Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 36983 

(2) That have not incorporated Rolls-Royce 

Repeater Technical Variance TV97291, dated 

July 2009, or later version; and 

(3) That have not had the RH fuel manifold 

assembly cleaned using Overhaul Process 

Manual TSD594–J, Task 70–00–00–100–121, 

as instructed in Component Maintenance 

Manual, Tubes, Hoses, and Ducts, dated 

October 2009, or later version; and 

(4) That have not had the RH manifold 

assembly replaced with a new RH manifold 

assembly; and 

(5) That have not incorporated Rolls-Royce 

plc Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211–73– 

AG327, Revision 1, dated May 4, 2010, or 

later version, then: 

(i) Initially clean and inspect the RH fuel 

manifold assembly or replace the RH fuel 

manifold assembly with a serviceable RH fuel 

manifold assembly. 

(ii) Guidance on cleaning, inspecting, or 

replacing of the RH manifold assembly, can 

be found in Rolls-Royce plc Alert Service 

Bulletin No. RB.211–73–AG422, Revision 2, 

dated January 14, 2011. 

(iii) Perform the cleaning, inspection, or 

replacement at the following times: 

(A) For engines with 3,200 cycles-sincenew (CSN) or more, clean and inspect within 

200 cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

(B) For engines with between 3,000 CSN 

and 3,199 CSN, clean and inspect no later 

than 3,400 CSN. 

(C) For engines with between 2,600 CSN 

and 2,999 CSN, clean and inspect within 400 

cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

(D) For engines with between 2,400 CSN 

and 2,599 CSN, clean and inspect no later 

than 3,000 CSN. 

(E) For engines with between 1,300 CSN 

and 2,399 CSN, clean and inspect within 600 

cycles after the effective date of this AD. 

(F) For engines with fewer than 1,300 CSN, 

clean and inspect no later than 1,900 CSN. 

(6) For engines that on the effective date of 

this AD, have been repaired using Engine 

Management Program, Issue 7, dated May 7, 

2010 or later version; or 

(7) That have incorporated Rolls-Royce 

Repeater Technical Variance TV97291, dated 

July 2009, or later version; or 

(8) That have had the RH fuel manifold 

assembly cleaned using Overhaul Process 

Manual TSD594–J, Task 70–00–00–100–121, 

as instructed in Component Maintenance 

Manual, Tubes, Hoses, and Ducts, dated 

October 2009, or later version; or 

(9) That have had the RH manifold 

assembly replaced with a new RH manifold 

assembly; or 

(10) That have incorporated Rolls-Royce 

plc Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211–73– 

AG327, Revision 1, dated May 4, 2010, or 

later version, then: 

(i) Initially clean and inspect the RH fuel 

manifold assembly or replace the RH fuel 

manifold assembly with a serviceable RH fuel 

manifold assembly, within 1,300 cycles since 

the engine most recently met any of the 

requirements of paragraphs (e)(6) through 

(e)(10) of this AD. 

(ii) Guidance on cleaning, inspecting, or 

replacing of the RH manifold assembly, can 

be found in Rolls-Royce plc Alert Service 

Bulletin No. RB.211–73–AG422, Revision 2, 

dated January 14, 2011. 

Repetitive Cleaning and Inspection, or 

Replacement 

(11) Thereafter, repetitively clean and 

inspect the RH fuel manifold assembly or 

replace the RH fuel manifold assembly with 

a serviceable RH fuel manifold assembly, 

within 1,300 cycles since performing the last 

cleaning and inspection or replacement. 

Optional Terminating Action 

(12) As optional terminating action to the 

repetitive actions in this AD, remove RH fuel 

manifold assembly, part number FW18706, 

and install a redesigned RH fuel manifold 

assembly. Guidance on installing the 

redesigned RH fuel manifold assembly can be 

found in Rolls-Royce plc Service Bulletin No. 

RB.211–73–G547, dated December 7, 2010. 

FAA AD Differences 

(f) None. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2011– 

0050, dated March 21, 2011, Rolls-Royce plc 

Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211–73– 

AG422, Revision 2, dated January 14, 2011, 

and Rolls-Royce plc Service Bulletin No. 

RB.211–73–G547, dated December 7, 2010, 

for related information. Contact Rolls-Royce 

plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, 

Derby, England, DE248BJ, telephone: 011– 

44–1332–242424; fax: 011–44–1332–245418; 

or e-mail via: http://www.rolls-royce.com/

contact/civil_team.jsp, for a copy of this 

service information. 

(i) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; telephone 781–238–7143; fax 781– 

238–7199; e-mail: alan.strom@faa.gov, for 

more information about this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(j) None. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

June 14, 2011. 

Peter A. White, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15677 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 77 

[Docket No: FAA 2010–1326] 

Marking Meteorological Evaluation 

Towers 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Policy statement. 

SUMMARY: This action announces the 

FAA’s recommended guidance for the 

voluntary marking of Meteorological 

Evaluation Towers (METs) erected in 

remote and rural areas that are less than 

200 feet above ground level (AGL). This 

guidance will enhance the conspicuity 

of the towers for low level agricultural 

operations in the vicinity of these 

towers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheri Edgett Baron, Obstruction 

Evaluation Group, Air Traffic 

Organization, AJV–15, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783; e-mail: 

sheri.edgett-baron@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

14 CFR Part 77 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

(U.S.C.), section 40103(a)(1), provides 

that the ‘‘United States Government has 

exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the 

United States.’’ Paragraph (b) of this 

section directs the FAA to ‘‘develop 

plans and policy for the use of the 

navigable airspace and assign by 

regulation or order the use of the 

airspace necessary to ensure the safety 

of aircraft and the efficient use of the 

airspace.’’ 

In recognition of the threat tall 

structures can pose to aviation safety, 49 

U.S.C. 44718 directed the FAA to 

promulgate regulations requiring notice 

of proposed structures or alterations of 

existing structures when the notice will 

promote safety in air commerce and the 

efficient use and preservation of the 

navigable airspace and of airport traffic 

capacity at public-use airports. See 14 

CFR part 77. The agency was further 

directed to study such structures and 

determine the extent of any adverse 

impacts on the safe and efficient use of 

the airspace, facilities or equipment. 

Consistent with the above statutory 

and regulatory framework, the FAA has 

adopted policy to establish the 

standards for which the FAA identifies 

‘‘obstructions’’ and ‘‘hazards’’ in the 

navigable airspace in furtherance of its 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
36984 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1Transport Canada Advisory Circular No. 600– 

001, Marking of Meteorological Towers (Mar. 3, 

2011). 

responsibilities to manage the navigable 

airspace safely and efficiently. See 14 

CFR part 77 and FAA Order 7400.2, 

Procedures for Handling Airspace 

Matters. 

Part 77 specifies when notice must be 

filed with the FAA for the construction 

of a structure or alteration of (an 

existing) structure. In filing this notice, 

the proponent provides the required 

information and submits its marking 

and lighting plan for that proposal, if 

appropriate. Sponsors are encouraged to 

review the guidance in Advisory 

Circular No. 70/7460–1, Obstruction 

Marking and Lighting in devising the 

marking and lighting plan for the 

proposed structure. In conducting the 

aeronautical study, the FAA considers 

the proposed structure, including the 

marking and lighting plan, and 

determines the impact on air navigation. 

If the FAA issues a Determination of No 

Hazard to Air Navigation, the 

determination may be conditioned on 

the structure being marked and lighted 

in accordance with the determination. 

Unless notice is required under a 

separate paragraph of § 77.9, the FAA 

does not study structures under 200 feet 

AGL at its site. 

I. Background 

The FAA has been approached by 

operators, associations representing 

agricultural operators, and state 

governments concerning the visibility of 

METs in remote and rural areas that also 

have low-level flight operations. METs 

are used by wind energy companies to 

determine feasible sites for wind 

turbines. Some of these towers are less 

than 200 feet AGL, usually at 198 feet 

or less. The structures are portable, 

erected in a matter of hours, installed 

with guyed wires and constructed from 

a galvanized material often making them 

difficult to see in certain atmospheric 

conditions. The METs that fall under 

the 200 foot AGL threshold, specified in 

§ 77.9, are not subject to the notice 

requirements and do not trigger any 

aeronautical study by the FAA. 

On January 5, 2011, the FAA 

published a document seeking 

comments on proposed guidance for the 

voluntary marking of METs less than 

200 feet AGL (76 FR 1326). The FAA 

agrees that marking these structures 

would enhance the conspicuity of these 

METs, particularly for low-level 

agricultural operations. 

The document set forth three 

recommendations for comment. First, 

the FAA recommended that the METs 

be painted in accordance with the 

criteria contained in Chapter 3, 

paragraphs 30–33 of AC No. 70/7460–1. 

In particular, paragraph 33 discusses the 

paint pattern used to mark structures 

based on size and shape. Section (d) of 

that paragraph specifically refers to 

communication towers and catenary 

support structures, poles, smokestacks 

and skeletal framework of storage tanks 

and similar structures. The METs 

addressed in this document are similar 

to the structures identified in this 

paragraph. Therefore, the FAA proposed 

the guidance recommended for these 

structures, which is alternating bands of 

aviation orange and white. 

Secondly, the FAA recommended 

spherical and/or flag markers be used in 

addition to the above paint pattern 

when additional conspicuity is 

necessary for aviation safety. Paragraph 

34 provides recommended guidance for 

the use of spherical and flag markers. 

Lastly, the FAA proposed high 

visibility sleeves and/or flags on the 

outer guy wires of these METs. While 

AC No. 70/7460–1 does not contain this 

type of marking, the FAA specifically 

sought comments as whether this type 

of marking would be feasible and 

appropriate. 

II. Summary of Comments and FAA 

Response 

The comment period closed on 

February 4, 2011 and the FAA received 

approximately 460 comments from 

individuals, aviation associations, 

industry users, aviation businesses, 

emergency medical services, state 

governments and state departments of 

transportation. Many comments 

received were in response to the January 

10, 2011 fatal accident involving a 

Rockwell International S–2R aircraft 

that collided with a MET during an 

aerial application in Oakley, California. 

Most commenters supported a goal of 

improving the safety of certain aviation 

operations in the vicinity of METs that 

are less than 200 feet in height. Some 

commenters supported various forms of 

marking the METs not proposed in the 

document, and others supported 

marking and lighting METs. Only 3 

commenters opposed the proposed 

guidance. 

The comments covered the following 

general areas of the proposal: marking 

and lighting METS, the advantages and 

disadvantages of affixing sleeves and 

spherical marker balls, establishing a 

database of METs, and making the 

guidance for marking mandatory. 

The American Wind Energy 

Association (AWEA) and California 

Wind Energy Association favored 

enhancing pilot safety. AWEA 

supported painting the METs as 

proposed, but commented that painting 

the top 1⁄3 of the tower would be 

sufficient. The National Agricultural 

Aviation Association (NAAA) 

commented that the marking provisions 

should apply to any tower over 50 feet 

AGL. NAAA further contends that paint 

must be applied to the entire vertical 

length of the tower in order to be 

effective. Transport Canada, which 

recently issued an Advisory Circular 1

for marking of METs, recommend 

painting the entire support mast. 

The FAA agrees that painting the 

entire structure will provide the best 

visibility for pilots. As aerial applicators 

fly close to the vegetation and well 

below 200 feet AGL, the MET should be 

visible against the terrain as well as the 

sky. Therefore, the most effective 

painting scheme would entail painting 

the entire structure with alternating 

bands of aviation orange and white 

paint, as described in AC No. 70/7460– 

1, paragraphs 30–33. These provisions 

also recommend that the paint should 

be replaced when faded or otherwise 

deteriorated. 

The FAA received varying comments 

on the usage and length of sleeves on 

METs. Several commenters, including 

AWEA and Iberdrola, stated that there is 

a practical limit as to how much weight 

the guy wires can sustain and a limited 

percentage of wires can bear the 

additional weight of sheathing. AWEA 

also stated that sleeves could add 

significant stress, particularly in icing 

situations, and undermine the structural 

integrity of the tower and lead to failure. 

Commenters indicated that the length 

of the sleeve should be determined on 

a case-by-case basis, and result in a 

sheath that is sufficient to rise above tall 

crops or other land cover but still 

remain visible to pilots. The Helicopter 

Association International recommended 

at least 16 feet of high visibility sleeves 

on guy wires at the anchor point to 

extend above any surrounding crop. 

Other commenters recommended 

sheathing in a range of 6–10 feet. 

The FAA received similar comments 

from Iberdrola, AWEA, NAAA and other 

agricultural associations on the use of 

spherical marker balls. These 

commenters stated that marker balls can 

attract significant icing, which increase 

loads on the tower and can lead to tower 

failure, as well as interfere with 

instrumentation and affect accuracy of 

MET readings. Various agricultural 

associations and others supported the 

use of spherical marker balls painted 

aviation orange. EcoEnergy uses 4 high 

visibility cable balls on the outer guy 

wires. Iowa Agricultural Aviation 

Association recommended 8 total 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 36985 

2The FAA notes that a NOTAM is issued for light 

outages only for structures subject to an FAA 

determination that specifies lighting. 

marker balls. Iberdrola uses 4 marker 

balls installed just above ground-based 

sheathing to enhance visibility of the 

furthest extent of guy wires and a 

second set of 4 marker balls installed 

approximately 45 meters AGL to 

enhance visibility of the painted tower 

segment that delineates the tallest extent 

of the tower. Iberdola strongly 

discouraged consideration of additional 

maker balls (more than 8) on METs as 

structural integrity limits are 

encroached upon with further loading. 

Additionally, a few comments 

supported the use of marker flags in 

conjunction with spherical marker balls. 

The commenters also noted that flags 

may be useful as a visual aid, but are 

subject to rapid deterioration from 

weather conditions such as wind, snow, 

and ice. 

The FAA concludes that sleeves and 

spherical marker balls will enhance the 

conspicuity of METs particularly for 

low flying agricultural and other 

aviation operations. The FAA 

recommends one high visibility sleeve 

on each guy wire anchor point that will 

reach a height well above the crop or 

vegetation canopy, and another sleeve 

installed on each of the outer guy wires. 

The FAA recognizes that certain 

weather conditions may affect the 

placement and use of high visibility 

sleeves on guy wires, and that the length 

should be determined on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Spherical markers may have different 

placement standards, depending on the 

company that manufactures them. 

Varying placement standards and other 

factors such as weather play a role in 

the placement of spherical markers and 

flexibility is needed when determining 

their position on the METs. As a general 

recommendation, that FAA 

recommends a total of 8 high visibility 

spherical marker (or cable) balls of 

aviation orange color attached to the guy 

wires; four marker balls should be 

attached to guy wires at the top of the 

tower no further than 15 feet from the 

top wire connection to the tower, and 4 

marker balls at or below the mid point 

of the structure on the outer guy wires. 

As stated previously, the FAA 

recognizes that the varying factors 

identified above may result in the 

placement or number of marker balls 

used and should be addressed on a caseby-case basis. The use of sleeves should 

not impact the placement of spherical 

marker balls. 

Existing guidance in AC 70/7460, 

paragraph 34(b) states that flags are used 

to mark certain structures or objects 

when it is technically impractical to use 

spherical markers or painting. The FAA 

recommends spherical markers and 

paint, however, the FAA did not receive 

sufficient data on the use of flags on the 

guy wires that support METs to provide 

recommendations on their use for these 

towers. 

NAAA, HAI, and others submitted 

various recommendations for lighting 

METs. The comments recommended 

varied uses of red lights and white 

strobe lights. Some commenters also 

stated that a recommendation for lights 

would require a Notice to Airmen 

(NOTAM) to be issued when the lights 

were not operational.2

Lighting studies indicate that red 

lights are difficult to see during the day, 

and that the most acceptable lighting 

configuration would be the use of a high 

intensity white strobe. The FAA 

acknowledges that the addition of lights 

may make METs more visible to 

agricultural and other low flying 

operations. The FAA concludes, 

however, that it would not be practical 

to recommend lights for the METs 

addressed in this document. The 

remoteness of many MET locations does 

not allow for pre-existing power 

sources, and strobe lights require more 

power than red lights. While solar lights 

may be a possible option, the FAA has 

not studied solar lighting and therefore, 

cannot provide recommendations for 

flight visibility. 

Additionally, when the FAA conducts 

an aeronautical study, it reviews many 

factors in determining whether lighting 

is necessary. These factors include 

height, location, proximity to an airport, 

flight activity in the area, and 

complexity of terrain. Without a similar 

evaluation process, the FAA cannot 

recommend lighting for METs. It is 

important to note that the FAA does not 

recommending lighting in every 

aeronautical study. 

The State of Minnesota commented 

that it is important to collect and share 

information METs siting in a timely 

manner, and that recommendations to 

mark and light METs should not hinder 

any growth aspirations of the wind 

industry. NAAA proposed that the FAA 

establish a database that catalogues all 

tower locations, similar to the initiative 

by the State of Wyoming. 

It is not feasible for the FAA to 

maintain a national database for 

structures that are less than 200 feet 

AGL and otherwise not subject to the 

notice requirement in part 77. The FAA 

does not object to a state or local 

jurisdiction maintaining or providing a 

source of information that would inform 

pilots as to the location or planned 

location of these towers or for some 

other zoning, planning or public welfare 

purpose. 

Many commenters responded that 

marking and lighting of METs should be 

mandatory. The FAA also received 

comments from the Experimental 

Aircraft Association, the National 

Association of State Aviation Officials, 

and others recommending changes to 

part 77 so that the FAA may study 

different structures at heights 

constructed less than 200 feet. NAAA 

also commented that upon adoption of 

revised standards, any towers erected 

before the adoption date shall be 

marked within six months after the 

effective date. 

The purpose of this proposal was to 

address a limited population of METs 

that are not studied under part 77, but 

are difficult to see by certain low level 

aircraft operations. The guidance is 

recommended to landowners and 

developers siting these towers in 

remote, rural agricultural areas. The 

guidance recommended here is not 

necessary for METs that are erected in 

urban areas and far removed from areas 

where rural agricultural spraying 

operations are conducted. Landowners 

and developers must exercise discretion 

in determining if the METs will be 

erected in this type area where these 

operations are conducted and whether 

the marking and painting would 

enhance the visibility of these structures 

to low-level flight operations. 

The FAA received comments 

pertaining to environmental impact 

issues and vegetation management. The 

Marin Audubon Society supporting the 

inclusion of guidance for measures to 

reduce the risk of collision for aircraft 

and birds. Other commenters claimed 

that steady red lights attract and confuse 

birds and that sleeves and skeletal 

framework of METs should be designed 

to make them visible for birds. 

Three commenters opposed the 

proposal. One commenter was 

concerned that the proposal would be 

expanded to include amateur radio 

antenna supports. Another commenter 

was concerned with light pollution and 

applicability regardless of terrain and 

other factors. The remaining commenter 

inaccurately referred to this notice of 

policy as a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to amend the regulations in 

part 77. This commenter also argued 

that some developers may follow the 

guidance and others may not, which 

may introduce potential for pilots to 

presume that all METs will be marked 

and could result in failure to identify 

and avoid unmarked towers. The 

commenter contends that developers 

that choose to voluntarily mark and 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
36986 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

light their METs would incur additional 

costs and time delays and this affects 

their ability to compete with others in 

the market. As stated previously, the 

FAA is not amending the regulations to 

require notice for structures less than 

200 feet AGL in non-airport 

environments. The FAA is providing 

this information to enhance the 

visibility of structures that otherwise 

may be difficult to see due to the terrain 

and the nature of specific operations 

conducted around these METs. While 

this guidance is not mandatory, the FAA 

anticipates that in the interest of 

aviation safety, developers and 

landowners will consider this guidance 

for METs erected in the environments 

described in this document. 

III. Policy 

The FAA recommends voluntary 

marking of METs less than 200 feet AGL 

in accordance with marking guidance 

contained in this document and 

Advisory Circular 70–7460–l, 

Obstruction Marking and Lighting. The 

FAA notes that historically this 

guidance has not been applied to the 

voluntary marking of METs less than 

200 feet AGL. However, the FAA 

recognizes the need to address safety 

impacts to low-level flight operations 

due to the construction of METs in 

remote and rural areas, especially as 

agricultural spraying season approaches. 

Due to the growing concerns expressed 

by operators, associations representing 

agricultural operators, and state and 

local governments throughout the 

agricultural industry, the FAA believes 

that voluntary marking of METs less 

than 200 AGL in remote and rural areas 

enhance the visibility of these structures 

to low level agricultural operations in 

the vicinity of these towers. 

The FAA recommends that 

landowners and developers use 

guidance contained in Advisory 

Circular 70/7460–1, Obstruction 

marking and Lighting for the voluntary 

marking of METs less than 200 feet 

AGL. METs should be painted in 

accordance to criteria contained in 

Chapter 3, paragraphs 30–33 of AC No. 

70/7460–1, specifically, with alternate 

bands of aviation orange and white 

paint. In addition, paragraph 34 states 

that all markings should be replaced 

when faded or otherwise deteriorated. 

The FAA recommends that high 

visibility sleeves be installed on the 

outer guy wires of METs as described in 

this document. The FAA intends, at a 

future date, to amend the advisory 

circular to include guidance on sleeves. 

Additionally, the FAA recommends 

high visibility spherical marker (or 

cable) balls of aviation orange color are 

attached to the guy wires. Spherical 

markers should be installed and 

displayed in accordance to guidance 

contained in this document and 

additional standards contained in 

Chapter 3, paragraph 34 of AC No. 70/ 

70460–1. The FAA, however, recognizes 

various weather conditions and 

manufacturing placement standards 

may affect the placement and use of 

high visibility sleeves and/or spherical 

markers. Thus, flexibility is needed 

when determining sleeve length and 

marker placement on METs. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 

2011. 

Dennis E. Roberts, 

Director, ATO Airspace Services, AJV–1. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15746 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Parts 734, 740, 743 and 774 

[Docket No. 110210131–1317–01] 

RIN 0694–AF15 

Export Controls for High Performance 

Computers: Wassenaar Arrangement 

Agreement Implementation for ECCN 

4A003 and Revisions to License 

Exception APP 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) to implement changes made to 

the Wassenaar Arrangement’s List of 

Dual Use Goods and Technologies 

(Wassenaar List) maintained and agreed 

to by governments participating in the 

Wassenaar Arrangement on Export 

Controls for Conventional Arms and 

Dual Use Goods and Technologies 

(Wassenaar Arrangement, or WA) at the 

December 2009 WA Plenary Meeting 

(the Plenary) that relate to Export 

Control Classification Number (ECCN) 

4A003. These changes agreed to at the 

Plenary pertain to raising the Adjusted 

Peak Performance (APP) for digital 

computers in ECCN 4A003. In 

accordance with the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 1998, 

the President’s report for High 

Performance Computers was sent to 

Congress on February 7, 2011, to 

identify and set forth a justification for 

the new APP. This rule also makes 

corresponding revisions to License 

Exception APP, the de minimis rule, 

and post shipment verification reporting 

requirements in the EAR. 

Additionally, this rule moves Albania 

and Croatia from Computer Tier 3 to 

Computer Tier 1 in the section of the 

EAR dedicated to export control 

requirements for high performance 

computers. The Administration believes 

Albania and Croatia are eligible to be 

treated as Computer Tier 1 countries 

because their governments have made 

the necessary reforms to allow the 

countries to join the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization, and have adopted 

accepted global standards in export 

controls. 

DATES: Effective Dates: This rule is 

effective on June 24, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general questions contact Sharron Cook, 

Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of 

Industry and Security, U.S. Department 

of Commerce at 202–482 2440 or by 

e-mail: sharron.cook@bis.doc.gov. 

For technical questions contact: 

Joseph Young at 202–482–4197 or by 

e-mail at joseph.young@bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In July 1996, the United States and 

thirty-three other countries gave final 

approval to the establishment of a new 

multilateral export control arrangement 

called the Wassenaar Arrangement on 

Export Controls for Conventional Arms 

and Dual Use Goods and Technologies 

(Wassenaar Arrangement or WA). The 

Wassenaar Arrangement contributes to 

regional and international security and 

stability by promoting transparency and 

greater responsibility in transfers of 

conventional arms and dual use goods 

and technologies, thus preventing 

destabilizing accumulations of such 

items. Participating states committed to 

exchange information on exports of dual 

use goods and technologies to nonparticipating states for the purposes of 

enhancing transparency and assisting in 

developing a common understanding of 

the risks associated with the transfers of 

these items. For more information on 

the Wassenaar Arrangement go to 

http://www.wassenaar.org/. 

Many computers are exported and 

reexported using License Exception 

Adjusted Peak Performance (APP). The 

primary eligibility criteria considered 

for this license exception are destination 

country and the processing speed. In the 

past, the processing speed was 

measured using a formula that would 

result in the Composite Theoretical 

Performance (CTP) of a computer. 

Presently, the speed of computers is 

calculated using a formula that results 

in the Adjusted Peak Performance 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES