[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2137-2139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-892]


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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Final Certification for the Consolidation of 70 Weather Service 
Offices (WSOs)

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On January 2, 1997 the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 
and Atmosphere approved and transmitted 70 consolidation certifications 
to Congress.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the final consolidation certification 
packages should be sent to Tom Beaver, Room 09356, 1325 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie Scanlon at 301-713-1698 ext 151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 70 consolidation certifications were 
comprised of three groups as described and listed below. The first 
group, consisting of 42 consolidations, were proposed and the 60-day 
public comment period commenced upon publication of three Federal 
Register notices between December 1995 and February 1996. There were no 
public comments received. The Modernization Transition Committee (MTC) 
considered and endorsed these 42 consolidation certifications at its 
April 24, 1996 meeting, concluding that these certifications would not 
result in any degradation of service.

(1) Akron, OH
(2) Atlantic City, NJ
(3) Apalachicola, FL
(4) Baltimore, MD
(5) Bristol, TN
(6) Cape Hatteras, NC
(7) Columbus, OH
(8) Concord, NH
(9) Colorado Springs, CO
(10) Concordia, KS
(11) Dayton, OH
(12) Daytona Beach, FL
(13) Del Rio, TX
(14) Detroit, MI
(15) Grand Island, NE
(16) Harrisburg, PA
(17) Hartford, CT
(18) Havre, MT
(19) Helena, MT
(20) Kansas City, MO
(21) Knoxville, TN
(22) Lynchburg, VA
(23) Mansfield, OH
(24) Moline, IL
(25) New York City, NY
(26) Norfolk, VA
(27) Pensacola, FL
(28) Port Arthur, TX
(29) Portland, ME
(30) Providence, RI
(31) Raleigh, NC
(32) Richmond, VA
(33) Roanoke, VA
(34) Rockford, IL
(35) Toledo, OH
(36) Tupelo, MS
(37) Waco, TX
(38) West Palm Beach, FL
(39) Williamsport, PA
(40) Wilmington, DE
(41) Worcester, MA
(42) Youngstown, OH

    The second group, consisting of 18 consolidations, were proposed 
and the 60-day public comment period commenced upon publication of two 
Federal Register notices in between March and April 1996. Two public 
comments were received; one with regard to WSO Bakersfield, CA and one 
with regard to WSO Indianapolis, IN. These comments and responses are 
set forth here for reference.
    Comment: A comment from Sean Boyd, KSEE 24 Television, Fresno, 
California questioned the WSR-88D precipitation algorithm. He stated, 
``Initially, I have concerns, which were unfounded, about the potential 
health hazards for those in close proximity to the WSR-88D. Those 
concerns have long been put to rest now. There is no question that the 
WSR-88D is the finest tool to date for the detection of severe weather, 
and for precipitation estimates. Regarding the former: severe weather 
in central California is rare; however the rules for such episodes are 
different

[[Page 2138]]

here than areas east of the Rockies, and the algorithms for the site in 
Hanford could probably use a little ``tweaking.'' Please don't ask me 
to be specific; I am not a mathematician. But from what I have learned 
about the device, having taken Les Lemon's short course, there are 
certain parameters that are, to an extent, adjustable. Regarding the 
latter: it seems precipitation estimates are very good, and we get 
excellent ground truth from our weather spotters, members of the 
Association of Central California Weather Observers, whose numbers are 
in the hundreds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have heard that there 
is occasional trouble at the Hanford site with the 88D not clicking 
into the precipitation mode, when there is precipitation reaching the 
ground here.''
    Response: The precipitation algorithm has three modes of execution; 
Category 0--no precipitation within 124nm of the RDA; Category 1--
significant precipitation within 124nm of the RDA; and Category 2--
insignificant precipitation within 124nm of the RDA.
    These modes are selected automatically by the software, but the 
selection can be adjusted through parameters. The criteria to determine 
which level is active at any given time is: (1) The real coverage of 
the echoes, and (2) the intensity of the echoes. Category 1 and 2 
generate precipitation products; category 0 does not. San Joaquin 
Valley NWSO (Hanford WSR-88D site) had one occurrence, where through a 
combination of clutter suppression and precipitation category settings, 
precipitation products were not generated. This occurred as a light 
precipitation event moved into the area. San Joaquin Valley NWSO 
forecasters quickly diagnosed the problem, and it has not occurred 
again.
    Comment: One comment was received from Jerry Salerno, Terre Haute 
Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS). His comment included the 
following comments received from four Specialists:

    ``Specialist 1. Has observed little change in the elimination of 
AP. Has noticed that, at times, the sensitivity of the WSR-88D seems 
to increase, thus showing strong precipitation echoes when only 
clouds or virga are present.
    Specialist 2. Has noted improvement. Before the ``clean up'', 
echoes would be shown beyond an area of thunderstorms when SA's 
reported no precipitation in that area. Also noted at night and 
morning, frequent large circles of ``echoes'' around many radar 
sites simultaneously.
    Specialist 3. On 5/15/96, prior to 1200Z through approximately 
1300Z, large area of AP was observed in extreme southern Illinois 
and western Kentucky--more than 100 miles from the nearest 
precipitation.
    Specialist 4. On 5/17/96 at 1800Z, ground clutter/AP was noted 
around LOT, IND, MPX, OHX, and MRX radar sites.''

    Response: On June 10, Dave Tucek, WCM NWSFO Indianapolis, called 
the Terre Haute AFSS to discuss their radar concerns. Dave spoke with 
Cynthia Cole, Assistant Manager of Programs, Mark Carver, Training 
Specialist, and Jerry Salerno. Their position has not changed since 
original discussions during the Confirmation of Services process. They 
know that AP and ground clutter, which were not encoded in the ROB 
before the WSR-88D, are now encoded by the AUTOROB program and a 
potential source of erroneous interpretation by briefers. They are 
satisfied the NWS is working toward a solution, but want to see this 
non-precipitation data eliminated or reduced to a point it does not 
cause confusion for the briefers. The AFSS briefers were trained to 
recognize non-precipitation patterns through time-lapse monitoring, and 
by comparison of radar echoes to satellite data, lightning data and 
ground truth data. The AFSS briefers prefer not to use the AUTOROB 
anymore for verification because of the AP and ground clutter encoding. 
They are concerned they may mis-interpret ground clutter as a 
thunderstorm, or worse, a thunderstorm as ground clutter. Despite the 
improved filtering the NWS has incorporated this April through the use 
of Hourly Digital Precipitation, ground clutter still exists as shown 
by the AFSS example cases in May. Dave also spoke to Mike Edwards of 
Kavouris (which supplies the AFSS radar data) about their filtering 
methods on ground clutter. Kavouris does not filter single site radar 
data but does employ extensive filtering techniques in their Composite 
Radar Image. But still, despite filtering techniques employed by the 
NWS and by Kavouris, ground clutter still occurs and is a concern. And 
this is an issue for all radar sites, not just Indianapolis. The Terre 
Haute Flight Service did not feel a need for additional training from 
the Indianapolis NWSFO staff. They appreciated our offers for help but 
felt further solutions would require decisions and actions at national 
NWS and FAA levels. They again appreciate NWS' efforts but would still 
like ground clutter suppression improved further. Regarding the events 
in question that were listed in the Federal Register, NWS Indianapolis 
had no archive data available. Other NWS office's clutter suppression 
techniques and Kavouris' filter techniques and data display are not 
well known either. Despite these limitations, Dave was familiar with 
the problems the briefers experienced and provided the following 
comments to those cases. Specialist 1 had observed little change to the 
elimination of AP. At Indianapolis, we invoke different Clutter 
Suppression Regions based on the degree of AP occurring. This filtering 
reduces the amount of AP but typically does not eliminate it. 
Specialist 1 also commented on apparent sensitivity changes leading to 
strong precipitation echoes where only clouds or virga were present. 
This likely resulted from a radar site switching from Precipitation 
Mode to Clear Air Mode. Clouds and virga are often detected in Clear 
Air Mode but not in Precipitation Mode due to longer sampling times and 
greater sampling density. On a Kavouris composite, clouds and virga 
appear as weak echoes. On a Kavouris single site display, clouds and 
virga may be interpreted as strong precipitation echoes because the 
color scheme for weak echoes is similar to the composites colors for 
strong echoes. The briefers must recognize that a particular color may 
represent different intensities on composite data and single site data. 
Specialist 2 noted improvement because of the lack of echoes occurring 
behind an area of thunderstorms. This was likely coincidence that AP 
was not occurring behind the thunderstorms. Specialist 2 also noted 
frequent large circles of echoes around many radar sites during the 
night and morning. This is typical AP many radar sites display at these 
times of day. Moisture and temperature stratifications overnight yield 
atmospheric density discontinuities which lead to animalous beam 
refraction or AP. Unless clutter suppressions are invoked at each 
individual site, this AP signature will not disappear until atmospheric 
conditions change, which is usually late morning. Specialist 3 noted on 
5/15/96 a large area of AP over southern Illinois and western Kentucky 
more than 100 miles from any rain. These locations are beyond our 
radars display range but are the typical AP patterns that occur at many 
sites for reasons mentioned in the above paragraph. Specialist 4 noted 
on 5/17/96 at 1800Z ground clutter/AP patterns occurring at LOT, IND, 
MPX, OHX, and MRX radar sites. I cannot attest to weather conditions at 
sites other than IND. This was a rather uncommon event. Anomalous 
Propagation does not normally occur in the early afternoon because 
layer stratification has been destroyed by convective mixing. In this 
case, Indianapolis' ground was very wet due to nearly one inch of rain 
on 5/15 and

[[Page 2139]]

nearly 5 inches of rain since May 1. A strong temperature inversion 
over Indiana at midday on the 17th likely resulted in strong moisture 
gradients leading to the AP experienced. In conclusion, the Terre Haute 
AFSS is satisfied with NWS efforts to improve radar data but still 
wants to see further improvement. In our opinion, the AFSS specialists 
can recognize AP and correctly distinguish precipitation and non-
precipitation targets for pilots. We conclude the Indianapolis WSR-88D 
is meeting the needs of our customers.
    The MTC considered these 18 consolidation certifications and the 
public comments received, and endorsed them at its June 27, 1996 
meeting, concluding that these certifications would not result in any 
degradation of service.

(1) WSO Allentown, PA
(2) WSO Atlanta, GA
(3) WSO Bakersfield, CA
(4) WSO Beckley, WV
(5) WSO Bridgeport, CT
(6) WSO Charleston, WV
(7) WSO Columbus, GA
(8) WSO Dubuque, IA
(9) WSO Elkins, WV
(10) WSO Huntington, WV
(11) WSO Indianapolis, IN
(12) WSO Las Vegas, NV
(13) WSO Lubbock, TX
(14) WSO Macon, GA
(15) WSO Minneapolis, MN
(16) WSO Portland, OR
(17) WSO Salem, OR
(18) WSO Wilkes-Barre, PA

    The third group, consisting of 10 consolidations, were proposed and 
the 60-day public comment period commenced upon publication of a 
Federal Register notice in July 1996. There were no public comments 
received. The MTC considered and endorsed these 10 consolidation 
certifications at its September 19, 1996 meeting, concluding that these 
certifications would not result in any degradation of service.

(1) WSO Baton Rouge, LA
(2) WSO Columbia, MO
(3) WSO Des Moines, IA
(4) WSO Lansing, MI
(5) WSO Lexington, KY
(6) WSO Lincoln, NE
(7) WSO Louisville, KY
(8) WSO Montgomery, AL
(9) WSO Siox City, IA
(10) WSO St. Louis, MO

    After considering any public comments received and the MTC 
endorsements, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 
approved all 70 consolidation certifications and transmitted them to 
Congress on January 2, 1997. Certification approval authority was 
delegated from the Secretary of Commerce to the Under Secretary in June 
1996. The NWS is now completing the certification requirements by 
publishing the final consolidation certifications in the Federal 
Register.

Elbert W. Friday, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator for Weather Services.
[FR Doc. 97-892 Filed 1-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-12-M