Evo VII NHTSA Import Petition Announced
Sep 3, 2003, 04:34 AM
#1
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo VII NHTSA Import Petition Announced
A notice announcing the receipt of a petition to certify that 2001 and 2002 LHD Evo VII can be imported appeared in today's Federal Register (see http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...id=fr03se03-93). The petition's docket is at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchResu...berValue=16031 and already contains the actual petition from G&K and will very soon contain a copy of today's Federal Register notice.
Sep 3, 2003, 07:26 AM
#2
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So basically it looks like they got their asses handed to them on the Evo 8 petition, so now they're going to try to do the Evo 7.
I still don't think they're going to get through this without crash testing or at least a very detailed engineering analysis of the appropriate cars (sorely lacking in the Evo 8 petition posted recently)
Where's that blowhard Celm? I feel bad for all the people where were scammed by EI, except for him. I want to see what excuses he comes up with when this petition is burned to the ground by Mitsu, just like the last one was.
I still don't think they're going to get through this without crash testing or at least a very detailed engineering analysis of the appropriate cars (sorely lacking in the Evo 8 petition posted recently)
Where's that blowhard Celm? I feel bad for all the people where were scammed by EI, except for him. I want to see what excuses he comes up with when this petition is burned to the ground by Mitsu, just like the last one was.
Sep 3, 2003, 08:06 AM
#3
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where's that blowhard Celm? I feel bad for all the people where were scammed by EI, except for him. I want to see what excuses he comes up with when this petition is burned to the ground by Mitsu, just like the last one was.
You think the 8 petition was burned to the ground? Show me that decision and THEN you can talk.Get the full facts before posting stupid **** like this.
Sep 3, 2003, 08:44 AM
#4
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think the 8 petition was burned to the ground? Show me that decision and THEN you can talk.
Get the full facts before posting stupid **** like this.
Get the full facts before posting stupid **** like this.
Now what part of that gives you hope that G&K/EI could still succeed? The Evo 7 petition looks to be almost the same as the E8 petition, except that this time they "seem" to have a real car. Most of the documentation is still missing or incomplete, just like the E8 petition though.
Look at the Skyline petitions sometime. They are FAR more complete.
By the way, how does it feel to have paid $35,000 for a car that has been locked in a warehouse gathering dust for the last year and a half?
Sep 3, 2003, 08:47 AM
#5
Evolved Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hrmm think the people posting this and the people bashing others 'wrc4ever' have affiliation with g&k/EI?
anyway, maybe someday those people that paid all that money, will get what they paid for...
anyway, maybe someday those people that paid all that money, will get what they paid for...
Sep 3, 2003, 09:11 AM
#6
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I started this thread, I had only skimmed the Federal Register notice, assuming it contained just the typical boilerplate language NHTSA uses to announce the receipt of an import decision petition. I was wrong. The notice includes this highly unusual paragraph:
I've never seen anything like this before. NHTSA announced it has ALREADY determined that:
This petition is DOA.
In its petition, G&K stated that nonconforming 2001 and 2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII LHD passenger cars are substantially similar to both the U.S. version 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII and the U.S. version 2001 and 2002 Mitsubishi Lancer 4 door sedan passenger cars. Because it is of a different model year, the 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII cannot be regarded as substantially similar to the 2001 and 2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII for import eligibility purposes. Moreover, while there may be similarities between the 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII and the 2001 and 2002 Mitsubishi Lancer 4 door sedan vehicles that Mitsubishi has manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States NHTSA has decided that the latter vehicle cannot be categorized as "substantially similar'' to the nonconforming 2001 and 2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII LHD versions for the purpose of establishing import eligibility under section 30141(a)(1)(A). Therefore, we will construe G&K's petition as a petition pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), seeking to establish import eligibility for the 2001-2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII on the basis that it has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being modified to comply with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other evidence that NHTSA decided is adequate.
- The Evo VII is NOT "substantially similar" to the Evo VIII because the law requires that two cars be of the same model year before they can be considered "substantiall similar."
- The Evo VII is NOT "substantially similar" to the US base Lancer. No rationale for this decision was offered (maybe someone there actually understands what the Evo is).
This petition is DOA.
Last edited by Seņor Info; Sep 3, 2003 at 09:20 AM.
Trending Topics
Sep 3, 2003, 09:30 AM
#8
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, how does it feel to have paid $35,000 for a car that has been locked in a warehouse gathering dust for the last year and a half?
so, does it actually say it is okay to import the evo7 as mentioned in the paragraph or am I reading it wrong?
Sep 3, 2003, 09:34 AM
#10
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so, does it actually say it is okay to import the evo7 as mentioned in the paragraph or am I reading it wrong?
Sep 3, 2003, 10:26 AM
#12
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore, we will construe G&K's petition as a petition pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), seeking to establish import eligibility for the 2001-2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII on the basis that it has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being modified to comply with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other evidence that NHTSA decided is adequate.
No crash tests = no Evo for you.
I have read the whole petition. There is not even a mention of crash testing in it. There are no part numbers referenced for the US cars, which was a big problem with the E8 petition. There are not even any structural observations or measurements made by a qualified engineer. Basically the whole thing is based on the E8 press release and some scanned service manual pages. All of which was shot down hard by MMSA in the E8 petition.
I'm sorry for the EI customers (except for Celm). I hate to be the one to have to point these things out to some of you, but if I were you, I'd be contacting a lawyer very soon.
Sep 3, 2003, 10:39 AM
#13
Hello Seņor Info,
Where can that statement be found (on the year issues). I was trying to read it and see what else is there. It would be nice to see how EI or G&k respond to this.
Where can that statement be found (on the year issues). I was trying to read it and see what else is there. It would be nice to see how EI or G&k respond to this.
Sep 3, 2003, 11:21 AM
#15
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by YellwTyper
Hello Seņor Info,
Where can that statement be found (on the year issues). I was trying to read it and see what else is there.
Hello Seņor Info,
Where can that statement be found (on the year issues). I was trying to read it and see what else is there.
Code:
(a) General.--Section 30112(a) of this title does not apply to a
motor vehicle if--
(1) on the initiative of the Secretary of Transportation or on
petition of a manufacturer or importer registered under subsection
(c) of this section, the Secretary decides--
(A) the vehicle is--
(i) substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally
manufactured for import into and sale in the United States;
(ii) certified under section 30115 of this title;
(iii) the same model year (as defined under regulations
of the Secretary of Transportation) as the model of the
motor vehicle it is being compared to; and
(iv) capable of being readily altered to comply with
applicable motor vehicle safety standards prescribed under
this chapter; or
(B) if there is no substantially similar United States motor
vehicle, the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are
capable of being altered to comply with those standards based on
destructive test information or other evidence the Secretary of
Transportation decides is adequate;