[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
