[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