[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68834-68835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28817]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


University of Vermont; 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 PM in Suite 4100W, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 02-033. Applicant: University of Vermont, 
Burlington, VT 05405. Instrument: High Speed CCD Camera, Model CPL 
MS1000. Manufacturer: Canadian Photonic Labs, Canada. Intended Use: See 
notice at 67 FR 52944, August 14, 2002.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Application denied. Instruments 
or apparatus of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, 
for such purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, are being 
manufactured in the United States. Reasons: Pursuant to 15 CFR 
301.5(d)(1)(iii) duty-free entry is predicated upon a finding by the 
Director with respect to ``* * * whether an instrument or apparatus of 
equivalent scientific value to such article, for the purposes for which 
the article is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United 
States.'' Furthermore, 15 CFR 301.5(d)(1)(i) stipulates that ``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.'' As 
defined by 15 CFR 301.2(s):

    Pertinent specifications are those specifications necessary for the 
accomplishment of the specific scientific research or science-related 
educational purposes described by the applicant. Specifications of 
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.

    The applicant states that it conducted a thorough search for 
potential vendors of high-speed CCD imaging systems and contacted 
relevant manufacturers. The applicant claims that ``It was during this 
phase that it was realized that many of the products on the market--
domestic or otherwise--were (1) unnecessarily

[[Page 68835]]

advanced and (2) prohibitively expensive for our needs.'' The applicant 
then claims, with respect to the foreign article, that ``* * * the 
other products were unacceptable for the reasons (1) and/or (2).'' The 
applicant also states that ``The domestic products encountered during 
the searching were unnecessarily advanced; they were ``overkill'' for 
the intended types of applications planned.''
    The applicant cites only one pertinent specification respecting its 
requirements; namely a ``high speed'' CCD camera, pointing out that 
``Cost rises dramatically with the speed, and the domestic instruments 
encountered during product searching were designed for frame speeds 
that were unnecessarily high for the applications being planned. 
Consequently their costs were prohibitive.'' Notwithstanding design 
considerations, it is common industry practice to make frame and 
shutter speeds adjustable, as the foreign manufacturer does, so that 
most domestic cameras should be operable at slower rates if required. 
The applicant fails to specify any rate or advance any argument to the 
contrary.
    The regulations explicitly disallow matters of cost, convenience or 
institutional limitations as pertinent considerations in determining 
eligibility for duty exemption. Furthermore, a domestic instrument 
whose performance specifications are superior to those of the foreign 
instrument is considered ``scientifically equivalent.'' Pursuant to CFR 
15 301.5 (d)(1)(i) the necessary condition for duty exemption is that 
``* * * the Director finds that the foreign instrument possesses one or 
more pertinent specifications not possessed by the domestic instrument 
* * *''. The application has failed to cite any such specification.
    Furthermore, 15 CFR 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 supplied.)
    Consequently, in view of the applicant's own determination, cited 
above, that equivalent domestic instruments were ``prohibitively 
expensive'' and by its failure to specify a pertinent feature possessed 
by the foreign and not by domestic instruments, we conclude that a 
resubmission cannot establish, without introducing conflicting 
information or impermissible new purposes, that a scientifically 
equivalent domestic instrument is not available. Therefore, the 
application is denied.

Gerald A. Zerdy,
Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 02-28817 Filed 11-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P