[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7144]


[Federal Register: March 28, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Proposed Relocation of the San Francisco Weather Service Forecast 
Office; Availability

SUMMARY: The National Weather Service (NWS) is publishing its proposed 
certification for the proposed relocation of the San Francisco Weather 
Service Forecast Office, Redwood City, to Monterey, California, as 
required by Public Law 102-567. In accordance with this law, the public 
will have 60-days in which to comment on this proposed certification. 
The proposed certification is summarized in this notice but the entire 
package is too voluminous to publish in its entirety in the FR and much 
of the supporting documentation is, therefore, available by contacting 
the addressees below.

DATES: Comments are requested by May 27, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the proposed relocation package 
should be sent to Senator Raygor, Wx21, 1325 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910 or Norman Hoffmann, MIC, 660 Price Avenue, Redwood 
City, California 94063. All comments should be sent to Senator Raygor.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Senator Raygor at 301-713-0391.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Weather Service (NWS) 
anticipates relocating its forecast office for Northern California from 
Redwood City to Monterey. This is the first modernization action which 
requires a certification of no degradation of service under the Weather 
Service Modernization Act (the Act). In accordance with section 706 of 
Public Law 102-567, the Secretary of Commerce must certify that this 
relocation will not result in any degradation of service and must 
publish the proposed relocation certification in the FR. The proposed 
certification documentation includes the following:
    (1) A draft memorandum by the meteorologist in charge recommending 
the certification, the final of which will be endorsed by the Regional 
Director and the Director of the National Weather Service if 
appropriate, after consideration of public comments and completion of 
consultation with the Modernization Transition Committee;
    (2) A description of local weather characteristics and weather-
related concerns which affect the weather services provided within the 
service area;
    (3) A detailed comparison of the services provided within the 
service area and the services to be provided after such action;
    (4) A description of any recent or expected modernization of 
National Weather Service operation which will enhance services in the 
service area;
    (5) An identification of any area within any State which would not 
receive coverage (at an elevation of 10,000 feet) by the next 
generation weather radar network;
    (6) Evidence, based upon operational demonstration of modernized 
NWS operations, which was considered in reaching the conclusion that no 
degradation in service will result from such action including the 
relocation checklist and evidence from similar moves; and
    (7) A letter appointing the liaison officer.
    The proposed certification will not include any report of the 
Modernization Transition Committee (the Committee) which could be 
submitted in accordance with sections 706(b)(6) and 707(c) of the 
Public Law. At its March 16-17 meeting the Committee concluded that the 
information presented by that date did not reveal any potential 
degradation of service and decided not to issue a report.
    As stated earlier, some of the documentation included in the 
certification is too voluminous to publish, e.g. the description of 
weather characteristics and the detailed comparison of services, and a 
number of the attachments to the MICs evaluations. These items can be 
obtained through either of the contacts listed above.
    Attached to this notice is (1) the draft memorandum from Norman C. 
Hoffman, Meteorologist in Charge, WSFO San Francisco to Dr. Thomas D. 
Potter, Director, Western Region, summarizing the basis for his 
recommendation for relocation certification; (2) the Relocation 
Checklist; (3) memorandum from (a) Dean P. Gulezian, Meteorologist in 
Charge, Detroit, (b) James D. Belville, Meteorologist in Charge, WSFO 
Washington, DC (c) G.C. Henricksen, Jr., Meteorologist in Charge, WSFO 
Philadelphia, all evaluating recent office moves for which they were 
responsible and providing evidence for the present relocation.
    Once all public comments have been received and considered, the NWS 
will complete consultation with the Committee and determine whether to 
proceed with the final certification. If a decision to certify is made, 
the Secretary of Commerce must publish the final certification in the 
Federal Register and transmit the certification to the appropriate 
Congressional committees prior to relocating the office.

    Dated: March 22, 1994.
Elbert W. Friday, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator for Weather Services.

    Proposed MIC Recommendation. Included at this time for 
Completeness. Also, acronyms used in this package are provided as 
part of this letter for reference.

Memorandum For: W/WR--Thomas D. Potter
From: Norman C. Hoffmann, MIC, WSFO San Francisco
Subject: Recommendation for Relocation Certification

    After reviewing the documentation herein, I have determined 
that, in my professional judgment, relocating the Weather Service 
Forecast Office (WSFO) for the northern and central California 
service area from Redwood City to Monterey will not result in any 
degradation in weather services to this service area. Accordingly, I 
am recommending that you approve this section in accordance with 
section 706 of Public Law 102-567. If you concur, please endorse 
this recommendation and forward the package for transmittal to 
Congress.
    My recommendation is based on my review of the pertinent 
evidence and application of the modernization criteria for 
relocation of a field office. In summary:
    1. A description of local weather characteristics and weather-
related concerns which affect the weather services provided within 
the northern and central California service area is included as 
attachment A. As discussed below, I find that providing the services 
that address these characteristics and concerns from Monterey rather 
than from Redwood City will not degrade these services.
    2. A detailed list of the services currently provided within the 
northern and central California service area from the Redwood City 
location and a list of services to be provided from the Monterey 
location after relocation is included as attachment B. Comparison of 
these services shows that all services currently provided will 
continue to be provided after the proposed relocation. As discussed 
below, I find that there will be no degradation in the quality of 
these services as a result of the relocation.
    3. A description of the recent or expected modernization of 
National Weather Service operations which will enhance services in 
the service area is included as attachment C. The new technology 
listed (ASOS, WSR-88D, and AWIPS) has or will be installed and will 
enhance services in the northern and central California service 
area.
    4. A map showing planned NEXRAD coverage at an elevation of 
10,000 feet for California is included as attachment D. It 
identifies a limited area within the State (in the Sierra Nevadas) 
which will not receive coverage. It should be noted that this area 
does not have any NWS radar coverage at this time. NWS operational 
radar coverage for the State and for the specific service area will 
be increased dramatically.
    5. A relocation checklist setting forth all necessary steps to 
accomplish the proposed relocation without a disruption of services 
is included as attachment E. In finalizing this checklist, I 
carefully considered the evidence from already completed office 
moves and the comments on my draft checklist from the MICs 
responsible for these completed moves [and from users and/or the 
public during the comment period.] Thus, the relevant aspects of 
``battle plan'' and other planning materials from the successful 
move from Ann Arbor to White Lake, Michigan are fully incorporated, 
for example, extra care in ensuring an appropriate moving 
contractor. (The move from Philadelphia to Mount Holly, New Jersey 
also suggests adding this particular check point.) I note that 
several recommendations made by the other MIC's, such as a new phone 
system and a new demark box are already planned for the Monterey 
facility. [Final letter may point out any important changes 
resulting from user/public comment]
    This checklist includes all of the items required by the 
modernization relocation criteria. In particular, to satisfy Item 1 
requiring ``notification and technical coordination with users,'' I 
include as attachments F & G, a list of the users in the SWFO San 
Francisco Bay Area service area that will be notified of the 
relocation and a draft of the notification letter I plan to send to 
these users approximately 60 days prior to the relocation.
    6. In reaching my conclusion that no degradation in service will 
result from this relocation, I considered evidence, based upon 
operational demonstration of modernized National Weather Service 
operations, of two types:
    First is the evidence based on existing operations in Redwood 
City which will remain the same once the office is relocated in 
Monterey. Staff will continue to receive the same data and 
information on the same computer terminals and comparable display 
monitors and will disseminate their products over the same 
telecommunications network to the media and other users as they did 
before. In other words, in this case, ``modernized'' operations 
after the relocation will be the same as existing operations. I am 
certain there is no reason to anticipate any effect on the quality 
of services throughout the affected service area simply because they 
will be provided from a new location.
    This expectation is confirmed by the second type of evidence I 
considered, that from completed office moves of WSFO Washington 
(from Camp Springs, MD to Sterling, VA); WSFO Philadelphia (from 
Philadelphia, PA to Mount Holly, NJ); and WSFO Ann Arbor (from Ann 
Arbor, MI to White Lake, MI), included as attachment H. The primary 
mechanism for determining whether any degradation of service 
resulted from these moves is evidence of user dissatisfaction in 
products and services after the move. I believe that, in each case, 
there has been adequate opportunity for such dissatisfaction to 
surface if it existed and each MIC reports a successful move with no 
indication of such dissatisfaction.
    I recognize that no single move constitutes a perfect model for 
the present relocation but, after reviewing these moves as a body, I 
find adequate evidence that no degradation of service will result. 
For example, the Ann Arbor WSFO did not contain a service unit as 
does San Francisco, but the other two offices do contain such units 
and were moved without degrading the services provided by such 
units.
    Therefore, based of my review of this evidence and in my 
professional judgment, I find that the relocation will not result in 
a degradation in services to the northern and central California 
service area.
    7. A memorandum assigning the liaison officer for the San 
Francisco Bay Area service area is included as attachment I.
    I note that WSFO San Francisco is not located on an airport and 
is not the only field office in California, so that those special 
criteria involving an air safety appraisal and an evaluation to in-
state users required under PL 102-567 are not applicable to this 
proposed relocation certification.

    [If, after the MIC considers comments raised during the comment 
period, he continues to recommend certification, the final 
memorandum will address appropriate comments either here or in an 
attachment.]

    I, Thomas D. Potter, Director, Western Region, endorse this 
proposed relocation certification.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas D. Potter

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

    I, Elbert W. Friday, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Weather 
Services, endorse this proposed relocation certification.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elbert W. Friday, Jr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

Relocation Checklist

I. Notification and Technical Coordination With Users

________Technical Coordination completed with users. Users have 
received notification of the proposed relocation and relocation 
date.

II. Identification and Preparation of Backup Sites

    WSO Sacramento is the backup site.

________Personnel scheduled for deployment from WSFO San Francisco 
to WSO Sacramento during backup operations.
________AFOS software loaded at WSO Sacramento for backup 
operations.
________Portable NOAA Weather Radio system installed at Monterey and 
tested for backup NOAA Weather Radio operation.

III. Start of Service Backup

    Delay move and start of backup service if severe weather is in 
progress or forecast for the day.

________Forecasters deployed to WSO Sacramento for backup 
operations.
________WSFO San Francisco MIC coodinates with WSO Sacramento MIC 
regarding start of backup operations.
________Start backup operations.

IV. Systems, Furniture and Communications

________Final Coordination with moving company. Ensure familiarity 
with moving computer equipment. Also company will allow flexibility 
in the order the truck is loaded.
________Furniture at Redwood City identified that will be moved to 
the new WSFO.
________Inventory all circuits to be moved and established 
relationships with all involved telephone companies.
________New telephone system and communications circuits installed 
at the new WSFO.
________AFOS communications circuits installed.
________Satellite data circuits installed.
________Install furniture and equipment according to furniture and 
equipment floor plan.

V. Installation and Checkout

________Connect wiring for AFOs, peripheral computers and modems.

AFOS

________Boot AFOS, bring it up and on line.
________Validate data base and verify data flowing.
________Send test message.
________Verify request reply.
________Test printer.
________Display maps on AFOS.
________Run animate on AFOS.
________Check out software
________Verify watchdog programs are running.

CFOS

________Bring CFOS and additional computers/peripherals (printer 
plotter) on lone.
________Run applications program.
________Send test product to AFOS.
________Send test product over SDC.
________Send test product over Western Region Loop.

NOAA Weather Wire

________Transmit on NOAA Weather Wire.

National Warning System (NAWAS)

________Initiate call to California OES to verify operation of 
NAWAS.

Satellite Display Systems

________Bring SWIS, MicroSWIS, DWIPS, HIPS Satellite systems on 
line.
________Check receipt of images.
________Check looping capability after 2nd image.

Emergency Broadcast System (EBS)

________Ensure the EBS capabilities are reestablished.

Emergency Digital Information System (EDIS)

________Ensure EDIS transmission and reception.

ALERT

________Bring ALERT on line.
________Verify data is flowing.
________Verify dial-out and dial-in capabilities are working.

NOAA Weather Radio (NWR)

________Bring NWR on line.
________Verify the three NWR consoles are operational.
________Terminate use of portable NOAA Weather Radio (DALKE) system 
for NWR backup.
________Verify the two phones: one for the media answered 24 hours 
per day; the second for public and service requests, are working and 
have the same phone numbers as they had at Redwood City.

VI. Validation of Systems Operability and Service Delivery

Once AFOS hardware and all associated PCs are deemed operational by 
the ET staff, the meteorologist at the various forecast desks will 
verify that their PCs are communicating with AFOS.
________Verify receipt of the needed hydrologic, radar, satellite, 
surface and upper air observational data, appropriate computer model 
guidance, and appropriate forecast products and guidance from other 
NWS offices to maintain the watch, warning, advisory and forecast 
programs for northern and central California.

VII. End of Backup Operations

________Following validation of systems operability and service 
delivery, terminate backup operations at WSO Sacramento.

February 8, 1994.
Memorandum For: Louis J. Boezi Wx2
From: Dean P. Gulezian MIC/AM WSFO DTX
Subject: Evaluation of Office Move
Reference: Your Memo, Same Subject 1/21/94

    Listed below are the responses to each of the questions raised 
in your 1/21/94 memo.
    Before answering the specific questions, I'll provide a little 
background on how we approached the move.
    Our office move from Ann Arbor to White Lake Michigan was a TQM 
effort from the start. A move task team was developed which included 
everyone in the office who volunteered or was assigned 
responsibility for certain aspects of the move. The union had a 
representative on the task team as well, and he worked ``hand in 
hand'' with us every step of the way. We especially worked closely 
with the union on such matters as floor plans, short distance 
transfer benefits, paperwork necessary to process transfers, etc. A 
letter was presented to the union 60 days in advance of the move 
specifying the pertinent information regarding the move (attachment 
1).
    Most move related tasks were delegated to various staff members 
who were given full authority and responsibility to execute these 
tasks. My responsibility was to oversee everything, and carry out 
the few tasks that I took on myself. Many ``move task force'' 
meetings were held during the time the move was being planned, with 
the meetings becoming more frequent (daily at the end) as the move 
drew closer.
    A ``battle plan'' (attachment 2 shows the final summary) for 
executing the move was developed at the first meeting. Subsequent 
meetings evaluated the progress of this plan. Input for the battle 
plan came from a number of sources. They were: the relocation 
kickoff meeting conducted by CRH SOD (agenda in attachment 3), the 
draft ROML issued by CRH on Facilities Relocation Management 
(attachment 4), the Facilities Prep List prepared by the SFT 
(attachment 5), and the Office Relocation Plan prepared by CRH SOD 
with input from members of the move task force (attachment 6). 
Furthermore, a Move Activities Plan was written, using CRH guidance. 
Attachment 7 is the final copy of the plan. Rather than me 
commenting on your draft relocation checklist, I offer our ``battle 
plan'' and move activities plan as well as the additional documents 
mentioned in this paragraph as alternatives to the plan you drafted.
    As a result of many people being an important part of the move, 
and excellent support from CRH and WSH, and a top-notch moving 
company, our move went smoothly. Our staff was very supportive of 
the move, despite the fact that it meant most people would have to 
relocate. For all employees involved in a short-distance transfer, 
the PCS's were processed quickly and without complication. Because 
of the sparse population near the new office, the staff was given a 
25 mile radius from the new office to move into and still claim a 
short-distance transfer.
    When reviewing our comments, it should be noted that our office 
at Ann Arbor was rather unique. It did not have a public service 
unit, or any interaction with the public. It also did not have a CWA 
or NWR program. We still don't have these programs, but will have 
them shortly when we pick up the service programs from WSOs Detroit 
and Flint.

1. The Move From Where to Where--Distance

    The move occurred between Ann Arbor, MI and White Lake MI, which 
is a distance of 48 miles. AFOS and other communications were 
disconnected at 8 AM and running again by 8 PM. We were fully 
operational by 10 PM that day. The move was managed by following the 
above-mentioned documents. It went smoothly with no problems 
encountered.

2. User Notification of the Move

    The attached user notification list was used to notify all users 
of our move (attachment 8). It was developed based on a generic list 
provided by CRH (attachment 9). The move letter is also attached 
(attachment 10) as is the press release that was sent on AFOS 
(attachment 11). Notification went smoothly with no problems 
encountered.

3. Service Backup

    The attached service back-up plan (attachment 12) and letter 
explaining the Flexzone Program (attachment 13) enabled service 
back-up to be perfectly executed with no problems encountered.

4. Communications, Installation, and Checkout

    An inventory of all circuits at the old office was taken 
(attachment 14). This included all voice and data circuits. Then a 
list was made of all of the necessary circuits that would be needed 
at the new office, including voice and data. A Request for Change 
was written by WSH which also addressed necessary actions 
(attachment 15). Regional Headquarters then ordered new circuits 
that were needed and ordered ``add term circuits'' for circuits that 
could be used at both locations i.e. AFOS RDC Circuits. The add term 
circuits avoided the conflict of having to connect both ends when 
the move took place. These circuits were ordered approximately eight 
months in advance with an installation date at least a month in 
advance of the move. A minor problem did develop with the local 
telephone company during the evening of the move. It was quickly 
taken care of by our ESA. Our Regional Communication Manager was 
also a tremendous help on moving day. No matter how well the 
communications portion of a move is planned, the actions of the 
local telephone company are out of the NWS's hands. Other than that 
minor problem, no other problems were encountered.

5. The Move of Furniture and Equipment

    The move of furniture was handled by one of our forecasters. He 
was in charge of everything from marking what furniture was to be 
shipped to the new office, to what furniture was to be made excess 
property. He also worked with our secretary on preparing the excess 
property list (attachment 16), worked with CASC and met with the 
movers to arrange details of the move, and drew color coded maps for 
both locations as to where each piece of furniture was to be taken 
from and placed. On move day he oversaw the move of furniture out of 
Ann Arbor, while our Service Hydrologist oversaw the move of 
furniture into the new White Lake office. The move of furniture went 
smoothly with no problems encountered.
    CRH SOD and CASC procurement handled contracting the moving 
company for both furniture and equipment. They did not look for the 
lowest bidder, but the company that showed they could move the 
equipment properly, without tipping or laying the equipment over. 
The mover also had to agree to allow the NWS to instruct them what 
to move and when. This allowed the NWS to get the equipment loaded 
first and moved safely to the new office immediately. Not only were 
no problems encountered in moving equipment, but the ability to 
dictate what equipment was to be moved first enabled us to restore 
full operations as quickly as we did.

6. System Installation and Checkout

    The following were the major systems relocated at DTX: AFOS, 
SWIS, and Remote RADAR displays. An NWS telephone system was also 
installed at the new office. Approximately 8 months in advance of 
the move, an inventory was conducted of all of the cables needed by 
the major systems being moved. The larger cables, such as the AFOS 
GDM Bus cables were ordered by CRH. The smaller cables were made by 
the Electronics staff at the WSFO using supplies purchased locally. 
These were cables such as the ABT cables.
    As soon as the building was accepted, the SFT installed the 
necessary peculiar electrical outlets for the systems that would be 
installed. At the same time the electronics staff installed all of 
the phone system cabling and all of the system cables. The phone 
system cables were terminated where necessary and the system cables 
were checked to ensure the correct connectors were in the correct 
locations. The phone system was connected and all of the phone 
locations were programmed and checked out for proper operation. CRH 
supplied the phone system and the phone sets. All of the 
interconnecting cabling and termination supplies were purchased 
locally by the electronics staff.
    The layout of the equipment in the new office was planned well 
in advance of the move and diagrammed, to scale, by CRH SOD. This 
diagram allowed local staff to determine where all furniture and 
equipment would be located. It also allowed the electronics staff to 
determine where all of the system cables and telephone cables needed 
to be terminated. As a result, no problems were encountered with 
systems installation and checkout.

7. Validation of System Operability and Service Delivery

    Diagnostics were run on AFOS followed by a MODIFY. Then all 
equipment was turned on and the electronics staff and forecasters 
made sure all incoming data was received. We were fully operational 
and receiving all incoming data by 10 PM the evening of the move and 
there were no problems encountered validating the system operability 
or products delivered by the WSFO.

User Reaction

    User reaction has been extremely positive. After moving to White 
Lake, we immediately held 2 open houses. One was for our users (see 
attachment 17), and one for our new neighbors (see attachment 18). 
Both open houses went a long way toward building a positive 
relationship with our users. A typical response from our users is 
one that a county emergency manager made to a letter from our WPM 
(attachment 19). One neighbor did raise some concerns which were 
addressed in a memo which is attached to this response (attachment 
20). The response satisfied his concerns.

Attachments

February 22, 1994.
Memorandum For: Louis J. Boezi, Deputy Assistant Administrator for 
Modernization
From: James D. Belville, MIC/AM WSFO, Washington, DC
Subject: Evaluation of the Relocation of WSFO, Washington, DC from 
Camp Springs, MD to Sterling, VA

    The Weather Service Forecast Office (WSFO) in Washington, DC 
provides weather forecasts and warnings over a four state area 
(Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and the eastern panhandle of West 
Virginia) as well as, one federal district and a large section of 
the North Atlantic Ocean. The WSFO in Washington, DC provides a full 
suite of services including aviation, public, and marine forecasts; 
fire weather, air pollution, and agricultural support services; 
hydrologic data collection and forecasts; and severe weather 
warnings. Due to the multi-state service area and multitude of 
services, few if any WSFO's in the United States could compare in 
complexity for the relocation of this particular office.
    The WSFO Washington, DC (WBC) relocated on March 19, 1990 from 
Camp Springs, MD to Sterling, VA. The relocation of this facility 
was necessary because of the location of the WSR-88D weather radar 
on property owned by the NWS just west of Dulles International 
Airport. The distance of this move was approximately fifty (50) 
miles.
    The move of WSFO WBC was completely planned and coordinated by 
myself, William Comeaux (DMIC), and numerous staff members of the 
WSFO. Our first priority was to ensure that the office move was 
totally transparent to our entire user community. This meant that 
all services continued uninterrupted during the transition of 
services from one location to another. In every aspect of the 
planning process, the transition of services was the number one 
consideration.
    User notification of the office relocation along with new NWS 
phone numbers presented the WSFO with a significant challenge. While 
gearing up for this task, we found there was no central listing of 
the various users. Each office focal point was tasked with 
developing a comprehensive list of users, along with the current 
address, for notification. These were then combined and compiled in 
an administrative computer. A letter was composed for each specific 
user group of individual along with computer produced mailing 
labels. We found that computer paper with the NOAA letterhead was 
available. We were able to generate in excess of 2400 notification 
letters and mail them over a three day period. Following the office 
relocation, we received zero complaints from all user groups 
concerning our notification procedures. The notification occurred 45 
days prior to the relocation.
    Designing and implementing a communication system for the new 
facility in Sterling was the most difficult, as well as frustrating, 
experience of the entire move. For the most part, this was due to 
the fact that the local phone company was Contel, but C&P Telephone 
and AT&T also provided many of our data circuits. An enormous amount 
of coordination was required in order to successfully install all 
needed communications circuits. All data circuits were tested using 
a PC one week prior to the move. Several problems were found and 
immediately corrected. These efforts paid off as the WSFO AFOS 
system, NWR, RADIDS monitors, and SWIS were all functioning in an 
operational configuration at the new site within 18 hours of being 
turned off at the old location.
    One significant outcome of the WSFO relocation was the vastly 
increased (nearly double) area covered by the metro area telephone 
service the NWS obtained through Contel. The WSFO public service 
function was greatly enhanced by the expanded telephone service 
area.
    There were three communication deficiencies which resulted from 
the relocation of the WSFO.
    1. FTS service was not available at the Sterling site for 
approximately 1\1/2\ years following the relocation.
    2. Relocating the office telephone system from the old site to 
the new location was a mistake. It proved to be quite expensive and 
required several days to complete installation. Installing a new 
phone system prior to the relocation would have been better.
    3. The FEMA NAWAS circuits were installed about one month 
following the office move. This delay was caused by FEMA not 
budgeting for the relocation of these circuits.
    Service backup for the WSFO relocation was provided by several 
means. The public forecast and warning programs were provided from 
WSO Baltimore, MD by WSFO WBC forecasters. The backup service began 
at 12 AM EST Sunday, March 19 and ended at 8 AM EST Monday, March 
20, 1990. All products were issued on time and were of excellent 
quality. Neither the public, local officials, nor media could tell 
that a relocation had occurred. The aviation forecast products and 
marine forecast products were issued by WSFO Charleston, WV and WSFO 
Raleigh, NC respectively. They did an excellent job of providing 
quality products for our users.
    The relocation of the equipment was planned in great detail. 
Equipment was loaded onto the vans in the order in which it needed 
when unloaded. In other words, the most important was loaded last in 
order to be first off. The first off was the NOAA Weather Radio 
(NWR). This system was down for a total of 6 hours. Next, the AFOS 
was off loaded. As each piece was moved into the new facility, it 
was off loaded. As each piece was moved into the new facility, it 
was hooked up immediately by the electronics technicians. The entire 
system installation and checkout was completed by 8 PM EST, March 
19. The system was allowed to run all night to ensure everything was 
operating satisfactorily. Two forecasters and a meteorological 
technician monitored data flow and product delivery to validate 
service delivery capabilities. No troubles were encountered during 
the night and all backup services were terminated at 8 AM Monday 
morning.
    The relocation of WSFO WBC to a new facility was more than just 
a move. It also provided the WSFO with an opportunity to improve 
several key areas of WSFO operations. These were:
    1. Greatly improved operations layout with respect to access to 
the various technologies and the facilitation of interaction between 
forecasters.
    2. Vastly improved NOAA Weather Radio operations both in the 
basic programming and quality of the broadcast.
    3. Improved warning procedures were obtained by locating the key 
dissemination systems to local officials and the media in the 
operations area (NAWAS and EBS).
    4. The SKYWARN spotter program was significantly enhanced with 
respect to the location of the amateur radio station in the 
operations area and improved antenna system. It was difficult for 
SKYWARN to function at the old location.
    To-date, I have not received nor have I heard of a complaint 
connected with the relocation of WSFO WBC to Sterling, VA. The 
relocation went extremely well and was transparent to all users.
    I have thoroughly reviewed the WSFO San Francisco relocation 
checklist with respect to requirements of relocation of WSFO WBC. I 
find this checklist quite comprehensive and serves its intended 
purpose well. I could find no deficiencies in their planning for 
this office relocation.

G. C. Henricksen, Jr., NWSFO PHI/MT. HOLLY, NOAA, 732 Woodlane Road, 
Mount Holly, N.J. 08060
February 3, 1994.
Memorandum For: Louis J. Boezi, WX2
From: MIC/AM WSFO PHI
Subject: Evaluation of Office Move
Reference: WX21 memorandum 1/21/94

    In reference to the above memorandum, the responses are as 
follows:
    (1) The move was from downtown Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
(Federal Building, 600 Arch Street), to Westampton township, New 
Jersey, just west of the town of Mount Holly. The distance is 21 
road miles.
    (2) User notification was handled by our office and Eastern 
Region Headquarters. Over three thousand notifications were mailed 
to radio, television, cable, newspapers, cooperative observers and 
spotters.
    (3) Full service backup was accomplished by NWSFO PIT and NYC 
for sixty hours (60) from 7am edt August 23, 1993 to 7pm edt August 
25, 1993.
    (4) Telephone lines were moved across state boundaries. This 
created numerous difficulties with the RDC/SDC AFOS circuits, the 
asynchronous circuits, NWR, and general telephone lines. The NWR 
circuit problems took the longest to resolve. The DMARC was moved 
from the old location to the new location. A new DMARC should have 
been constructed at the new facility. The old DMARC caused numerous 
circuit restructuring problems. All cabling and connections were 
installed and checked at the new facility prior to the move.
    (5) & (6) The furniture and equipment move was handled poorly. 
The ``A'' side of AFOS was dropped. SWIS was dropped and severely 
damaged. The equipment was loaded first and off-loaded last which 
was opposite to our instructions. The damage and delay in off-
loading equipment contributed to lengthening operational down time 
of the new facility--requiring a longer full service backup. The 
RDA, RPG, and PUP installation went smoothly. The new facility 
environmental control was seriously faulty and took several weeks to 
fully rectify.
    (7) The WSR-88D was accepted approximately two weeks later than 
target date (early October 1993). The building was conditionally 
(with faults noted with suggested corrections) accepted just prior 
to the move.
    User reaction was strongly negative toward the poor 
communication systems or lack of proper operating communication 
systems prior to resolution. Current reaction of the users is highly 
positive. In short, the major problem was communications. The damage 
to the computer equipment and SWIS further delayed the restoration 
of full service capability. In the long run, the systems were 
repaired, re-routed, restructured, and stabilized to the full 
satisfaction of all users.

Attachments: memorandum 9/21/93; memorandum WX21, 1/21/94

cc: W/ER Susan F. Zevin, DMIC, John Jones, AES, Ralph Paxson

September 21, 1993.
For the Record:
From: MIC/AM WSFO PHI/MT. HOLLY--Chet Henricksen
Subject: The NWSFO PHL move to Mt. Holly

    On August 23, 1993, the forecast office moved from center city 
Philadelphia to Mt. Holly, New Jersey. The move was approximately 21 
miles. This is a summary of the move and the things that we've 
learned. Each move is different, with separate problems. We can all 
learn from each individual move scenario.
    (1) The equipment and furniture move--Significant damage 
occurred to our SWIS and AFOS system due to improper handling during 
the move. We estimate approximately 10 thousand dollars in damages 
due to dropped and damaged equipment. A more experienced computer 
equipment mover should have been used.
    Recommendations: The area manager should have an active role in 
the selection of the equipment mover with EASC oversight. The mover 
should have a history of successful computer moves. The computer 
equipment should be loaded last and off loaded first. The delivery 
of non-computer equipment to the new sight should be delayed to 
allow for setup of moved computer systems. The placement and 
handling of office and computer equipment requires at least two 
dedicated NWS oversight personnel.
    (2) Communications--All AFOS lines and telephone lines were laid 
prior to the move. The AFOS DEMARC from the center city WSFO was 
hand carried to the new office, and put in place in a couple of 
hours. The new lines already in place in the office had to be 
connected to the AFOS DEMARC. There was a circuit routing change 
required by SMCC in addition to normal re-connection. This effected 
all asynchronous circuits. An attempt was made to reroute all 
asynchronous circuits in the DEMARC. This was only partially 
successful. The end result was a significant delay in asynchronous 
service. The RDC and SDC could not be checked prior to the move 
other than to confirm that the new lines were active. Problems arose 
in data distribution checks after AFOS was reconnected. This further 
delayed return from full service backup. NWWS and NU IFLOWS saw 
significant delays.
    Recommendations: Standardized new DEMARC boxes should be 
available prior to a move, with all cables and wiring accomplished 
prior to the move. All required changes in the DEMARC should be done 
well in advance, and available to the office for installation to the 
new location prior to the physical move. Assistance from person(s) 
at another management area, which has accomplished a similar move 
should be required. Expertise and experience of NWS personnel should 
be fully utilized. We need a design review of the satellite antenna 
plot to stabilize the system.
    (3) Telephone Systems--The switch over from the old telephone 
line numbers to the new was not smooth. The old telephone numbers 
were still active for over one week following the move. The public 
ring through answering machine failed, probably due to an internal 
power supply failure. This occurred on power up at the new location. 
Additionally, the ring through telephone number did not properly 
switch over to the New Jersey number as planned. It was more than 
two weeks after the move, when we discovered that Bell Atlantic had 
not passed the work request on to Bell of Pennsylvania to accomplish 
a ``roll over'' number for Pennsylvania callers. The three 800 
telephone numbers failed to ``roll over'' to the New Jersey numbers 
as designed. In an attempt to keep the 800 numbers and ring through 
number changes transparent to the user, unforeseen delays occurred 
in incoming calls to the new office. Numerous public complaints were 
filed due to telephones not being answered (due to the numerous 
switch over problems). The learning curve on the NorthStar telephone 
system was slow. This lead to an added irritant during and shortly 
following the move.
    Recommendations: If the new lines are connected and operational, 
the old FTS 2000 lines should be disconnected by GSA within twenty-
four hours of the move. A voice intercept should be used for 
approximately thirty days on the old telephone numbers announcing 
the new telephone number. With at least four telephone companies 
involved in an interstate move, you can be assured of delays and 
errors in timing, and implementation of telephone numbers. A 
comparable spare answering machine should be available for on site 
use in the event of the primary system failure.
    (4) Environmental Systems--The condenser units on two of the 
three air conditioners flooded the ceiling and hallway of the new 
office on four separate occasions. The problem turned out to be a 
defect under recall by the manufacturer that had to be accomplished 
by the local service installers. The humidifier unit flooded the 
ceiling tiles twice. This appears to be an engineering problem with 
the circulation system in the humidifier. we have a temporary fix in 
place, but no permanent solution is available. The thermostatic 
control for the three air handlers is a computer. A password and 
system training is necessary to operate and control the temperature 
environment in all but the equipment room. The password was not made 
available until two weeks after the move. Training is still not 
accomplished. The computer control unit failed due to a near by 
lightning strike. This caused the entire environmental system to 
fail. A telephone line was installed three weeks after the move. 
This established contractor remote access to the computer control. 
The environmental controller was placed on UPS three weeks after the 
move.
    Recommendations: Communications of recalls and equipment 
modification lists must be improved. Facility problems experienced 
at this location, are likely to be repeated at other NWS facilities. 
All environmental computer control units should be placed on UPS in 
all NWS facilities. Passwords and training for the control units 
should be supplied within 48 hours of building occupancy. Remote 
access to the control unit via telephone lines should be completed 
prior to the move. A permanent fixed needs to be found for the 
humidifier problem.
    Many things did go well with the move. I have listed the problem 
areas. This was done in an attempt to help other offices in their 
move. I am open for questions and clarifications of these and other 
issues at anytime.

cc: Susan F. Zevin, W/ER, Ted Wilk, W/ER4, AMs, NWSFOs ER, Ralph 
Paxson, AES

[FR Doc. 94-7144 Filed 3-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-12-M