[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