specialty constructed vehicle exemption in California. It allows for 500 cars per year to be registered with no smog checks. Its a good program for specialty vehicles. Cars that are driven very little, and mostly just used to go to shows.

More Kaizo Information :

Kaizo Updates – July 2

Kaizo Updates – August 2

US DOJ Letter – 60 days to surrender or export

Kaizo cars sitting in storage yard

Kaizo R34 GT-R Pictures in Import Tuner

2009-09-26T08:06:00.001-07:00

Still no charges, or other information in the Kaizo case yet.

Source : Import Tuner

Nissan Skyline GT-R Legalization FAQ

ARB fines marketers of gasoline-powered blenders $240K

2009-09-16T14:53:00.001-07:00

ARB fines marketers of gasoline-powered blenders $240K Engines used to power appliances were not CA-certified

Sacramento – The Air Resources Board this month fined Orange County-based On the Edge Marketing and CSK Auto Inc. of Phoenix $240,000 for selling gasoline-powered blenders using illegal uncertified small off-road engines to California businesses and residents. Sales of these unauthorized blenders, popular for mixing beverages at tail-gate parties and other outdoor events, occurred in 2007. They feature “two-stroke” engines similar in size to those that power small chain saws, and require that oil be mixed in with the gas. These types of illegal uncertified engines from China can produce emissions 10 times as high as those of compliant certified engines approved for use in California. “Gasoline-powered blenders may be this year's tailgate sensation, but drinkers should not be polluting our air while having a good time,” said ARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. Both companies, which originally imported about 3,000 of these blenders from China, have been ordered to stop selling goods with non-certified small off-road engines, and to make payments to the California Air Pollution Control Fund, which supports projects and research to prevent air pollution. Non-certified gasoline engines can produce excess smog-forming emissions that can cause difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, coughs, heightened asthma rates, cardiopulmonary ailments and premature deaths. CSK Auto, Inc. owns and operates more than 1,300 retail auto parts stores in multiple states under the brand names Checker Auto Parts, Schuck's Auto Supply, and Murray's Discount Auto Stores. The company operates "Kragen Auto Parts" stores in California. CSK bills itself as the largest specialty auto parts and accessories retailer in the western U.S. On the Edge Marketing manufactures and imports a variety of niche items, including private label products.

Kaizo Updates : After Labor Day

2009-09-14T08:28:00.001-07:00

Its now after Labor Day, and still no charges in the Kaizo case. The government seems to be expending a lot of time and resources on these 50 or so cars and owners here in the US.

The Kaizo offices were raided on June 4, 2009. We will assume prior to ICE , DOT, EPA, and CARB raiding the office that there was some kind of investigation to even bring on the search warrants.

Supraforums has an ongoing discussion on Kaizo here .

My latest post :

Quote:

Originally Posted by mignuts

More Kaizo information

Update to Kaizo investigation

Whats going on with Kaizo ?

Two Kaizo R34’s sitting in storage yard.

Two Kaizo R34's sitting in a Storage Yard Near San Diego

2009-09-03T20:12:00.001-07:00

Over at Supraforums someone posted this picture of two of Kaizos cars sitting at an impound yard near San Diego. The poster was told "they were going to crush them".

The blue R34 is the "hero" car from Fast and Furious 4, and the red car is a GTS with GTR fenders and an RB26.

Illegal Non-California Certified Vehicles

2009-09-02T11:45:00.001-07:00

From the ARB website . This most has to do with NEW, US certified, that is 49 state type cars, with less than 7500 miles that are brought into California. This does not directly apply to “imported” or “grey” market vehicles, but it is an interesting read.

The primary focus of enforcement is to ensure that all new vehicles sold, offered for sale, or used in the state are certified for sale in California. Under California's regulations, a new vehicle (defined as a vehicle that has fewer than 7,500 odometer miles) which is not certified to California's standards may not be sold within or imported into the state. If such a vehicle enters California, a Notice of Violation (NOV) is issued. The NOV requires that the vehicle(s) be removed from California and that a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per vehicle as authorized under Health and Safety Code Section 43151 be assessed. See Wilmshurst vs. ARB for case law regarding this program.

Wilmshurst vs ARB follows.

68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 1
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
THE PEOPLE ex rel. STATE AIR RESOURCES
BOARD, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RICHARD E. WILMSHURST et al., Defendants and
Appellants.
No. C022579.
Court of Appeal, Third District, California.
Jan. 5, 1999.
[Opinion certified for partial publication. [FN*] ]
FN* Pursuant to California Rules of Court,
rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is
certified for publication with the exception
of parts I.B, I.C, II, III.E, IV, VI, VII, and
VIII of the Discussion.
SUMMARY
The Attorney General filed an action in the name of
the People on behalf of the State Air Resources
Board to recover civil penalties against a corporate
car dealership and its president for violations of art.
1.5 of the Health & Saf. Code (§ § 43150-43156),
based on sales of new cars not certified to comply
with California air emissions standards. The trial
court found that defendants were liable and imposed
total penalties of $45,000 on each defendant.
(Superior Court of Calaveras County, No. 18490,
Richard E. Tuttle, Judge. [FN†] ] )
FN† Retired judge of the Sacramento
Superior Court, assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that
the action was not barred by the statute of limitations.
Although Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (2), provides
a one-year limitations period for actions "upon a
statute for a forfeiture or penalty to the people of this
state," Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (k), provides a
three-year limitations period for an "action
commenced under Division 26 [commencing with §
39000 of the Health & Saf. Code]." The three-year
statute expressly applies to any action under div. 26.
The court also held that California's definition of a
new motor vehicle was not preempted by the federal
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.). The court
further held that the presumption in Health & Saf.
Code, § 43156 (California conclusively presumes
that vehicles with fewer than 7,500 odometer miles
are new), did not violate the commerce clause as an
impermissible burden on interstate commerce (U.S.
Const., art. I, § 8, subd. 3). The court held that the
definition of a new car under Health & Saf. Code, §
43156, was not arbitrary in its selection of 7,500
miles as the dividing line between categories of
vehicles. The court also held that the fact that
defendants sold individual cars that may have
satisfied the emissions standards enforced as *1333
part of the Department of Motor Vehicle's smog
check inspection program (ch. 5 of pt. 5 of div. 26
(Health & Saf. Code, § 44000 et seq.)), did not
entitle defendants to sell new vehicles that the State
Air Resources Board had not certified at the factory
for sale in California pursuant to ch. 2 of pt. 5 of div.
26 (Health & Saf. Code, § 43100 et seq.). The court
further held that the absence of evidence in the record
that the emission control equipment in defendants'
uncertified vehicles was different than the equipment
in certified vehicles did not prevent imposition of
penalties against defendants. The court held that the
president could be held individually liable and fined
for the violations along with his dealership, and that
the imposition of a $45,000 penalty on each
defendant ($5,000 per car) did not violate the
excessive fines clause of the federal Constitution
(U.S. Const., 8th Amend.) The court finally held that
it was not necessary to base the amount of the fine on
the degree to which the subject vehicles polluted the
air, rather than on defendants' ability to pay. (Opinion
by Davis, J., with Scotland, P. J., and Sims, J.,
concurring.)
HEADNOTES
Classified to California Digest of Official Reports
(1) Appellate Review § 109--Briefs--Argument and
Authority--Trial Court's Tentative Statement of
Decision.
A trial court's tentative statement of decision has no
relevance on appeal, and the appellate court may
accordingly disregard any argument based thereon.
(2) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--Sales
and Transfers--Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Action Against
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 2
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
Dealer to Recover Penalties for Violation--
Limitations:Limitation of Actions § 27-- Statutory
Liability.
An action by the Attorney General to recover civil
penalties against a car dealership for violations of art.
1.5 of the Health & Saf. Code (§ § 43150- 43156),
based on sales of new cars not certified to comply
with California air emissions standards, was not
barred by the statute of limitations. Although Code
Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (2), provides a one-year
limitations period for actions "upon a statute for a
forfeiture or penalty to the people of this state," Code
Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (k), provides a three-year
limitations period for an "action commenced under
Division 26 [commencing with § 39000 of the
Health & Saf. Code]." The three-year statute
expressly applies to any action under div. 26; no
reasonable basis existed for giving effect only to that
portion of the statute that creates a delayed accrual
rule for div. 26 *1334 actions. Even if the two
statutes were in conflict, it was proper to give effect
to the more specific statute that expressly applied to
div. 26 actions. It was unnecessary to decide if the
earlier-enacted one-year statute was repealed by
implication, since the Legislature expressly
recognized it was changing existing law in creating a
specific statute of limitations for actions maintained
for the enforcement of provisions on air pollution (4
Stats. 1990, Summary Dig., ch. 669, p. 236).
Moreover, extension of the limitations period did not
run afoul of the prohibition against retrospective
legislation.
[See 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1996)
Actions, § 450.]
(3) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--Sales
and Transfers--Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Federal
Preemption:Constitutional Law § 34--Preemption.
For purposes of recovering civil penalties for
violations of art. 1.5 of the Health & Saf. Code (§ §
43150-43156), based on sales of new cars not
certified to comply with California air emissions
standards, California's definition of a new motor
vehicle was not preempted by the federal Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.). Under the Clean Air
Act, enforcement of emissions standards for new
motor vehicles is the sole and exclusive prerogative
of the federal government, and a vehicle is new until
it is acquired by the first person who does not buy it
for the purpose of resale (42 U.S.C. § 7550(3), (5)).
By contrast, California law conclusively presumes
that vehicles with fewer than 7,500 odometer miles
are new (Health & Saf. Code, § 43156, subd. (a)).
California's efforts to enforce its emissions standards
on new motor vehicles by means of the Health & Saf.
Code, § 43156, presumption would involve
preemption only as to vehicles subject to the Clean
Air Act; that is, vehicles with less than 7,500 miles
never acquired for a use other than resale. However,
the Clean Air Act contains an express provision for
waiving federal preemption of California's emissions
standards (42 U.S.C. § 7543(b)). Since California is
authorized to apply its standards to new motor
vehicles, it does not matter that the state's definition
of new motor vehicles overlaps with the federal
statute.
(4) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--Sales
and Transfers--Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Commerce
Clause:Commerce § 3--State Regulation of Interstate
Commerce.
For purposes of recovering civil penalties for
violations of art. 1.5 of the Health & Saf. Code (§ §
43150-43156), *1335 based on sales of new cars not
certified to comply with California air emissions
standards, the presumption in Health & Saf. Code, §
43156 (California conclusively presumes for vehicles
with fewer than 7,500 odometer miles that the vehicle
is new), did not violate the commerce clause as an
impermissible burden on interstate commerce (U.S.
Const., art. I, § 8, subd. 3). Any limitation imposed
by the commerce clause on the power of a state to act
may be lifted by an expression of the unambiguous
intent of Congress, and the express provision for
waiving federal preemption of California's emissions
standards (42 U.S.C. § 7543(b)) demonstrated an
intent by Congress to grant California the broadest
possible discretion in adopting and enforcing
standards for the control of emission from new motor
vehicles. The history of the waiver provision
indicated that Congress intended the state to continue
and expand its pioneering efforts at adopting and
enforcing motor vehicle emission standards different
from and in large measure more advanced than the
corresponding federal program. This intent extended
to California's emissions program as a whole.
(5a, 5b) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--
Sales and Transfers-- Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Classification of
New Vehicles Based on Mileage--Equal
Protection:Constitutional Law § 95-- Equal
Protection.
For purposes of recovering civil penalties for
violations of art. 1.5 of the Health & Saf. Code (§ §
43150-43156), based on sales of new cars not
certified to comply with California air emissions
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 3
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
standards, the definition of a new car under Health &
Saf. Code, § 43156, was not arbitrary in its selection
of 7,500 miles as the dividing line between categories
of vehicles. California could not effectively enforce
its standards for emissions from new motor vehicles
without a mileage cutoff point that was sufficiently
high to discourage people from purchasing motor
vehicles out of state that were not subject to the
certification process, and driving them back to
California. Moreover, the large number of vehicles
registered in California rendered it impractical for the
Legislature to make allowances for individual cases.
The drawing of such a line is very largely a matter of
legislative discretion, the exercise of which will not
be invalidated by the courts unless abused.
(6) Constitutional Law § 85--Equal Protection--
Classification--Judicial Review--Presumption of
Constitutionality.
The enactments of *1336 the Legislature are imbued
with a presumption of constitutionality. In the
absence of a suspect classification or a restriction on
a fundamental interest, courts will sustain a statute's
classification if it bears a rational relationship to a
legitimate state purpose. A court may sustain a statute
if the court can conceive of any reasonable state of
facts that justifies the classification.
[See 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988)
Constitutional Law, § 601.]
(7) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--Sales
and Transfers--Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Classification of
New Vehicles Based on Mileage--Due Process--
Estoppel:Constitutional Law § 108--Due Process--
Notice.
In an action by the Attorney General to recover civil
penalties against a car dealership for violations of art.
1.5 of the Health & Saf. Code (§ § 43150- 43156),
based on sales of new cars not certified to comply
with California air emissions standards, placement of
the definition of a new car, which applied to used
motor vehicles with fewer than 7500 odometer miles
(Health & Saf. Code, § 43156), within a chapter
dealing with new motor vehicles did not result in a
denial of defendant's right to due process. The
intentional doing of an act expressly prohibited by
statute constitutes the offense denounced by the law
regardless of good motive or ignorance of the
criminal character of the act. Nor could defendant
premise its ignorance of the law on opinions
purportedly issued by the Legislative Counsel; it does
not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice to apply the true meaning of a
statute regardless of a defendant's claimed reliance on
mistaken opinions that do not have the weight of a
ruling of a court of law. Nor was the State Air
Resources Board estopped from penalizing
defendant. Estoppel ordinarily will not apply against
a governmental body except in unusual instances
when necessary to avoid grave injustice and when the
result will not defeat a strong public policy. The
state's strong public policy in protecting air quality
precluded application of estoppel in the present case.
More important, by rejecting the defense of a good
faith belief, the trial court's ruling necessarily
precluded any claim of reliance necessary for
estoppel.
(8) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--Sales
and Transfers--Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Versus Smog
Check Inspection.
In an action by the Attorney General to recover civil
penalties against a car dealership for violations of art.
1.5 of the Health & Saf. Code (§ § 43150- 43156),
based on sales *1337 of new cars not certified to
comply with California air emissions standards, the
fact that individual cars may have satisfied the
emissions standards enforced as part of the
Department of Motor Vehicle's smog check
inspection program (ch. 5 of pt. 5 of div. 26 (Health
& Saf. Code, § 44000 et seq.)), was not a defense, as
it did not entitle defendant to sell new vehicles that
the State Air Resources Board had not certified at the
factory for sale in California pursuant to ch. 2 of pt. 5
of div. 26 (Health & Saf. Code, § 43100 et seq.). The
standards for certification of cars for sale in
California are more exacting and test for a broader
range of pollutants than the standards for the smog
check program. Moreover, Health & Saf. Code, §
44015.5, explicitly precludes "any new motor vehicle
... which is not certified by the [Board]" from
receiving a smog check certificate.
(9) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--Sales
and Transfers--Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Evidence of
Emissions Violations.
In an action by the Attorney General to recover civil
penalties against a car dealership for violations of art.
1.5 of the Health & Saf. Code (§ § 43150- 43156),
based on sales of new cars not certified to comply
with California air emissions standards, the asserted
absence of evidence in the record that the emission
control equipment of defendant's uncertified vehicles
was different than the equipment in certified vehicles
did not prevent imposition of penalties against
defendant. Even if the claim were true, the vehicles
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 4
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
were nonetheless uncertified, and transacting in them
was therefore unlawful. There is an express
prohibition against transacting in vehicles not
certified pursuant to Health & Saf. Code, § § 43151-
43153, and the sheer magnitude of vehicles in
California means that courts should defer to the
Legislature's choice not to engage in case-specific
determinations of the adequacy of a particular
vehicle's emissions system. Moreover, Health & Saf.
Code, § § 43151-43153, prohibit transactions
involving vehicles lacking the required certification,
not vehicles that do not meet the standards that
underlie the certification.
(10) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--Sales
and Transfers--Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Liability of Both
Corporate Dealership and President:Corporations §
39--Directors, Officers, and Agents--Liability.
In an action by the Attorney General to recover civil
penalties against a corporate car dealership and its
president for violations of art. 1.5 of the Health &
Saf. Code (§ § 43150-43156), based on sales of new
cars not certified to comply with California air
emissions *1338 standards, the president could be
held individually liable and fined for the violations
along with his dealership. Each of the defendants had
independent legal existence; regardless of the fact
that the president might be the dealership, the trial
court did not find any basis to disregard the corporate
entity. Since both the corporate agent and the
corporation could be liable for the violations, then
each was required to suffer the consequences of the
violations.
(11a, 11b) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--
Sales and Transfers-- Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Violation--
Amount of Penalties--Eighth Amendment.
In an action by the Attorney General to recover civil
penalties against a corporate car dealership and its
president for violations of art. 1.5 of the Health &
Saf. Code (§ § 43150-43156), based on sales of new
cars not certified to comply with California air
emissions standards, the imposition of a $45,000
penalty on each defendant ($5,000 per car) did not
violate the excessive fines clause of the federal
Constitution (U.S. Const., 8th Amend.) In imposing a
fine, ability to pay becomes a critical factor. Thus, it
was defendants' ability to pay that was the
constitutional lodestar. The trial court found that both
defendants had the financial resources and ability to
pay the penalty of $5,000 per car. As a result, the fine
did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
(12) Forfeitures and Penalties § 1--Penalties--Fines-
-Eighth Amendment.
Application of the Eighth Amendment is not limited
to criminal prosecutions. The question is not whether
a fine is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is
punishment. Even assuming a fine serves some
remedial purpose, it will be considered punishment if
it also serves either retributive or deterrent purposes.
(13a, 13b) Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 18--
Sales and Transfers-- Statutory Requirements--Air
Emissions Standards--Certification--Violation--
Relationship of Penalties to Demonstrated Damages.
In an action by the Attorney General to recover civil
penalties against a corporate car dealership and its
president for violations of art. 1.5 of the Health &
Saf. Code (§ § 43150-43156), based on sales of new
cars not certified to comply with California air
emissions standards, it was not necessary to base the
amount of the fine on the degree to which the subject
vehicles polluted the air, rather than on deterrence as
measured by defendants' ability to pay. The
emissions from the vehicles was not the limit of the
damages defendants caused. They inconvenienced
the purchasers of the vehicles, they caused the
Department of Motor Vehicles to incur costs in
enforcing *1339 the certification requirement for
registration, and they caused the State Air Resources
Board to incur enforcement costs. Moreover, the
amount of penalty was related to the amount of profit
defendants realized in the wrongful transactions.
Having violated the Legislature's strategy for
minimizing the pollution effects of mobile sources in
interstate commerce, it was a sufficient basis for the
penalty that defendants be deterred from ever doing
so again. Thus, the trial court did not err in failing to
consider defendants' mitigating evidence of possibly
permissible emissions from the subject vehicles, and
as a result was entitled to award the maximum
penalty per violation.
(14) Forfeitures and Penalties § 1--Penalties--
Purpose.
In addition to disgorging illicit gains and obtaining
recompense, a civil penalty also has the purpose of
deterring future misconduct. Regulatory statutes
would have little deterrent effect if violators could be
penalized only where a plaintiff demonstrated
quantifiable damages. Further, a penalty statute
presupposes that its violation produces damages
beyond that which is compensable. The burden of
proving that actual damages are less than the
liquidated maximum provided in a penalty statute lies
with a defendant, and in the absence of evidence in
mitigation a court is free to assess the full amount.
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 5
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
COUNSEL
Richard E. Wilmshurst, in pro. per., for Defendant
and Appellant.
Pahl & Gosselin and Harold C. Wright for
Defendant and Appellant Forty-Niner Sierra
Resources, Inc.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Charles W.
Getz, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M.
Thalhammer, Deputy Attorney General; Kathleen C.
Walsh; and Kirk C. Oliver for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
DAVIS, J.
The Attorney General filed this action in September
1992 to recover civil penalties for violations of
division 26, part 5, chapter 2, article 1.5 of the Health
and Safety Code (§ § 43150-43156 [undesignated
section references will be to this code]), based on
transactions in 1990 and 1991 *1340 involving
vehicles not certified to California air emissions
standards. [FN1] The parties stipulated to the
pertinent facts. The superior court bifurcated the trial
into liability and penalty phases, which took place in
February and September 1995. It imposed total
penalties of $45,000 on each defendant. [FN2]
FN1 Pursuant to section 43154, actions to
recover civil penalties for transactions
prohibited by sections 43151-43153 are
brought by the Attorney General in the name
of the People on behalf of the State Air
Resources Board (Board); the Board itself is
not a proper party. (California Air
Resources Bd. v. Hart (1993) 21
Cal.App.4th 289, 300- 301 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d
153].) Although the Attorney General
properly alleged the present action was on
behalf of the Board, the Board was also
listed in the caption as an additional plaintiff
(and its attorney listed as cocounsel). We
have adjusted the caption accordingly by
striking the Board as a party.
FN2 The defendants are Forty-Niner Sierra
Resources, Inc. (49er), and Richard E.
Wilmshurst, its president and sole
stockholder. Defendant Wilmshurst has filed
his own appellate brief in propria persona.
Except where necessary for clarity, we shall
refer only generally to "defendants."
The defendants have raised 29 separately headed
contentions challenging the viability of this action,
several of the superior court's rulings during trial, the
rejection of their defenses, the failure of the superior
court judge to recuse himself between the trial
phases, the amount of the penalties, the award of
costs, the invalidity of a discovery sanction, and their
entitlement to attorney's fees if they prevail. In the
published portions of the discussion, we reject their
arguments regarding the statute of limitations, their
constitutional and other defenses to liability, and their
challenges to the fines assessed against them. We
reject the remainder of their contentions in the
unpublished portion of the opinion. We shall thus
affirm the judgment in all respects.
Facts
Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code (§ 39000
et seq.) is devoted to regulation of air quality. Part 5
of the division (§ 43000 et seq.) generally provides
for regulation of air pollution from vehicles. Chapter
2 of part 5 (§ 43100 et seq.) is devoted to new motor
vehicles. In article 1 of this chapter (§ § 43100-
43108), the Legislature has authorized the Board to
test and certify new motor vehicle models as
complying with emissions standards developed by
the Board. Article 1.5 of the chapter (§ 43150 et
seq.) prohibits all conceivable transactions involving
new motor vehicles which have not received the
Board's certification pursuant to the chapter. For
purposes of this article, it is "conclusively presumed"
a vehicle with fewer than 7,500 odometer miles is
"new." (§ 43156, subd. (a).)
Defendant 49er is a dealer in new motor vehicles
located in Calaveras County. It is a franchisee of
Subaru of America. At a 1990 dealer auction in
*1341 Utah, the defendants bought 50 or so 1990
Subaru Legacy vehicles which had previously been
owned by rental car companies. They transported
them to their place of business for resale to
consumers. Nine of these Legacies had fewer than
7,500 odometer miles at time of purchase or resale.
Although Subaru manufactured a model of the 1990
Legacy which the Board had certified as satisfying
emissions standards, none of these vehicles was a
California-certified model. Eight of the Legacies
were sold to California residents in 1990 and 1991. In
connection with these sales, the defendants
determined at their licensed in-house facility that
each vehicle satisfied the emissions test required as a
condition of registration by the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV). The defendants reported each sale
to the DMV as involving a "used" vehicle. The DMV
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 6
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
refused to issue registrations for the vehicles. Alerted
to these transactions, the Board brought the present
proceeding against the defendants.
Discussion
(1) We note at the outset that at numerous points in
their briefs the defendants premise their arguments on
citations to a tentative statement of decision by the
trial court. This document has no relevance on
appeal. (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997)
Judgment, § 9, pp. 546-547.) We accordingly
disregard any argument based thereon.
I. Challenges to maintaining this action
A. Statute of limitations
(2) The defendants assert a one-year statute of
limitations applied to their violations. As the last of
the transactions occurred in January 1991, they claim
the September 1992 action was untimely.
To summarize their several arguments, the statute
which expressly provides a three-year limitations
period for "[a]n action commenced under Division 26
[§ 39000 et seq.]" (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd.
(k)) [FN3] (1) should be interpreted as only creating a
delayed-accrual rule for these enforcement actions;
(2) is a "general" statute which is superseded by the
more "specific" statute which provides a one-year
limitations period for "[a]n action upon a statute for a
forfeiture or penalty to the people of this state" (Code
Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (2)); (3) cannot repeal the
earlier-enacted one-year statute "by implication"; (4)
cannot extend the one-year *1342 statute without
offending restrictions against retrospective
legislation; and (5) creates a limitations period which
is "unfair."
FN3 The statute also includes an accrual
provision: "These causes of action shall not
be deemed to have accrued until the
discovery ... of the facts constituting
grounds for commencing the action ...."
(Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (k).)
The first three claims involve errant interpretations
of the relationship between the two limitations
statutes. (1) The literal words of the three-year
limitations statute apply to any action brought under
division 26; no reasonable basis exists for giving
effect only to the portion of the statute which creates
a delayed-accrual rule for division 26 actions. (2) It is
the one-year limitations statute which generally
applies to all actions by the state for penalties or
forfeitures, while it is the three-year statute which
specifically applies to division 26 actions for
penalties or fines. Therefore, even if the two statutes
could possibly be considered in conflict, we would
give effect to the three-year statute. (Estate of
Kramme (1978) 20 Cal.3d 567, 576 [143 Cal.Rptr.
542, 573 P.2d 1369].) (3) The principle disfavoring
repeals by implication (People v. Leong Fook (1928)
206 Cal. 64, 70 [273 P. 779]) is irrelevant in this
context. The Legislature expressly recognized in
1990 that effective January 1, 1991, it was changing
existing law in creating a specific statute of
limitations for "actions maintained for the
enforcement of provisions on air pollution." (5 Stats.
1990, Summary Dig., ch. 669, p. 236.)
The remaining two arguments are equally
unavailing. The Legislature enacted the three-year
statute within one year of all of the defendants'
violations. This extension of the statute of limitations
consequently does not run afoul of any of the
prohibitions against retrospective legislation. (7
Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988)
Constitutional Law, § § 486, 494(a), pp. 675, 684-
685.) As for the claim three years is excessively long,
the defendants do not provide any authority for us to
disregard the measured judgment of our coordinate
branch of government in setting the limitations period
for enforcement of division 26 actions.
B. , C. [FN*]
FN* See footnote, ante, page 1332.
. . . . . . . . . . .
II. Trial rulings [FN*]
FN* See footnote, ante, page 1332.
. . . . . . . . . . .
III. Defenses to liability
A. Federal preemption
(3) Under the preemption provision of the federal
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.), "No State
... shall adopt or attempt to enforce any *1343
standard relating to the control of emissions from
new motor vehicles ... subject to this part. No State
shall require certification ... or any other approval
relating to the control of emissions from any new
motor vehicle ... as condition precedent to the initial
retail sale ... of such motor vehicle ...." (Id., §
7543(a).) Consequently, enforcement of emissions
standards for new motor vehicles is the sole and
exclusive prerogative of the federal government.
(Sims v. Fla. Dept. of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles
(11th Cir. 1989) 862 F.2d 1449, 1455.)
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 7
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
However, the Clean Air Act has no concern with the
regulation of vehicle emissions subsequent to the
initial sale. (Sims v. Fla Dept. of Hwy. Safety &
Motor Vehicles, supra, 862 F.2d at p. 1455, fn. 8.)
Moreover, the Clean Air Act contains an express
provision for waiving federal preemption of
California's emissions standards: "The Administrator
[of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)]
shall ... waive application of this section to any State
which has adopted standards ... for the control of
emissions from new motor vehicles ... prior to March
30, 1966, [FN7] if the State determines that the ...
standards will be ... at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable Federal standards."
(42 U.S.C. § 7543(b).) It is not disputed that
pursuant to this provision, the EPA has granted
California a waiver to allow it to enforce its own
emissions standards as a condition precedent to the
initial retail sale of new motor vehicles in this state.
FN7 "California is the only state which had
adopted emissions control standards (other
than crankcase emission standards) before
March 30, 1966. It is thus the only state
eligible for a waiver." (Motor and
Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. E.P.A. (D.C.
Cir. 1979) 627 F.2d 1095, 1100, fn. 1 [201
App.D.C. 109].)
Under the Clean Air Act, a motor vehicle is "new"
until it is acquired by the first person who does not
buy it for the purpose of resale (an "ultimate
purchaser"). (42 U.S.C. § 7550(3), (5).) By contrast,
California law (as previously noted) "conclusively"
presumes for vehicles with fewer than 7,500
odometer miles that the person acquiring the vehicle
does not have the status of ultimate purchaser
(regardless of the actual intent of the purchase). (§
43156, subd. (a).) [FN8]
FN8 Although not in issue and thus outside
the scope of this opinion, there is a similar
presumption for motor vehicles less than
two years old. (§ 43156, subd. (b).)
The defendants argue the California definition of a
new motor vehicle is incompatible with the federal
definition and is therefore preempted. However, they
have not established even a colorable preemption
claim. [FN9]
FN9 Because they are irrelevant to our
conclusions, we disregard the trial exhibits
which contain the opinions of administrative
and legislative officers on the issue of
preemption, and excerpts from the
legislative history of section 43156, all of
which play a part in the parties' arguments
on this issue. We also deny the request for
judicial notice of additional legislative
history materials.
The differing federal and state definitions create four
categories of motor vehicles: 1) a motor vehicle
never acquired by someone for a use other than
*1344 resale, with fewer than 7,500 miles; this would
be "new" for purposes of both federal and state law;
2) a motor vehicle never acquired by someone for a
use other than resale that nonetheless managed to
accumulate 7,500 miles; this would be "new" under
federal but not state law; 3) a motor vehicle which
someone acquired without the intent of resale, with
fewer than 7,500 miles; this would not be new for
federal purposes but is deemed new under state law;
[FN10] 4) a motor vehicle which someone acquired
without the intent of resale, with more than 7,500
odometer miles; this is not new under either federal
or state law.
FN10 As this is the category in which the
defendants' vehicles fall, it is arguably the
only category about which they have
standing to raise the issue of preemption.
It is only with respect to the first category that
California's efforts to enforce its emissions standards
on a "new" motor vehicle by means of the section
43156 presumption would involve preemption,
because those are the only motor vehicles which are
the subject of the Clean Air Act. However, the EPA
has waived federal preemption. The effort by the
defendants to posit a distinction between the
authority of the EPA to waive federal emissions
standards and its supposed lack of authority to waive
the federal definition of an ultimate purchaser is
irrelevant. The definition of a new motor vehicle has
no import outside the enforcement of emissions
standards. If California is authorized to apply its
standards to new motor vehicles, it does not matter
that the state's definition of new motor vehicles
overlaps with coverage of the federal statute.
The second category does not involve preemption
because these motor vehicles are not subject to state
regulation. The defendants seem to argue the
definition in section 43156 impermissibly exempts
these vehicles from coverage under the Clean Air
Act, but we cannot find any basis in law or logic for
this suggestion.
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 8
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
The final two categories also do not involve
preemption because the Clean Air Act, as noted, does
not itself apply after the initial sale of a vehicle. The
defendants do not provide any authority for inferring
a congressional intent to preempt all state regulation
of vehicle emissions after the initial sale. Therefore,
if California wishes to regulate these vehicles, there
is not any federal interest involved. [FN11] *1345
FN11 Entangled in the preemption argument
are complaints about a "conflict" between
the definition of "new" motor vehicles
created by section 43156 and the definition
of new motor vehicles in the general
provisions for division 26, which is identical
to the federal definition. (§ § 39042,
39055.5.) As the general definition apply
except where "the context requires
otherwise" (§ 39010), there is no conflict.
B. Commerce clause
(4) The defendants argue the presumption in section
43156 violates the commerce clause as an
impermissible burden on interstate commerce. (U.S.
Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3.) The short answer is that any
limitation imposed by the commerce clause on the
power of a state to act "may be lifted, as it has been
here, by an expression of the 'unambiguous intent' of
Congress." (New York v. United States (1992) 505
U.S. 144, 171 [112 S.Ct. 2408, 2426, 120 L.Ed.2d
120]; accord, Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe
(1982) 455 U.S. 130, 154 [102 S.Ct. 894, 910, 71
L.Ed.2d 21, 40].) The preemption waiver provisions
of 42 United States Code section 7543(b)
demonstrate an intent by Congress to grant California
the broadest possible discretion in adopting and
enforcing standards for the control of emission from
new motor vehicles. (Motor and Equipment Mfrs.
Ass'n, Inc. v. E.P.A., supra, 627 F.2d at p. 1128.)
"The history ... of the California waiver provision ...
indicates that Congress intended the State to continue
and expand its pioneering efforts at adopting and
enforcing motor vehicle emission standards different
from and in large measure more advanced than the
corresponding federal program ...." (Id. at pp. 1110-
1111, italics added.) This intent extends to
California's emissions program as a whole. (Id. at p.
1110.) In light of this express intent of Congress to
allow California to forge emissions standards at
variance with the rest of the United States, the
defendants do not have a tenable argument based on
the commerce clause.
C. Equal protection
(5a) Citing absolutely no authority, but using
language evocative of challenges based on the
constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the
law (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.), the defendants argue
section 43156 is arbitrary in its selection of 7,500
miles as the dividing line between categories of
vehicles because there is no technological basis for
that cutoff point. They conclude, "clearly the statute
has been applied in a random and capricious
manner."
(6) The enactments of our coordinate branch of
government are imbued with a presumption of
constitutionality. (8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law,
supra, Constitutional Law, § 601, p. 54.) In the
absence of a suspect classification or a restriction on
a fundamental interest, we will sustain a statute's
classification if it bears a rational relationship to a
legitimate state purpose. (Id., § 602, p. 56.) We may
sustain a statute if we can conceive of any reasonable
state of facts which justifies the classification.
(McGowan v. *1346 Maryland (1961) 366 U.S. 420,
426 [81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393, 399].)
(5b) As the Board correctly maintains, California
could not effectively enforce its standards for
emissions from new motor vehicles without a
mileage cutoff point that is sufficiently high to
discourage people from purchasing motor vehicles
out of state which are not subject to the certification
process and driving them back to California. It is
beside the point that a particular uncertified car might
nonetheless satisfy California standards; the sheer
number of vehicles registered in California renders
ludicrous any suggestion the Legislature must make
allowances for individual cases. As for the
defendants' claim there is nothing to distinguish cars
with 7,499 or 7,501 miles, it has been discredited for
almost half a century: "It is also urged that the statute
is unreasonable and discriminatory because under it
one who discharges an air contaminant only slightly
below the prescribed limit ... is exempt from the
prohibition even though if he continues his operation
long enough he will discharge more contaminant ...
than one who continues for only a short time .... But
the drawing of such a line is very largely a matter of
legislative discretion, the exercise of which will not
be reversed by the courts unless abused.... '[T]he line
must be drawn somewhere or there can be no
classification and the courts have recognized that if
the classification is reasonable in its over-all
operation it is not to be stricken down because of its
application to a particular case that may lie just inside
its borders.' " (People v. International Steel Corp.
(1951) 102 Cal.App.2d Supp. 935, 939- 940 [226
P.2d 587].)
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 9
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
D. Due process/estoppel
(7) Under a heading invoking the protections of due
process against fundamental unfairness, the
defendants argue the application of section 43156 to
used motor vehicles with fewer than 7,500 odometer
miles "is obscured by its placement within [a c]hapter
... dealing with new motor vehicles. There is no
reference to § 43156 in any statute, rule or regulation
dealing with used motor vehicles in either the Health
& Safety Code or the Vehicle Code." They therefore
claim the Board should be estopped from penalizing
them.
In essence, this argument amounts to putting the
wolf of ignorance of the law in the sheep's clothing of
notice. "The intentional doing of an act expressly
prohibited by statute constitutes the offense
denounced by the law regardless of good motive or
ignorance of the criminal character of the act."
(People v. Byers (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 140, 150 [153
Cal.Rptr. 249]; accord, 1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.
Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) Defenses, § 218, pp.
*1347 251-252.) That a particular defendant might
not have the research skills to find an applicable
statute has never been and never will be a valid
excuse for failing to comply with it. [FN12] Nor can
they premise their ignorance of the law on opinions
purportedly issued by the Legislative Counsel; it does
not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice to apply the true meaning of a
statute regardless of a defendant's claimed reliance on
mistaken opinions which do not have the weight of a
ruling of a court of law. (People v. Sobiek (1973) 30
Cal.App.3d 458, 476 [106 Cal.Rptr. 519, 82
A.L.R.3d 804].)
FN12 Although accessibility of the
definition is immaterial, we note the general
definition in division 26 of a "used" motor
vehicle is simply a negative, i.e., "any motor
vehicle which is not a new motor vehicle" (§
39058), so presumably it would be
incumbent upon one curious about the
regulation of emissions from used vehicles
(chapter 3 of part 5, commencing with
section 43600) to be concerned with the
provisions in chapter 2 regulating new motor
vehicles.
As for their claim of estoppel, "We previously have
recognized that this doctrine ordinarily will not apply
against a governmental body except in unusual
instances when necessary to avoid grave injustice and
when the result will not defeat a strong public
policy." (Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners
(1998) 17 Cal.4th 763, 793 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, 952
P.2d 641], italics added.) The state's strong public
policy in protecting air quality precludes application
of estoppel here. More importantly, by rejecting the
defense of a good faith belief, the trial court's ruling
necessarily precludes any claim of reliance necessary
for estoppel. (Ibid.) This argument consequently fails.
E. Good faith belief [FN*]
FN* See footnote, ante, page 1332.
. . . . . . . . . . .
F. Certification v. smog check
In chapter 2 of part 5 of division 26, the Board is
authorized to develop emissions standards for new
vehicles and procedures for certifying they meet
these standards. (§ § 43100-43108.) These include
surveillance during the assembly line process at the
factory. (§ § 43202, 43210.) Transactions involving
new motor vehicles which have not been certified
pursuant to this process are prohibited by sections
43150-43156.
In chapter 5 of part 5 of division 26 (§ 44000 et
seq.), the Legislature has provided for the biennial
inspection and maintenance of emission control
devices in all vehicles "powered by internal
combustion engines" (the *1348 "smog-check"
program), requiring all motor vehicles to obtain
certificates that their emissions are in compliance
with standards developed by the Board for this
chapter. (§ § 44011, 44013.) Vehicle Code sections
4000.1 and 4000.2 direct the DMV to enforce this
requirement by making a valid certificate of
compliance a condition of the registration of any
vehicle.
(8) Without any authority whatsoever, the
defendants argue these two programs for regulating
the emissions from motor vehicles should be
considered parallel regulatory schemes, so that motor
vehicles which the Board has not certified at the
factory for sale in California pursuant to chapter 2
can nonetheless be sold if they individually satisfy
the emissions standards enforced as part of the
DMV's inspection program in chapter 5. This premise
resurfaces some 20 pages later in one of their briefs
as part of a 2-sentence claim (again unsupported by
any authority) that sections 43150-43156 are
fundamentally unfair and thus violate due process
because they "conflict" with the smog-check
program.
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 10
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
As found by the superior court (and based on
substantial evidence at trial), the standards for
certification of cars for sale in California are more
exacting and test for a broader range of pollutants
than the standards for the smog-check program.
Moreover, as this is ultimately a question of
legislative intent, these arguments by the defendants
fatally founder upon section 44015.5, which
explicitly precludes "any new motor vehicle ... which
is not certified by the [Board]" from receiving a
smog-check certificate. The defendants' sole cogent
response to this statute is a claim its effective date is
subsequent to the events at issue and is therefore
irrelevant. The effective date of the statute does not
belie the import of the statute-the Legislature does
not consider the programs to be equivalent. We
therefore reject these claims on the merits. [FN13]
FN13 To the extent there lurks a renewal of
their "good faith" defense in these
arguments, it is foreclosed by the superior
court's conclusion they knew full well the
illegality of their acts.
G. Insufficient evidence of emissions violations
(9) The defendants claim there is no evidence in the
record that the emission control equipment of their
uncertified vehicles is any different than the
equipment in certified vehicles. Even if true (and the
Board points to evidence at trial disputing this claim),
the defendants do not apprehend the irrelevance of
this fortuity. The vehicles are nonetheless uncertified
and thus transacting in them is unlawful. The
defendants do not provide any authority permitting us
to gloss the express prohibition against transacting in
vehicles not "certified pursuant to this chapter" (§ §
43151-43153) by inferring a *1349 proviso "or which
have uncertified equipment which happens to
perform up to California air-emissions standards." As
we have stated earlier, the sheer magnitude of
vehicles in California means we should defer to the
Legislature's choice not to engage in case-specific
determinations of the adequacy of a particular
vehicle's emissions system.
The defendants reformulate this premise in a
different part of their brief, arguing there was no
evidence the subject vehicles emitted pollutants in
excess of California standards, and thus the Board
failed to prove what is in their view an essential
element of its cause of action. They base this claim
on an ipse dixit conception of California law being
standard based, in contrast to equipment-based
requirements of federal law. The argument fails
because sections 43151-43153 prohibit transactions
involving vehicles lacking the required certification,
not vehicles which do not meet the standards which
underlie the certification. We are not free to depart
from the express wording of the statutes. We thus
reject this argument.
IV. Disqualification motion [FN*]
FN* See footnote, ante, page 1332.
. . . . . . . . . . .
V. Challenges to assessed penalty
A. Fining both defendants individually
(10) In its statement of decision, the trial court
concluded defendant Wilmshurst could be held
individually liable for the violations along with
defendant 49er, his corporation. It cited People v.
Toomey (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1, 15 [203 Cal.Rptr.
642], as authority that corporate agents have
individual liability for their own actions even when
taken on behalf of the corporation, and that the
responsible managing agent of a corporation can have
individual liability for the violations of strict liability
"public welfare" regulations by others in furtherance
of the corporation's normal course of business.
(Accord, People v. Conway (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d
875, 885- 886 [117 Cal.Rptr. 251]; 1 Witkin &
Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law, supra, Introduction To
Crimes, § § 94, 95, pp. 109, 110.)
The defendants argue here that while Toomey may
be authority for finding both of them liable (accord,
People v. International Steel Corp., supra, 102
Cal.App.2d at pp. Supp. 937, 942 [evidence sufficient
to support liability of both president and corporation];
see United States v. Park (1975) 421 U.S. 658, 670
[95 S.Ct. 1903, 1910-1911, 44 L.Ed.2d 489, 499-500]
[discussing *1350 general principle under federal
purity laws that both agent and corporation can be
liable for criminal act]), it does not address the
separate issue of whether a court can fine both
defendants. They assert the exaction of a fine from
each of them amounts to a "double" punishment
which is "openly unconstitutional." They do not,
however, provide any authority which precludes
fining each of them. We decline to supply it. Each of
the defendants has independent legal existence;
regardless of the fact defendant Wilmshurst may "be"
defendant 49er, the trial court did not find any basis
to disregard the corporate entity. If both may be
liable for the violations, then each must suffer the
consequences of the violations.
B. Eighth Amendment
(11a) The defendants contend the amount of
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 11
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
penalties violates the excessive-fines clause of the
federal Constitution. (U.S. Const., 8th Amend.)
(12) In Austin v. United States (1993) 509 U.S. 602
[113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488], the Supreme
Court stated there was nothing in the history of the
Eighth Amendment which indicated its limitation to
criminal prosecutions. (Id. at p. 608 [113 S.Ct. at pp.
2804-2805].) "[T]he question is not ... whether [a
fine] ... is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is
punishment." (Id. at p. 610 [113 S.Ct. at p. 2806].)
Even assuming a fine serves some remedial purpose,
it will be considered punishment if it also serves
either retributive or deterrent purposes. (Id. at p. 621
[113 S.Ct. at p. 2812].)
(11b) Austin declined to articulate a test for
determining whether a fine is excessive. Although a
number of forfeiture cases have articulated a
multifactor analysis of proportionality to be followed
by a trial court (e.g., United States v. Bajakajian
(1998) 524 U.S. 321, ___ [118 S.Ct. 2028, 2036-
2038, 141 L.Ed.2d 314, 329-331]; U.S. v. Alexander
(8th Cir. 1994) 32 F.3d 1231, 1235-1237), the
constitutionality of a fine is determined by a simpler
test. "Proportionality is likely to be the most
important issue in a forfeiture case, since the
claimant-defendant is able to pay by forfeiting the
disputed asset. In imposing a fine, on the other hand,
ability to pay becomes a critical factor. But the
[Sentencing] Guidelines mandate that this factor be
considered ... and if the sentencing court complies
with these provisions, any constitutional ability-topay
limitation will necessarily be met." (U.S. v. Hines
(8th Cir. 1996) 88 F.3d 661, 664.) The defendants'
concern with the relationship between the amount of
the fines and nature of their offenses or the amounts
of fines imposed in other cases is consequently
irrelevant; it is their ability to pay which is the
constitutional lodestar.
Here, the trial court found both defendants had the
financial resources and ability to pay the per-car
penalty of $5,000. As a result, this fine did not violate
the Eighth Amendment. *1351
C. Failure to relate penalties to demonstrated
damages
(13a) In a variation on their earlier theme, the
defendants argue the amount of the fine must be
based on the degree to which the subject vehicles
polluted the air, rather than deterrence (as measured
by their ability to pay). Claiming there was no
evidence any of the vehicles had emissions in excess
of those tolerated under the law, the defendants argue
the Board is not entitled to any penalty assessment.
(14) In addition to disgorging illicit gains and
obtaining recompense, a civil penalty also has the
purpose of deterring future misconduct. (State of
California v. City & County of San Francisco (1979)
94 Cal.App.3d 522, 531 [156 Cal.Rptr. 542]; People
v. Bestline Products, Inc. (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 879,
924 [132 Cal.Rptr. 767].) Regulatory statutes would
have little deterrent effect if violators could be
penalized only where a plaintiff demonstrated
quantifiable damages. (State of California v. City &
County of San Francisco, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d at p.
531.) Further, "A penalty statute presupposes that its
violation produces damages beyond that which is
compensable." (Ibid., italics added.) The burden of
proving that actual damages are less than the
liquidated maximum provided in a penalty statute lies
with a defendant, and in the absence of evidence in
mitigation a court is free to assess the full amount.
(Id. at pp. 531-532.)
(13b) The defendants appear to believe that simply
because they were prepared to demonstrate that their
uncertified vehicles might not emit pollution in
excess of California standards, this would have been
sufficient evidence that the actual damage from
transacting in uncertified vehicles is negligible. This
is not the limit of the damages they have caused,
however. They inconvenienced the purchasers of the
vehicles; they caused the DMV to incur costs in
enforcing the certification requirement for
registration; and they have caused the Board to incur
no end of enforcement costs. All these are damages
borne by the taxpaying citizens of this state as a
result of the defendants' decision to flout the
proscriptions of the Health and Safety Code. The
defendants also ignore the extent to which the
amount of penalty relates to the amount of profit they
realized in the wrongful transactions.
Their argument that damage must be paramount to
deterrence in penalty setting once again raises the
untenable spectre of forcing the Board in every
individual case to prove the amount of emissions
stemming from a particular vehicle, an enforcement
scheme the Legislature has eschewed. Having
violated the Legislature's carefully crafted strategy
for minimizing the pollution effects of mobile
sources in interstate commerce, it is a sufficient basis
for the penalty that they be deterred from ever doing
so again. Thus, the court *1352 did not err in failing
to consider the defendants' mitigating evidence of
possibly permissible emissions from the subject
vehicles, and as a result was entitled to award the
68 Cal.App.4th 1332 Page 12
68 Cal.App.4th 1332, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 221, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 139, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 193
(Cite as: 68 Cal.App.4th 1332)
Copr. © Bancroft-Whitney and West Group 1998
maximum penalty per violation.
VI. -VIII. [FN*]
FN* See footnote, ante, page 1332.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
Scotland, P. J., and Sims, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 1,
1999, and appellants' petition for review by the
Supreme Court was denied April 14, 1999. *1353
Cal.App.3.Dist.,1999.
People ex rel. State Air Resources Bd. v. Wilmshurst
END OF DOCUMENT

Noble M12 GTO-3R

2009-09-02T11:26:00.001-07:00

Not a new magazine article, however it is interesting, and may hold some points for some people. 1 G is now Rossion Cars.

International automotive experts have called it, "The ultimate driver's machine." It has been described as "wild, yet civilized," and it has been said that the Noble M12 GTO-3R "offers pure, raw racing performance."

Its supposed to be a great car to drive. There are a few of them around in the US.

Built by Noble Moy Automotive and sold as rolling chassis or turnkey-minus in America, exclusively by 1G Racing, the Noble M12 GTO-3R is pre-assembled at Hi-Tech Autos in South Africa.

The Noble came to the US as a rolling chassis.

The Noble M12 is shipped to 1G Racing the same way it is shipped to Noble UK--assembled without engine and transmission. The cars will be sold in limited quantities as a component rolling chassis only, making this, not a kit car per se, but a nearly complete component car, ready to accept the buyer's drivetrain (engine/transaxle).

Shipped assembled, without an engine and transmission. A complete component car. Rossion cars still gets chassis built in South Africa, and ships them to the US less engine and transmission. It is up to the individual buyer to purchase and install an engine and transmission. Rossion Manufacturing.

No airbag there. And not only that, but FAKE carbon fiber. They need a real carbon fiber steering wheel.

Source : Kit Car Magazine

US Attorney Thomas O'Brien stepping down

2009-08-20T09:42:00.001-07:00

Recently there was a letter from the US Attorneys Office to some Kaizo owners about 60 days to export or surrender their vehicle, written by Thomas O’Brien. It seems he is going into private practice. I wonder how much an hour he wants to give some advice against his old job. He is joining the Paul Hastings law firm.

LOS ANGELES—U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien, who has overseen a number of high-profile cases as head prosecutor for the Central District of California, is stepping down to go into private legal practice in Los Angeles.

The U.S. attorney's office said Monday that O'Brien will join the Paul Hastings law firm on Sept. 1.

O'Brien led the prosecution of Missouri mother Lori Drew in the MySpace cyberbullying case. He also oversaw a grand jury investigation of alleged molestation by priests in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

O'Brien was nominated in 2007 by former President George W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate that October.

Source : Boston.com

Arizona Revoked Motor Vehicle Title Hearing Decision

2009-08-19T22:40:00.001-07:00

A fax copy of Arizona : Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Decision and Order . Something we found out when we were doing research. We edited out the names of the title claimant , and vehicle numbers. The owner had their title canceled by the Arizona Department of Transportation. After review the title was re-instated.

US Department of Justice Letter : 60 Days to Export or Surrender.

2009-08-16T15:19:00.001-07:00

Then the letter states that the vehicle must be exported within 60 days of receipt of the letter. We had a conference call with a few key people yesterday to start talking about organizing. If you want to try and be a part of this, please contact me at tyndago at gmail.com . Based on the information we have, this vehicle was imported as parts, and reassembled by the owner here in the US. The US allows for vehicles to be imported into the US as parts, and there fore was not “illegally” imported as the US Department of Justice is implying.

Guidelines for Entry of Partially Dismantled Vehicles - Australia

2009-08-13T22:08:00.001-07:00

Australian requirements for the entry of partially dismantled vehicles. I thought this was interesting as I was looking it up based on requirements to ship a damaged vehicle to a customer in Australia.

As a result, there is a need to clarify the point at which a disassembled vehicle ceases, for Customs Tariff purposes, to be considered as a complete vehicle but rather is considered as parts for a vehicle. Parts do not require an import approval from the Department of Transport and Regional Services.

The following tariff precedents have been created to clarify this issue and to provide uniformity of information to importers and brokers to assist them in complying with entry of goods under the Customs Act 1901 (Customs Act):

Precedent No. 15439800 relates to bodies for passenger motor vehicles for the purposes of subheading 8707.10.91. For these goods to be considered as parts they must be imported with at least the engine, transmission and all wheels and axles removed and these components must not be shipped on the same vessel; and

Engine transmission axles, and wheels removed, and a motor vehicle is considered parts in Australia, and you don't need import approval to import it. Nothing about titling or registration here, just the actual importing though customs, and the duties that have to be paid. 8707.10.91 mentions the duties.

Kit Car Discussion from 2006 on Freshalloy Forum

2009-08-11T07:59:00.001-07:00

About 3 years ago, we had a discussion with several people, including Detective Hsu that handled much of the Motorex investigation on the Freshalloy Forum. I have been posting on Freshalloy, originally as Motorex, then as tyndago since 1999/2000.

Yes thats a twin turbocharged LS1 powered R34 from Australia.

If you search the forum for information on importing, you will probably find, about every month, someone will come on their with an “idea” of how to import cars to the US. About every single month, a new “idea”. Actually the same idea over and over. Sometimes a little twist here and there, but mostly the same. I care about the consumer. I care about the guys that are buying cars. I want them to be fully informed in exactly what they are buying. After I left Motorex, and there was no more VCP-17, I did not care as much about tracking down these guys.

Read my first post carefully. Understand what I am saying.

Specialty constructed vehicles. I had a chance to look at some specialty constructed vehicles. "Based on" R33 and R34.
Interesting operation. Seems to follow the laws to a T. Nobles and Cobras are brought in as specialty constructed cars, why not GT-R's.
Now the only "legit" ways have been shut down, people will find other ways. This way is as close as I see to being correct.

Then I had this to respond to one guy saying I was doing a disservice to people in saying they were “as close as I see to being correct.” Understand what I am saying there. I pick my words fairly carefully.

Trust me, I am normally the one in your shoes. I have seen and read the rules and regulations. I have done it through the RI channel since 1999.
Ever see a Noble ? How about a Cobra Kit car ?
The Nobles have an engine that was never a certified US engine. Not in a twin turbo configuration.
The kit car thing is such a gray area. Its reading into it as much as you want to read into it.
Ie parts. Any parts are an approximate disassembled vehicle. In the example... the kit car manufacturer DOES NOT provide the engine/transmission - you buy it from somewhere else. #2
Car parts are not considered - Motor Vehicles. #5 no longer applies, as a chassis is no longer a motor vehicle. See how it can go around and around.
" "2" above; an individual or firm that assembles kits for hire or resale, that produces assembled kit cars for resale or that produces complete kit car packages for resale"
If you build it yourself, no matter what configuration it has, you don't need to meet EPA requirements. You can't build a car for someone else. You can't hire someone to build the complete car for you.
The laws and regulations are in place, doing it though all the RI/Import regulations is no longer possible. Lets exploit the open channels. People want cars, this way is open.
As long as its done, the way that one guy is doing it. If you buy a car, have it disassembled, import it, import the engine from it, and reassemble it, then thats going around the Clean Air Act. If you buy a certified chassis, and then go from there, its not illegal by what I read.

Head on over to the FA forum to check out the full post. There is a bit of back and forth both ways. Again this is from 3 years ago. This is not a new discussion. This is not a new thing.

Source : Freshalloy Forums

Importation and Legalization of Automobiles to the United States.

2009-08-08T14:09:00.001-07:00

This was written several years ago. Before there was a US Department of Homeland Security.

There is too much misinformation out on the internet about the importation and legalization process . The process requires the satisfaction of several government agencies . The government agencies concerned are :

NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) or DOT (Department of Transportation)
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
Customs Service.( Part of Homeland Security now)
CARB ( California Air Resources Board) if you are in California.
Local Department of Motor Vehicles.

It is a little difficult to transfer several years of knowledge and experience into a few lines of information. The truest way to learn the information is though doing it and from reading the Code of Federal Regulations , along with the local laws and information.

1)My state doesn't have emissions testing , so is it any cheaper to legalize my vehicle ?

No , its not any cheaper as the vehicle , and every vehicle when first sold new must meet Federal Emissions Standards from the EPA . If your state does not have emissions standards , that does not mean you , or your state does not meet them . It merely means there is no in use testing. Federal emissions standards are FTP testing. It is run on a dyno from a cold start . Though an 11 mile drive cycle. All of the emissions from a vehicle are tested , and the vehicle must meet certain criteria for the year it was produced . Vehicles over 21 years old are EPA exempt.

2) I want to bring in a Toyota Supra from Japan ( or any vehicle not produced for the US market) , I have seen people have them here already , why do you say I can't have the car ?

"All eligibility numbers are for left-hand drive motor vehicles except where right-hand drive (RHD) is identified after the model. While there is no specific restriction on importing a right-hand drive vehicle, an eligibility number based on a substantially similar U.S.- certified motor vehicle may not apply. Our experience has shown that the safety performance of right-hand drive vehicles is not necessarily the same as that of apparently similar left-hand drive vehicles offered for sale in this country. However, we will consider them "substantially similar" if the manufacturer advises us that the right-hand drive vehicle would perform the same as the certified left-hand drive vehicle in crash tests. If the vehicle is not substantially similar to one sold in the U.S., the RI would have to demonstrate that the vehicle, when modified, would comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which could involve crash testing several vehicles. " from the DOT website.

3) What is FTP, or federal emissions testing ?

Federal Test Procedure, or FTP means the test procedure as described in Sec. 86.130-00 (a) through (d) and (f) which is designed to measure urban driving tail pipe exhaust emissions and evaporative emissions over the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule as described in appendix I to this part.

R33 GT-R doing FTP Testing

4) What is the DOT ?

Department of Transportation . For importation and legalization, we are concerned with the NHTSA . National Highway Transportation Safety Administration . OVSC . Office of Vehicle Safety and Compliance. They can be reached at (202)366-5291

5) What is FMVSS ?

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Read more about the FMVSS . FMVSS Booklet

6) What is the EPA ?

Environmental Protection Agency. Read more about the EPA

7) What is CARB ?

California Air Resources Board. The ARB is California's environmental protection agency. They are above and beyond the EPA in California. Read more about the ARB.

8) What does the customs service do ?

http://www.customs.gov/

9)What is an HS-7, DOT import form ?

It is the DOT form required to import a vehicle.

10) What is a 3520 -1, EPA import form ?

Its the EPA form required to import a motor vehicle. 3520-1

11) What is Show or Display exemption ?

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/ShowDisplay/

12) I want to import a race car how do I do it ?

There are two ways to import a race car .

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/Racing/Index.html


Altia Super Taikyu R34 GT-R - Race Car Exemption

13) I want to do the work myself , why can't I ?

Registered importers are supposed to perform all modifications as the modifications are covered by safety recall insurance . If the RI did not perform the modifications there is no way for them to ensure the modifications are done correctly.

14) Why do you care if I import a car and sell it ?

If this guy sells it to someone , without the person fully knowing about the car they may have some problems .

The only person that has something actually to lose is the guy that buys this car . If I can use some of my knowledge about this , to possibly help someone out , then I will .

Does anyone remember the call I got from the guy with a Skyline in Canada . Someone had told him that he could import the car to Canada . Then drive it for a year before he had to legalize it . Have to tell him that there is really not much I could do for him . I gave him his options . He didn't think he was doing anything wrong . But hes the guy that gets screwed.

15) What do you know about the petition process for vehicles at the DOT ?

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2003-16031

You will see two 87 page documents from me for the LHD Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VII and VIII . The first few pages are the actual work . The rest of the pages are substantiating documentation from Mitsubishi press releases , and service manuals.It took me about a month to do the Mitsubishi petition . Get the paperwork and information together . Do the research , etc .

In February , 2003 I flew over to the DOT in Washington , DC and dropped off my petition . At first I bundled the VII and VIII together as they are on the same chassis CT9A . The DOT did not like this , and I had to go and split it into two petitions .

It took about 2 months for them to decide they wanted to see it different . Then took several more months before they published the VIII petition in the Federal Register . Another month to publish the VII petition . Comments from Mitsubishi on the VII delayed the closing of the petition a week. There are comments from Mitsubishi on the VII petition also.The week after Mitsubishis comments I called the DOT to find out if they wanted me to formally comment on Mitsubishis comments , and they told me to stand by. Its been about 3 weeks now , and I am standing by. In all its been 11 months since I started the project .11 months. Sure in that time , everyone in the DOT has changed , some rules have changed .

In the end, Mitsubishi kept making challenges, and we kept responding. Their final challenge that really took the sails out of the project was the claim that the side impact structure of the European car, and the US car were different. We were set to X-Ray the side of the car, but the money ran out, and the project was shelved.

16) I hear 1996 and up cars need OBD -II . What is OBD -II ? Do cars made for other countries have it ?

http://www.obdiicsu.com/ No system was required by other countries until recently .

17) What about converting my car to run on propane, or other cleaner fuel ?

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/aftermkt.htm#altfuel

Alternative Fuel Certified Retrofit Systems Under current California regulations, conversion of emission-controlled vehicles with retrofit systems to operate on alternative fuels, such as propane and natural gas, in lieu of the original gasoline or diesel fuel is only allowed if the retrofit systems have been evaluated and certified by the Air Resources Board. The certification must be obtained by the manufacturer of the retrofit system and is issued by the Air Resources Board once the manufacturer demonstrates compliance with the emission, warranty, and durability requirements. View a list of certified retrofit systems for 1994 and newer model-year vehicles. (Word97 - 56K) or (Acrobat - 110K)

18) Kit cars. I want to take a car apart and import it as a kit car. Is this legal ?

Motor vehicles" must comply with the Clean Air Act and may not be disassembled nor purchased in a disassembled form for the purposes of evading the Clean Air Act or the Imports regulations. In these situations the kit car body/chassis combination must be certified by the manufacturer, must be in a configuration which was previously certified by EPA subject to the guidelines discussed at "2" above or, in the case of an importation, an EPA form 3520-1 must be filed at the port of entry and the vehicle imported by an eligible ICI who must ensure that the kit car body/chassis complies with all applicable emission requirements. At the present time, there are no ICIs eligible to import kit cars.

19) I hear the military are allowed to import cars to the US?

This is another untrue rumor spread by the internet. The military will move a members vehicle free of charge on a PCS (permanent change of station) move. HOWEVER, the vehicle has to be on the list of approved vehicles prior to the military allowing the move. Its always a friend, of a buddy, knew a guy, that did it. The military will not help you import your non-complying car.

Websites

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash test results -- http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ratings.htm

Crash test data - Edmunds / NHTSA - http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/crashtestdata/

NCAP Offset Crash test results - http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/mpaine/ncaplist.html

Code of Federal Regulations - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

Emissions Information - http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/40cfr86_02.htm

Kit car titling in Illinois - http://rawilson.net/cobra/title.html

Nissan Skyline – Fully Legal for $3000

2009-08-08T13:15:00.001-07:00

Here are some caution words. Found this over at Zilvia forums. I don’t have too much of a problem with the car, I have a problem with the words the seller uses - “fully legal”,and only for $3000. That is simply not possible. This person can maybe get a title for this car in some state for $3000 , but the car is not “fully legal”. Possessing something, does not make it legal.

This state titling thing seems to be confusing to most people. They assume that because they are titling a car, its legal.

If this car was imported as a complete car, and they bypassed Customs, DOT-NHTSA , EPA regulations, then the car may have been able to be titled, but its not legal. Offering the service to “legalize” and title the car as a Nissan Skyline is just not legal.

With all the current goings on with the Kaizo investigations, and New Jersey investigations, maybe these guys aren’t that smart. Probably not. There was even this R32 GT-R in Texas from a while ago that was seized by Homeland security.

The car they are selling is a GTS R32. Maybe a $2000 car in Japan. Shipping, and getting a title for it costs, but its still just a GTS. You would be better off with at US legal 240 for that kind of money. No matter what you do, this thing is still a GTS.

Nissan Skyline GT-R’s for Sale

2009-08-04T21:16:00.001-07:00

We always are watching eBay auctions, looking at the cars that come up for sale. Here are a couple of interesting ones. The first car is a US DOT, EPA, and California legal R32. The next is an R34 from Canada, that someone managed to get some paperwork on.

For a US and California R32 GT-R, the Buy it Now price on this car is about right. In the $40,000 range. This car can be driven and registered in any state. No state legal, or parts car here with this R32 GT-R.

Its always humorous to me, how people assume when they are able to get a title or register a car that everything is ok. Canada allows cars over 15 years old, and this R34, well they started in 1999. Not yet 15 years old. So how do you get it registered ? VIN Swap ? Friends in the right places ? Guess we won't find out. At 105k though, this guy is way out there on a price for a not legal R34. If the car were closer to say $35k, it might be around correct.

So as always, buyer beware. Know what you are buying. Real cars have real paperwork.

Whats Going On With Kaizo ?

2009-08-02T18:33:00.001-07:00

Lots of people out there are wondering what's going on with Kaizo. As always, there is as much bad information, as good information. People misread, or take half truths and spin them into whatever they want to say. As we wrote earlier, federal agents searched and seized three vehicles, and records from Kaizo’s offices. Yesterday we spoke with Daryl Alison of Kaizo. He informed us that his lawyers have advised him not to speak with anyone about the on going investigation. There have not been any charges filed and the case is sealed.

Some of Kaizos customers have been contacted by ICE, and agents have come out and photographed cars, and asked questions. Here is an excerpt of one of the agents visits to a Kaizo car.

How did you first hear about Kaizo? Do you have the "blue plate" (the one that the cars from Japan have with the VIN)? Did Daryl Alison discuss the legality of the "installation" (i said, "what installation". he said, "nevermind")? Did the car come with an engine? What is the primary use of this vehicle? Were you able to title it for road use? Were was the car previously titled? Did Daryl Alison provide to you a Japanese owners manual? Did Daryl Alison provide documents on the importation of the vehicle? Did Daryl Alison provide any original Japanese paperwork?
He then proceeded to take detailed photos. Items of interest were head and tail light assemblies, side view mirrors, Kaizo serial numbers on firewall and door jam, speedo, odometer, and 3rd brake light.
He was interested in the writing scribed on the lenses of all the exterior lights, and in obtaining a photo of the engine serial #.... which he was not able to do,

We have been talking to many other owners of imported cars. In New Jersey a few owners have received letters asking for inspections of their vehicles. Some owners are talking about organizing, and coming together to really look at the convoluted laws . There is already a grassroots organization going on behind the scenes. The government treats imported parts as contraband, however they make it clear in the rules that its not illegal to import vehicle parts.

EPA requirements Engines

B. (2) Engine not in Vehicle or Chassis
EPA regulates the entire vehicle, not individual parts, for cars, light trucks, and motorcycles. If an engine is not installed, and is to be used in a car, motorcycle, or light truck, it may be imported as an automotive part. No approval or Customs bond is required by EPA. Importers should be aware, however, that replacement of an engine in a U.S. version vehicle with an engine of a different type or model year which is not currently covered by an EPA certificate or will be covered by an EPA certificate prior to introduction into commerce may violate EPA regulations.

This is regards to the import of engines alone.

Now heres some conflicting information, also on the EPA's website. This section under "kit car policy".

The production, sale and importation of automotive bodies alone (i.e., no chassis, engine or transmission) are not regulated by EPA since such units are not considered "motor vehicles" under the Clean Air Act. EPA form 3520-1 is not required for imported automotive bodies. A motor vehicle from which the engine has been removed is still a motor vehicle and is not considered a body.

No engine and no transmission is significant in accordance with DOT requirements.

A disassembled vehicle that is shipped without an engine and transmission is treated for importation purposes not as a motor vehicle, but instead as an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment items. Such an assemblage can lawfully be imported into the U.S., provided any equipment included in the assemblage that is subject to FMVSS, but was not originally manufactured to comply with that FMVSS or was not so certified by its original manufacturer, is removed from the assemblage prior to entry into the U.S. Equipment items that are subject to the FMVSS include tires, rims, brake hoses, brake fluid, seat belt assemblies, glazing materials, and lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.

That is direct from the DOT website. So as far as importing car parts, or a disassembled vehicle to the US, its legal as long as the parts aren't anything that is covered by FMVSS.

Update to ICE , DOT, EPA Investigation on Kaizo

2009-07-22T10:07:00.001-07:00

What I think that ICE wants to see is the body and the engine together. They are still investigating Kaizo, and looking to see if they supplied engines and bodies together. If anyone else gets any calls – please email me to tell me what was said. tyndago@gmail.com . I want to stay on top of this, and see where its going.

All "public interest" legislation (and any distribution of money taken by force from some men for the unearned benefit of others) comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials. The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity, cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle.

-Ayn Rand

The law was made for one thing alone, for the exploitation of those who don't understand it, or are prevented by naked misery from obeying it.

-Bertolt Brecht

Letter From New Jersey DMV Requesting Vehicle Inspection on Nissan Skyline

2009-07-15T11:25:00.001-07:00

I posted up a few days ago, that I had heard that someone with a Nissan Skyline that did NOT come in though Motorex got a letter from the DMV. The former owner of the vehicle, he had since sold it, called the NJ DMV for clarification. His story follows.

First I spoke to the "Vehicle Title Stop" Department. They are responsible for looking into possible title fraud for such things as illegal VIN swaps, stolen vehicles that slipped through the cracks, wrecked vehicles that should have a salvage status and are currently on the road, and vehicles that NJ feels are unsafe for operation on NJ roads. After being on hold for 10 minutes they transfer me to the investigator handling my title. At first he was very vague in why I received the letter. He initially explained that, like the letter states, my vehicles title has been revoked and my registration has been suspended. After I explained that the car was sold about 5-6 months ago he asked who it was sold to. All I told him was some guy in NY. I asked if there was a problem with the sale paperwork as NJ is very big on collecting the proper sales tax. He went to on ask why the car only has an 11 digit VIN. I responded that the vehicle was imported from Japan a number of years ago and that DMV has documentation of the VIN plate and the etching from the VIN on the firewall. He then asked if I had the car upgraded to meet State and Federal Emissions and Safety standards. I responded that the vehicle had 2-3 prior owners before I purchased it and that it was titled, registered and insured at the time I purchased it. "Is the steering wheel still on the right side of the vehicle?", I responded, "Yes". Then he asked if I supplied the buyer with the proper bond releases and I advised him that the only documentation I received was the title and copy of the registration which was all given to NJ DMV when I transferred the title and registered it in my name. Then he started to open up a bit. He stated, and I quote, "There have been an abundance of imported vehicles in the state of NJ and when a vehicle is was manufactured in 1995 and doesn't have a 17 digit VIN it should have a DOT and EPA bond release in order to received a title in NJ. Other states may have different rules, but that's what we require." He explained that the letter never should have been sent to me and that it should have been sent to the new owner. NY sent the paperwork to NJ advising them that the vehicle was sold and requesting that NJ release the title to NY that's how it "landed on his desk". He said that since I no longer have possession or ownership of the vehicle I am not responsible for having it inspected, but if the new owner wants NJ to release the title to NY they must being the car for an "in-depth safety & emission inspection" and supply the proper bond releases. When I asked what would happen if the vehicle meets all the safety and emission requirements (which we all know it won't) but cannot supply the bond releases, he replied, "Then the new owner will have nothing more than a decoration for his garage since it's legally not roadworthy".

All I have to say, is that things are happening. Its hard to say where its all going, or how widespread this investigation is going to be.

1999 Nissan Skyline GT-R : Show or Display Exemption

2009-07-14T08:32:00.001-07:00

While talking about importation, Motorex, and Nissan Skyline GT-R’s in general on the R35 GT-R Forum – NAGTROC , I was informed that on the newest Show or Display list, that an R34 GT-R was on the list. I found this interesting, as the car they listed did not exist. I let the guys know that I would call the NHTSA- OVSC to get some clarification on it.

I talked to the NHTSA - OVSC yesterday. I spoke with Dick Merritt there that handles the Show or Display exemptions. The good way to get him going is to mention Skyline. We had a 20 minute conversation, about many things Skyline related. I mentioned to him that I met him in 1999 when I went to DC to talk to the OVSC then.

When I asked for clarification what the R34 on the Show or Display list was, he said 1999 - Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 Vspec , Early. He said "they made less than 300."

That is not true. Vspecs were more popular than regular models . I don't have the exact numbers but 5536 R34 GT-R's were sold in 1999. Over the entire run of 12,175 cars , 7338 were Vspec;Mspec,VspecII;Nur , and 3962 were standard.

Anyway. He called Skylines "rocket ships" more than a few times. He said he would never want a car with so many computers in it, like the Porsche 959. He wondered how anyone could, or would work on Skylines. Mr. Merritt also said that he did not want the management to pass the R34 for Show or Display, but it was done without his approval.

Then he mentioned that no R34 has been brought in under the Show or Display exemption, because no one can do the EPA side of the requirements.

New Jersey Suspending Titles of Non- DOT/ EPA Compliant Cars

2009-07-10T17:18:00.001-07:00

Over at Supraforums, a member posted up the following.

FYI, if you are own a Skyline or any imported non US compliant car in NJ, NJ DMV is going through their database to do visual inspections and document inspection, NHTSA and EPA paperwork, if they are not provided they are suspending the registrations and titles.
How do I know? I have a friend who received the letter and spoke with DMV.

Based on the information I have recieved over the last few weeks, I think that the government is going after all imported and non-compliant vehicles in the US. The state titled cars, the kit cars, parts cars , every car. I had some doubts until I saw this latest post. It seems like this will be very big, and affect a lot of people, and a lot of cars.

Source: Supraforums

EPA Settlement Agreement on 17 Illegally Imported Vehicles.

2009-07-09T18:25:00.001-07:00

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matter of: David Nelson Respondent.

ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AED/MSEB: 7171

THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA and David Nelson of Tacoma, Washington Respondent.

Purpose

1. The purpose of this Agreement is to resolve any and all claims by EPA under the Act and

Part 85 arising out of the importation of 17 uncertified motor vehicles in Respondent's

U.S. Customs entry number ACI-8261233-6 as described in Table 1, and to ensure that

future violations are avoided.

Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

2. 40 C.F.R. § 85.150 1 applies to motor vehicles which are offered for importation or

imported into the United States and for which the Administrator has promulgated

regulations under part 86 prescribing emission standards.

3. EPA promulgated emission regulations for model year 1977 and later model year new

motor vehicles including emission standards and requirements to obtain certificates of

conformity in 40 C.FR. Part 86, subpts. A- C.

4. 40 C.F.R. § 85.15 13 prohibits the importation of a motor vehicle which in not covered by

a certificate of conformity.

5. Section 216a2 of the Act defines motor vehicle as any self-propelled vehicle designed

for transporting persons or property on a street or highway. EPA has further explained

that a disassembled vehicle or an approximate disassembled vehicle constitutes a motor

vehicle. EPA Kit Car Policy July 8, 1994.

6. Certificate of Conformity: A "Certificate of Conformity" means the document issued by EPA to a manufacturer under 40 C.F.R. Part 86 after EPA has determined that the

manufacturer's application is complete and that the engine family meets the requirements

ofthe applicable regulations and the Act. Issuance ofthe Certificate of Conformity

permits production of motor vehicles built in accordance with the manufacturer's

application provided that the production is within the Model Year for which the

Certificate of Conformity is issued.

7. Section 203a1 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7522a1 prohibits the importation into the

United States of any new motor vehicle manufactured after the effective date of the

regulations unless the motor vehicle is covered by an EPA certificate of conformity.

8. Under Section 205a of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7524a, any person who violates Section

7522a, is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $32,500 for each motor vehicle.

Background

9. EPA alleges that Respondent imported into the United States 17 uncertified motor

vehicles as described in Table 1 attached.

10. Based on the forgoing, EPA alleges that the Respondent violated Section 203a1 ofthe

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7522a1, and its implementing regulations.

11. In August of 2006, Respondent imported 17 motor vehicles Customs and Border

Protection Customs entry number AC 1-8261233-6. Customs detained this shipment at

the Port of Portland, Oregon, and has subsequently siezed the shipment.

12. Respondent is the importer of the 17 motor vehicles identified in Table 1.

13. The motor vehicles listed in Table 1 were manufactured after the dates of the applicable

regulations. As a consequence, EPA requires the importation of certified motor vehicles.

14. The motor vehicles listed in Table I are not certified. Accordingly, as the importer of

these motor vehicles, the Respondent imported these engines in violation of Section

203a ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7542a, and the implementing regulations.

Terms of Agreement

15. Within 60 days of the date of this Agreement or such other time as required by U.S.

Customs, Respondent shall submit to EPA the U.S. Customs documentation proving that

each of the motor vehicles listed in Table I has been exported to a location outside the

North American continent.

16. All submissions shall be sent to EPA at the following address:

Leslie A. Kirby-Miles U.S. EPA, OECA/AED mailcode 2242A 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20460-0001 Facsimile: 312 886-0747

17. Respondent shall pay to the United States a civil penalty of $6,000 within 30 calendar

days of the effective date of this Agreement. Late payment of the civil penalty is subject

to interest and fees as specified in 31 U.S.C. § 3717 and stipulated penalties pursuant to

Paragraph 23 of this Agreement. Respondent agrees to pay the amount by certified check

or cashier's check payable to the "United States of America," and to mail the payment to:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington Accounting Operations

P.O. Box 360277M

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15251

ATTN: AED/MSEB # 7171

Simultaneously, a photocopy of the check shall be mailed to EPA at the address specified

in Paragraph 16 or faxed to 312 866-0747 to the attention of Leslie A. Kirby-Miles.

Such check shall be identified with the AED/MSEB number and Respondent's name.

18. Respondent agrees that it will not import any motor vehicles or engines manufactured on or after the dates of the applicable regulations unless the motor vehicles or engines

comply with all applicable regulations.

General Provisions

19.The effective date of this Agreement is the date that EPA signs the Agreement.

20. Respondent hereby represents that the individual or individuals signing this Agreement

on behalf of Respondent are authorized to do so on behalf of Respondent and that such

signature is sufficient to bind Respondent, its agents, assigns, or successors.

21. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, upon Respondent's failure to

perform, or default of or failure to comply with any terms ofthis Agreement, EPA may

refer this matter to the United States Department of Justice to recover civil penalties

pursuant to Section 205 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7524, and pursue any other remedies

available to it. Respondent specifically agrees that in the event of such default or failure

to comply, EPA may proceed in an action based on the original claim of violation ofthe

Act, and 40 C.F.R. Part 85. Respondent expressly waives its right to assert that such

action is barred by any applicable statute of limitation, see 28 U.S.C. § 2462.

22.The Effect of Settlement as described in Paragraph 25 ofthis Agreement is conditioned

upon the truthfulness, accuracy and completeness of Respondent's disclosures and

representations to EPA under this Agreement, including but not limited to representations

regarding importations contained in Table 1 and the prompt and complete exportation of

all motor vehicles identified in Table 1 in accordance with this Agreement.

Stipulated Penalties:

23. For failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement on a timely basis Respondent shall pay stipulated penalties to the United States as follows:

For failure to timely pay the penalty, or provide proof of such payment, pursuant

to Paragraph 17, $500 per day.

C. For failure to timely export the motor vehicles identified in Table 1, or provide

proof of such exportation, pursuant to Paragraph 15, $500 per day.

24. All stipulated penalties under Paragraph 23 of this Agreement shall begin to

accrue on the day after performance is due, and shall continue to accrue until the

day compliance is achieved. Nothing herein shall prevent the simultaneous

accrual of separate stipulated penalties for separate violations of this Agreement.

All stipulated penalties shall be paid in accordance with Paragraph 17 and shall be

paid within five days of written demand by EPA. Stipulated penalties shall not be

construed as prohibiting, altering, or in any way limiting the ability of EPA from

seeking any other remedy or sanction available by virtue of Respondent's violation

of this Agreement or of the statutes or regulations upon which the Agreement is

based.

Effect of Agreement

25. Upon completion of the terms of this Agreement, the alleged violations described

in this Agreement shall be considered resolved.

The following agree to the terms of this Agreement:

David Nelson

By:'A_

David Nelson

Date:

Table 1: Description of Subject Motor Vehicles

Manufacturer Model VIN Model Year Quantity

Nissan

Skyline

BC,NR33008371

1995

Toyota

Aristo

JZS1470103366

1995

Nissan

Skyline

ECR33012807

1995

Nissan

18OSX

RPS13027518

1992

Nissan

Skyline

ECR33012456

1993

Nissan

Silvia

PS12091226

1993

Nissan

18OSX

KPRS13502893

1996

Toyota

Soarer

JZZ300026653

1993

Nissan

Skyline

HCR32288471

1993

Nissan

180 SX

RPS13202291

1993

Nissan

18OSX

RPS13306735

1996

Nissan

I8OSX

RPS13302247

1995

Nissan

18OSX

RPS13057254

1992

Subaru

WRX

GC8003748

1992

Mazda

RX7

FC3S123415

1988

Nissan

18OSX

RPS13328831

1997

Nissan

Silvia

KS13213739

1989

Source : EPA Website