[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)] [Notices] [Pages 62390-62391] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 95-29730] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Indiana University Medical Center, Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89- 651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. Docket Number: 95-043. Applicant: Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5289. Instrument: Radiation Therapy Simulator, Model Simulix-MC. Manufacturer: Oldelft, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 60 FR 33190, June 27, 1995. Comments: None Received. Decision: Denied. Reasons: In its justification for duty exemption, the applicant states: The structural, performance and operational characteristics of the foreign and domestic units are similar. However, the foreign unit possessed a greater number of the structural and operational characteristics required, without incurring a greater expense. The applicant lists the structural and operational features of the foreign instrument which led to the purchase decision. The applicant states that each feature of the foreign instrument is also available on the domestic instrument (manufactured by Varian Corporation) and provides cost data as follows: Shadow Tray: ... With the domestic unit, an additional cost of $6495.00 would have to be incurred by the institution. Lasers: ...With the domestic unit, an additional cost of $15,000 would have to be incurred by the institution. [[Page 62391]] Last Image Hold: ... With the domestic unit, an additional cost of $11,350 would have to be incurred by the institution. The application is deficient for the reason that the applicant's purchase of the foreign article was based, not on grounds that the domestic instrument is not scientifically equivalent as required by 15 CFR 301.5(1), but on lower cost of the foreign article. Pursuant to 15 CFR Part 301.2(s): `Pertinent' specifications are those specifications necessary for the accomplishment of the specific scientific research and/or science- related educational purposes described by the applicant. Specifications or features (even if guaranteed) which afford greater convenience, satisfy personal preferences, accommodate institutional commitments or limitations, or assure lower costs of acquisition, installation, operation, servicing or maintenance are not pertinent. (Emphasis added.) Also, 15 CFR 301.5(d)(1)(i) provides in part: The determination of scientific equivalency shall be based on a comparison of the pertinent specifications of the foreign instrument with similar pertinent specifications of comparable domestic instruments... If the director finds that a domestic instrument possesses all of the pertinent specifications of the foreign instrument, he shall find that there is being manufactured in the United States an instrument of equivalent scientific value for such purposes as the foreign instrument is intended to be used. Finally, the regulations provide in 15 CFR 301.5(e)(7) as follows: Information provided in a resubmission that... contradicts or conflicts with information provided in a prior submission..., shall not be considered in making the decision on an application that has been resubmitted. Accordingly, an applicant may elect to reinforce an original submission by elaborating in the resubmission on the description of the purposes contained in a prior submission and may supply additional examples, documentation and/or other clarifying detail, but the applicant shall not introduce new purposes or other material changes in the nature of the original application. (Emphasis added.) Consequently, in view of the applicant's categorical statements cited above, no pertinent, scientifically relevant specifications or features independent of cost can be cited by the applicant. Accordingly, we find pursuant to Section 301.5(d)(1)(i) that the domestic and foreign instruments are scientifically equivalent. We conclude that affording the applicant an opportunity to resubmit its application cannot result in a statement of purpose or need consonant with the regulations. The application is denied, pursuant to Section 301.5(d)(1)(i) for the reason that ``there is being manufactured in the United States an instrument of equivalent scientific value for such purposes as the foreign instrument is intended to be used. Frank W. Creel Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff [FR Doc. 95-29730 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-F