[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7626-7627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3692]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; 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: 98-059. Applicant: Rutgers, The State University of 
New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854. Instrument: Current Meter, Model RCM-
9. Manufacturer: Aanderaa Instruments A/S, Norway. Intended Use: See 
notice at 63 FR 69263, December 16, 1998.
    Comments: None Received. Decision: Denied. Reasons: The applicant 
submitted a memorandum (dated September 9, 1998) to the Procurement and 
Contracting Office of the University (Rutgers) titled ``Justification 
for Purchasing RCM 9 Current Meter from Aanderaa Instrument A/S.'' The 
memorandum states that a search of the market located only two 
instruments capable of making the measurements required for the 
intended research on nitrogen flux through an ocean-estuary boundary. 
One instrument is made by Aanderaa Instruments A/S in Nesttun, Norway 
(Model RCM 9), and the other by InterOcean Systems Inc. (Model S4) in 
San Diego, CA.
    The memo presents a table itemizing the prices for five sensors 
quoted by each vendor. The total price listed for the foreign model 
(RCM 9) is $11,558 and the price for the US model (S4) is $27,660. The 
applicant notes that ``* * * the S4 has higher accuracy and resolution 
than RCM 9, which is the major contributor to the high price.'' The 
applicant states that the admitted performance superiority offered by 
the domestic product is beyond that required for its work and then 
indicates that its decision to purchase the foreign article was based 
on ``cost-efficiency.'' To quote:

    In our study, the accuracy provided by RCM 9 is sufficient. For 
example, the S4 will be able to measure the current velocity every 
half second, but the RCM 9 can only measure the current velocity 
every minute. Our study will focus on the variation over a tidal 
cycle, which is over 12.4 hours (744 minutes). Measurement of the 
current velocity every minute is more than sufficient to resolve the 
tidal variation. Therefore, we decided to purchase the RCM 9 based 
on accuracy/resolution and cost-efficiency.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR p 301.2(s), cost is explicitly disallowed as a 
consideration for duty exemption of a scientific instrument. Duty-free 
entry is allowed only ``* * * if no instrument or apparatus of 
equivalent scientific value for the purposes for which the instrument 
is intended to be used is being manufactured in the United States'' [19 
CFR p 301.1(b)(2) and (3)].
    Pursuant to 19 CFR p 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 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.


[[Page 7627]]


    Furthermore, 19 CFR p 301.5(e)(7) provides, in part, as follows:

    Information provided in a resubmission that * * * contradicts or 
conflicts with information provided in a prior submission, or is not 
a reasonable extension of the information contained in the 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 own admission that the 
domestic instrument is capable of meeting its requirements, we conclude 
that a resubmission cannot establish, without introducing impermissible 
new purposes, that a scientifically equivalent domestic instrument is 
not available.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 99-3692 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P