[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70101-70107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33551]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


National Weather Service Modernization and Associated 
Restructuring

AGENCY: National Weather Service (NWS), NOAA, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final Certification of no degradation in service for 
the Combined Consolidation and/or Automation and Closure of 52 Weather 
Service Offices (WSO).

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

SUMMARY: On November 30, 1998, the Under Secretary for Oceans and

[[Page 70102]]

Atmosphere approved and transmitted 21 office consolidation, 51 office 
automation, and 52 office closure certifications to Congress. Pub. L. 
102-567 requires such final certifications of no degradation in service 
be published in the Federal Register. This notice is intended to 
satisfy the requirements of Public Law 102-567.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the final certification packages 
should be sent to Tom Beaver, Room 11426, 1325 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Beaver at 301-713-0300 ext. 141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charleston, West Virginia, Automation 
and Closure certifications were proposed in the January 7, 1997, 
Federal Register, and the 60-day public comment period closed on March 
10, 1997. No public comments were received. The following 
certifications were proposed in the April 11, 1997, Federal Register 
and the 60-day public comment period closed on June 10, 1997.

Bridgeport, CT--Automation/Closure
Indianapolis, IN--Automation/Closure
Kansas City MO--Automation/Closure
Lansing, MI--Automation/Closure
Lincoln, NE--Automation/Closure
Louisville, KY--Automation/Closure
Milwaukee, WI--Automation/Closure
Newark, NJ--Automation/Closure
Rockford, IL--Automation/Closure
Abilene, TX--Consolidation
International Falls, MN--Consolidation
Madison, WI--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Peoria, IL--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Rochester, NY--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Tucson, AZ--Consolidation/Automation/Closure

    Six public comments were received pertaining to WSO International 
Falls, Minnesota, and two pertaining to WSO Lincoln, Nebraska. These 
comments and the NWS response are set forth here for reference.
    Comments on International Falls: 1. A public comment from Gary 
Davison, City Clerk, International Falls stated, ``The City had fought 
for years to keep the weather station here, because there was a large 
concern the forecasts would not be accurate from Duluth. The City had 
legislators supporting them for the same reason, and we are very 
disappointed with the final consolidation, and as expected, the 
forecasts are not accurate at all. We have a large vacation area here 
and it is very disappointing that the forecasts are so unreliable.''
    2. A public comment from Tom West, President, International Falls 
Chamber of Commerce. His comments included the following, ``* * * 
NEXRAD coverage over Int'l Falls and the north central portion of 
Minnesota is at and beyond the extreme limit of NEXRAD capabilities. 
NWS maps indicate that Int'l Falls is barely in the 10,000 ft. coverage 
level and areas west of Int'l Falls and east of Lake of the Woods are 
not covered at this level at all. Considering that much of our severe 
weather comes from the northwest, and the large bodies of water heavily 
used for recreational purposes are within that area, it is critical to 
upgrade rather than degrade weather services.'' Although not relevant 
to this consolidation certification, he also commented that the 
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) was unreliable and that the 
trained contract observers were ``at a level well below that which has 
been provided in the past.''
    3. A public comment from Paul Nevanen, Director, Minnesota Cold 
Weather Resource Center. His comments included much of the same 
information about NEXRAD as stated by Tom West plus he added, ``Also, 
during winter severe events, many significant types of weather develop 
below the 10,000 foot threshold. This is compounded by the fact that 
the Duluth NWS office was originally to be staffed by 10 forecasters. 
This level of staffing has not be [sic: been] met and the current level 
of 6 will be strained during the severe weather season. * * * This is 
the only area east of the Rocky Mountains that is not covered at the 
10,000 foot threshold.'' He also included comments on perceived 
problems with ASOS which are not relevant to the consolidation 
certification.
    4. The fourth public comment was from Jack E. Murray, Mayor, 
International Falls. Like the previous two comments Mr. Murray 
commented on lack of NEXRAD coverage and lack of full staffing at 
Duluth. He added, ``I can tell you that the NWS no longer has the 
confidence that existed in this area for so many years. * * * There 
were a lot of promises made about the capabilities of the 
modernization. We certainly haven't seen this effect in our area.''
    5. The Honorable Irv Anderson, State Representative, Minnesota 
House of Representatives was the fifth commentor. Mr. Anderson's 
comments included, ``By not providing the radar coverage level the rest 
of the country receives (most of the country enjoys multiple radar 
coverage) compounded by removing trained NWS personnel constitutes a 
degradation of service. * * * The modernization process has been one 
which seems to be filled with antagonism, when, in fact we are both 
seeking the same goal--better, more technologically advanced weather 
services for all our citizens. The NWS has set criteria, sited offices 
and radar units, but has never successfully addressed the concerns of 
the taxpayers of the northern border area of Minnesota. * * * I urge 
the National Weather Service to work with the people of northern 
Minnesota to correct this oversight by maintaining a 24 hour NWS manned 
station in International Falls and siting a NEXRAD unit there.''
    6. The sixth public comment was from James A. Sanders, Acting 
Superintendent, Voyager National Park, International Falls. He states, 
``Since the closure of the International Falls Weather Service Station, 
we have not had a reliable forecast for our local conditions or the 
approach of severe weather from the northwest. The safety of visitors, 
residents, and employees has been directly dependent on the 
International Falls Weather Service Station. The relocation of their 
duties to Fargo and Duluth has drastically reduced the reliability and 
accuracy of the local forests [sic: forecasts] we receive and increased 
the risk to all people working and enjoying the out-of-doors in this 
area.''
    NWS Response: NWS agrees WSR-88D coverage is about 10,000 feet in 
northwest Minnesota. International Falls was one of the 32 areas of 
concern that was studied by the Secretary's Report Team. The Team 
concluded, ``* * * that there is no degradation in radar coverage in 
the International Falls area as a result of the NWS Modernization. 
Coverage from surrounding WSR-88Ds in Duluth and Grand Forks will 
provide radar data for the International Falls area which is equivalent 
or better to the current radar information available from the Duluth 
WSR-74C and the Fargo WSR-74S.''
    The Duluth office is currently (July 1997) staffed with the 
required forecasters and supervisors for Stage 1 operations. Five 
additional forecasters will be added in 1998 when Duluth receives its 
Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS). (AWIPS was 
installed in January 1998 and the 5 additional forecasters were in 
place in March 1998.)
    The Duluth office is working closely with the U.S. Park Service 
(USPS) to improve forecasts and warning products for Voyageur's 
National Park (VNP). The forecasts for this area have always been 
prepared by the Duluth office and

[[Page 70103]]

consolidating the warning services from international Falls to the 
Duluth office has had no impact on the forecasts. Additional effort and 
coordination with personnel from VNP continues. On July 11, 1997, the 
acting Meteorologist in Charge (MIC) and the Weather Coordination 
Officer traveled to VNP and met with USPS staff. The following actions 
were initiated.
    (a) NWS and USPS will work together to improve the reception of 
NOAA Weather Radio in the park. Currently, the eastern portion of the 
park is beyond the effective range of the current antenna. The USPS is 
looking into ``gifting'' a transmitter to the NWS. This transmitter 
would be located in VNP.
    (b) NWS will continue the lake wind study to improve forecasts in 
the future.
    (c) The Duluth Fire Weather Forecaster will coordinate with the 
Canada's atmospheric Environmental Scientists (AES) fire weather 
forecaster for the region.
    (d) The Duluth office will obtain all available surface weather 
observations in the VNP area. A new observation was initiated at the 
Visitors Center providing information in a data-void area. (Local 
products began including specific reference to VNP on September 2, 
1998.)
    (e) NWS will continue to pursue the acquisition of radar data from 
Canada's AES to supplement the data from the NEXRAD Weather Service 
Office Duluth WSR-88D. (Duluth began receiving Canadian radar data on 
October 2, 1998.)
    Addendium to Reply: AWIPS was installed at the future Duluth 
Weather Forecast Office (WFO) on January 9, 1998, and is operating 
using Build 3.0 software. Currently (February 1998), all but two senior 
meteorologists required for modernized operations are in place at 
Duluth. The two senior meteorologists have been selected and one is 
scheduled to arrive on March 1 and the second will arrive at Duluth on 
March 15, 1998, (Both were in place on March 15, 1998). Current 
(January 1998) meteorologist staffing at Duluth consists of:

1 Meteorologist in Charge,
1 Warning Coordination Meteorologist (WCM),
1 Science and Operations Officer (SOO),
3 Senior Meteorologists (remaining 2 were in place on March 15, 1998),
3 Journey Level Meteorologists, and
2 Meteorologist Interns (MI),
11 Meteorologists + 2 more on March 15, 1998, = total 13.

    The remaining staff includes:

1 Data Acquisition Program Manager,
4 Hydrometeorological Technicians,
1 Electronic Systems Analyst,
2 Electronics Technicians, and
1 Administrative Assistant.

    Comments on Lincoln, Nebraska: Two public comments were received, 
one from Mr. Les Myers, Jr. and a second from Mr. William E. Whitney. A 
public comment from Les Myers, Jr., Lincoln-Lancaster County Emergency 
Services, stated his concern over the ``closing of any National Weather 
Service Offices.'' He said it was his opinion services had 
``deteriorated tremendously since the closing of the Lincoln Weather 
Service office and the transfer of responsibility to the Omaha office 
located in Valley, Nebraska.'' Mr. Myers listed several instances where 
warnings had been issued without previous watches and identified 
notification problems to emergency services by stating, ``I found that 
long-standing policies have become unknown recently.'' He concluded 
with, ``Service in severe weather situations has deteriorated 
measurably to Lincoln and Lancaster County and the above information 
testifies to that fact.''
    NWS Response: The MIC of the Omaha NEXRAD Weather Service Forecast 
Office (NWSFO) arranged for the Emergency Managers to visit NWSFO Omaha 
and for key members of NWSFO Omaha to visit the Lincoln-Lancaster 
County Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
    --June 24, 1997, Carol Whitfoth, Assistant Coordinator of Lincoln-
Lancaster County Emergency Services visited and received a briefing and 
tour of the NWSFO Omaha facility.
    --June 30, 1997, NWSFO Omaha personnel, Steve Byrd (SOO), Brian 
Smith (WCM), and David Theophilus (MIC) visited and received a briefing 
and toured the EOC.
    --July 9, 1997, Les Myers, Jr., and Jason Orth from EOC visited, 
received a briefing, and toured NWSFO Omaha.
    The results of these meetings were positive, gave each of the 
office staffs a better appreciation for the operations at the other 
office, and resolved the communications problems. The issuance of 
tornado warnings for specific parts of the counties and the actual 
dividing lines to split the counties into sections (i.e., northeast 
Lancaster, southern Lincoln, etc.) were reviewed and agreed upon. Both 
parties agreed to work more closely together to ensure proper and 
timely issuance of severe weather statements to the public. Dave 
Theophilus (MIC) asked if a member of NWSFO Omaha could be included on 
the County Disaster Committee. EOC personnel said they would consider 
the offer. These coordination meetings have already paid dividends. On 
July 8, 1997, Steve Byrd (SOO) had given Mr. Myers advance notice of 
possible non-supercell funnel clouds in Lancaster County. Mr Myers said 
he really appreciated the call. Both agencies are satisfied the 
previously identified problems have been resolved and the agencies are 
working together to ensure timely relay of severe weather information.
    A second public comment from William Whitney, Assistant Director 
State of Nebraska Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), said, ``This 
closure plus other features of the National Weather Service (NWS) 
modernization in Nebraska has caused a significant degradation of 
service * * *''. Mr. Whitney described several misunderstood aspects of 
the modernization. First, he did not understand what services would be 
provided from the Omaha office when WSO Lincoln was ``automated at FAA 
Weather Observation Service Level B,'' nor did he understand ``the 
relationship between the current Valley WSO and the Omaha WFO.'' 
Second, the modernization is not as responsive as the previous 
organization when ``one meteorologist was responsible for forecasting 
warning and preparedness throughout the State.'' Currently, ``we are 
forced to coordinate statewide matters with as many as six individual 
WSOs.'' Third, ``The Valley WSO originally was built in the Lower 
Platte River 100 year flood plain contrary to Presidential Executive 
Order 11988.'' Fourth, ``After several years we still cannot understand 
why it is ``better'' to deal with four different hydrologists 
especially when their areas of responsibility do not correspond to our 
river basins.'' Finally, WSO Lincoln used to advise us directly when 
severe weather was forecast or imminent and this was continued by the 
Valley office but we are now told that NWS ``can no longer provide this 
service.''
    NWS Response: Further discussion and communication with Mr. Whitney 
have clarified any misunderstandings. Automation at FAA Weather 
Observation Service Level B means the ASOS will provide the primary 
observations and be backed up by observer trained FAA personnel at 
Lincoln. These individuals also are responsible for augmenting the ASOS 
observations for: Thunderstorm occurrence, tornadic activity, hail, 
virga, volcanic ash, tower visibility, long-line runway visual range, 
freezing drizzle, ice pellets, snow depth on ground, snow increasing 
rapidly remark, thunderstorm/lightning location remark, and observed 
significant weather not at station. The official name of the office

[[Page 70104]]

is Omaha although the office is actually located at Valley, Nebraska. 
The Omaha office started as a WSFO, then became a NWSFO when the WSR-
88D was declared operational and will be a WFO after AWIPS becomes 
operational. There are six WCMs in Nebraska, each with a designated 
area of responsibility. One WCM is responsible for coordinating 
activities and coordinating with the NEMA. During siting of the office, 
NWS believed construction of the Union Dike would remove the area from 
the flood plain. Unfortunately this did not occur. However, the office 
has been elevated three feet above the 100-year flood level. Although 
there are four hydrologists spread among the six weather offices, two 
hydrologists are responsible for 88 of the 93 counties in Nebraska. In 
1997, NWSFO Sioux Falls provided information about the Missouri River 
upstream from Gavins Point Dam that had not been available in prior 
years. NWSFO Omaha ensured this information reached NEMA. NWS will 
continue to work with NEMA to ensure river basin responsibility matches 
closely with county areas of responsibility and simplify notification 
of flood events. To be effective, communication of severe weather 
events to emergency management agencies must be rapid and reliable. On 
March 10, 1997, Dave Theophilus (MIC) met with Mr. Whitney and his 
staff to discuss severe weather warning notification, and especially 
after hours notification. They developed several ways to better 
distribute the required information. NEMA agreed to adopt a paging 
system and NWS personnel agreed to continue the present coordination 
method indefinitely. NWS believes all issues have been resolved.
    The Modernization Transition Committee (MTC) at its June 25, 1997, 
meeting concluded these actions would not result in any degradation of 
service and endorsed the certifications.
    The following certifications were proposed in the July 14, 1997, 
Federal Register and the 60-day public comment period closed on 
September 12, 1997.

Colorado Springs, CO--Automation/Closure
Des Moines, IA--Automation/Closure
Dubuque, IA--Automation/Closure
Elkins, WV--Automation/Closure
Las Vegas, NV--Automation/Closure
Minneapolis, MN--Automation/Closure
Portland, OR--Automation/Closure
San Francisco, CA--Automation/Closure
Spokane, WA--Automation/Closure
Casper, WY--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Huron, SD--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Rochester, MN--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Waterloo, IA--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Yakima, WA--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Yuma, AZ--Closure

    No negative public comments were received. The MTC, at its 
September 24, 1997, meeting, concluded these actions would not result 
in any degradation of service and endorsed the certifications.
    The following certifications were proposed in the October 2, 1997, 
Federal Register and the 60-day public comment period closed on 
December 1, 1997.

Abilene, TX--Automation/Closure
Concordia, KS--Automation/Closure
Ely, NV--Automation/Closure
Havre, MT--Automation/Closure
International Falls, MN--Automation/Closure
Santa Maria, CA--Automation/Closure
Tupelo, MS--Automation/Closure
Valentine, NE--Automation/Closure
Wichita Falls, TX--Automation/Closure
Winnemucca, NV--Automation/Closure
Alamosa, CO--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Alpena, MI--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Houghton Lake, MI--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Kalispell, MT--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Lander, WY--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Norfolk, NE--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Sault Ste Marie, MI--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Scottsbluff, NE--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
Sheridan, WY--Consolidation/Automation/Closure
St. Cloud, MN--Consolidation/Automation/Closure

    One negative public comment was received for each Alamosa, Alpena, 
Houghton Lake, Kalispell, Norfolk, and St. Cloud. Fourteen public 
comments were received for Valentine. These comments and the NWS 
responses are set forth here for reference.
    Comment on Alamosa, Colorado: One public comment received from Mr. 
Steven E. Vandiver, Division Engineer, Division of Water Resources, 
Water Division Three. Mr. Vandiver's comments were mainly concerned 
with what he felt to be a lack of complete radar coverage. His comments 
included, ``There has historically been a NWS office at the Bergman 
Field Airport in Alamosa * * * and service is now provided out of 
Pueblo, Colorado. I do not feel that product is necessarily better than 
what has historically been available from staff locally just because of 
the modernization * * *. The ring of mountains which surround this 
intermountain region do not allow the radars to pick up most storms. We 
have had increasing numbers of unusual weather, including tornadoes, 
funnel clouds, hail events, and severe windstorms. At least when 
personnel were stationed at the NWS office here, they could give visual 
reports of these events and worked closely with observers to give 
timely updated data * * *. The area that is missed by the three radars, 
even as evidenced by the coverage maps, is one of the highest 
precipitation areas in the Rocky Mountain range. Our agency uses 
rainfall and snowfall data to forecast resulting runoff and flooding 
possibilities * * *. These comments are by no means a reflection of the 
excellent staff and their efforts in the Pueblo NWS office. Bill 
Fortune and his crew have bent over backwards to serve this area and 
provide the best information possible. They have generated special 
products to meet specific needs of our agency and have done an 
excellent job.''
    NWS Response: NWS agrees the NEXRAD coverage is not complete over 
south-central Colorado. However, when compared to the pre-modernized 
coverage, the NEXRAD coverage from three radars in Colorado is improved 
over the single pre-modernized radar located near Limon. Warning 
verification statistics for severe weather show improvement. For severe 
weather, the probability of detection improved from 4 percent pre-
modernized, to 42 percent under modernization. The Pueblo office is 
developing new products to meet customer needs. We are confident these 
new products will continue to improve with the modernization.
    Comment on Alpena, Michigan: One public comment received from Mr. 
Jeff Welch, President, Welch Aviation. Mr. Welch stated, ``I am not in 
favor of the Alpena, MI (APN) ASOS being certified * * *. In the 
interest of flight safety, I respectfully request that you do not 
certify the ASOS at Alpena, MI.'' In between, he listed a series of 
ASOS observations which resulted in a missed approach.
    NWS Response: NWS reviewed the ASOS performance with Mr. Welch. He 
agreed the ASOS was performing accurately and all current information 
was available on the ground-to-air (GTA) radio. NWS provided Mr. Welch 
with more information on how to obtain weather via the GTA radio and an 
explanation about the additional meteorological discontinuity sensor.

[[Page 70105]]

    Comment on Houghton Lake, Michigan: One public comment was received 
from Mr. Robert E. Howey concerning access to NEXRAD data from the 
Grand Rapids WSR-88D. Mr. Howey stated, ``The Modernization Transition 
Committee can rest assured that my concern was addressed by the 
Meteorologist In Charge at the Grand Rapids office, but my concerns 
were certainly not resolved. The Grand Rapids' web page for radar 
coverage refers to the National Weather Service Policy and Guidelines 
on Server Content for Internet Use. Upon deciphering the reference, we 
users discover that our only access to NEXRAD weather radar coverage of 
our country is through something called UCAR. Whatever or wherever that 
is, it is slower and more prone to interruption than if I could be 
accessing the splendid radar information being collected and 
distributed by Grand Rapids station, which incidentally, displays a 
pleasingly high degree of excellence.''
    NWS Response: The NWS advised Mr. Hawley distribution of NEXRAD 
data was available through any of four NEXRAD Information Dissemination 
Service (NIDS) vendors.
    Comment on Kalispell, MT: One public comment was received from 
Monte M. Eliason, Airport Manager, Flathead Municipal Airport 
Authority. Mr. Eliason's comments included, ``* * * As we have 
previously documented and stated, and ASOS cannot replace a manned 
weather service office without serious degradation of service. The 
government is wrong by any measure in a finding otherwise * * *. The 
terminal area reports by ASOS, frequently lack the timely accuracy and 
broader picture of approaching weather such as thunderstorms, freezing 
rain, or area mountaintop obscuration.''
    NWS Response: NWS reviewed ASOS performance at Kalispell and 
determined it met specified standards. During the last year there have 
been 35 ASOS outages, and average repair times have been 15 minutes. 
Both the freezing rain sensor and the lightning sensor are operational. 
Video cameras were installed in June 1997 to visually depict local 
conditions, including the mountain obscurations. Forecasters have 
access to the video camera displays, and the images are also available 
on the Internet. Airport service level classifications were determined 
by the FAA. Kalispell was designated as a Service Level D site meaning 
it can operate with a stand-alone ASOS.
    In the summer of 1997, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 
Air Safety Foundation (ASF) requested information from a random 
selection of pilots living in proximity to 25 service level D ASOS 
sites. The data collection was to determine pilot acceptance and use of 
ASOS. Requests were mailed to 10,000 pilots, and 1,027 responses were 
received.
    Final conclusions of the ASF study, endorsed by the MTC, were that 
ASOS is representative and meets the needs of the identified service 
level D sites without degrading services.
    Comment on Norfolk, Nebraska: One public comment was received from 
the Norfolk Airport Authority and was signed by Doris A. Kingsbury, 
Chairman; Gerald Arkfeld, Vice Chairman; Robert L. Carlisle, Secretary; 
Daniel E. Geary, Member; and Charles W. Balsiger, Member. They objected 
to the proposed automation. Their comments included, ``The Norfolk 
Airport Authority strongly objects to the National Weather Service 
proposal to certify the automation of surface observations at Karl 
Stefan Memorial Airport, Norfolk, NE * * *
    1. The system still makes significant errors regarding ceiling and 
visibility which must be corrected by the contract observer.
    2. The system does not detect and reliably report freezing 
precipitation.
    3. The system does not reliably report thunderstorms.
    4. The system cannot detect and report rapidly changing local 
adverse weather conditions.
    5. No provision has been identified for backup observations should 
the system fail, which would render the airport unusable to FAR Part 
121 and 135 air carriers.
    We fail to see how the system as it presently exists can be 
considered ``equal or better service'' and we further fail to see how 
this can be considered a safety enhancement to aviation. The previous 
system of human observers had no problem dealing with weather 
observations especially as regards rapidly changing weather events. 
From an aviation standpoint, the present system is poor at best. The 
augmentation of the system by contract observers makes the system 
acceptable, since there is a good chance that between the system and 
the contract observer the reported weather will be fairly accurate.''
    NWS Response: In the summer of 1997, the ASF requested information 
from a random selection of pilots living in proximity to 25 service 
level D ASOS sites. The data collection was to determine pilot 
acceptance and use of ASOS. Requests were mailed to 10,000 pilots, and 
1,027 responses were received.
    Final conclusions of the ASF study, endorsed by the MTC, were that 
ASOS is representative and meets the needs of the identified service 
level D sites without degrading services.
    Comment on St. Cloud, Minnesota: One public comment was received 
from Brian D. Ryks, A.A.E., Airport Manager, St. Cloud Regional 
Airport. Mr. Ryks stated, ``Although the ASOS has been fairly reliable 
during good weather conditions, there have been numerous occasions when 
outages have occurred or data recorded by the System has not been 
accurate during adverse weather. Fortunately, during these periods, 
augmentation from weather observers stationed at the Airport have 
prevented a loss of air service for our users * * * it is critical we 
maintain an augmented system consisting of both observers and the ASOS. 
An augmented system will ensure the highest degree of safety and 
reliability available to the traveling public and users of the airport 
* * * .''
    NWS Response: NWS reviewed ASOS performance at St. Cloud and 
determined it met specified standards. Airport service level 
classifications were determined by the FAA. St. Cloud was designated as 
a Service Level D site which means it can operate with a stand alone-
ASOS.
    In the summer of 1997, the ASF requested information from a random 
selection of pilots living in proximity to 25 service level D ASOS 
sites. The data collection was to determine pilot acceptance and use of 
ASOS. Requests were mailed to 10,000 pilots, and 1,027 responses were 
received.
    Final conclusions of the ASF study, endorsed by the MTC, were that 
ASOS is representative and meets the needs of the identified service 
level D sites without degrading services.
    Comments on Valentine, Nebraska: Fourteen public comments were 
received concerning the automation certification of WSO Valentine, 
Nebraska. Eleven of the letters were exactly the same and the comments 
from those letters included, ``Due to government cut backs in spending, 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the National Weather 
Service (NWS), has decided not to man Automated Surface Observing 
Systems (ASOS) stations around the U.S. except those with towers * * * 
. Augmentation of the Valentine ASOS station has proven to be essential 
to pilots flying into the area. People who have landed at the Valentine 
airport have expressed their appreciation to the airport officials for 
having a manned sight at Miller Field due to the isolation of the area 
* * * . There have been instances of the ASOS reporting total overcast 
skies and

[[Page 70106]]

low landing minimums, deterring flights from landing, when there were 
only scattered skies that happened to be over the sensors, or 
reversely, not reporting very low landing minimums causing aircraft to 
fly into dangerous situations. Now, not only do we have to worry about 
such inaccuracies in landing minimums, but the newly installed, 
untested, Thunderstorm sensor is a concern * * * . Many doctors who 
serve this area fly into Valentine to provide much needed health care 
and training * * * . What cut in spending is so imperative that it 
should jeopardize peoples lives * * * .'' One letter included 14 
signatures which in part stated, ``The community of Valentine protests 
the full automation of service which the FAA and NWS feel can be 
observed from North Platte, Ne. will not work.''
    A public comment from Curtis Price, Jr., President, C. Price & 
Associates stated, ``C. Price & Associates is the current contractor 
for the weather observation support services at Miller Field, Valentine 
Nebraska. We would like to register a protest against the proposed 
Recommendation for Automation and Closure of this site * * * it has 
been our experience that the current method of taking readings is far 
superior to the proposed ASOS method. We have documented several 
instances at other sites, where the ASOS system has been inadequate * * 
*.'' Finally, a public comment from Dean Jacobs, Executive Director, 
Valentine Chamber of Commerce stated, ``* * * We consider augmentation 
of the Valentine ASOS station essential * * *. The people of this area 
need and deserve the most accurate weather reports for their safety and 
the safety of their passengers. The very reason for PL 102-567 (the 
weather service modernization bill), which protects weather stations 
form degradation [sic: from degradation] of service * * *.''
    NWS Response: NWS reviewed ASOS performance at Valentine and 
determined it met specified standards. The thunderstorm sensor is 
operational. Airport service level classifications were determined by 
the FAA. Valentine was designated as a service level D site meaning it 
can operate with a stand-alone ASOS.
    In the summer of 1997, the (ASF) requested information from a 
random selection of pilots living in proximity to 25 service level D 
ASOS sites. The data collection was to determine pilot acceptance and 
use of ASOS. Requests were mailed to 10,000 pilots, and 1,027 responses 
were received.
    Final conclusions of the ASF study, endorsed by the MTC, were that 
ASOS is representative and meets the needs of the identified service 
level D sites without degrading services.
    The MTC, at its December 10, 1997, meeting, concluded these actions 
would not result in any degradation of service and endorsed the 
certifications.
    The Astoria, Oregon, and Lexington, Kentucky, Automation and 
Closure Certifications were proposed in the January 9, 1998, Federal 
Register, and the 60-day public comment period closed on March 10, 
1998. No public comments were received for Lexington. The MTC, at its 
March 18, 1998, meeting, concluded these actions would not result in 
any degradation of service and endorsed the certifications. Three 
public comments were received for Astoria. These comments and the NWS 
response are set forth here for reference.
    Comments on Astoria, OR: Three public comments were applicable to 
the proposed Astoria automation and closure certification.
    First, a letter dated April 24, 1997, was received from the 
Columbia River Pilots. The letter states, ``The proposed closure of the 
Astoria weather station will degrade the quality of available weather 
information and hamper our ability to provide safe and timely service 
to vessels calling in the Columbia River at both Oregon and Washington 
ports.''
    Second, a letter dated June 3, 1997, was received from 
Representative Elizabeth Furse stating, ``Enclosed is a copy of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 8, recently adopted by both the Senate and the 
House of the Oregon legislature which requests that closure proceedings 
of the station be reversed.''
    Third, a letter dated January 29, 1998, signed by Ron Larsen, 
Airport manager; George Waer, Columbia River Bar Pilots; and John 
Raichl, Clatsop County Sheriff, commented on their concerns about the 
ASOS. They stated, ``The Portland office has been helpful and 
concerned. They established a working relationship with the Columbia 
River Bar Pilots that seems to meet the Bar Pilots needs. In addition 
they placed remote cameras on the airport to help observe actual 
conditions that ASOS may or may not report. However, ASOS is still 
reporting conditions that are not accurate over the entire airport 
caused by the lack of remote sensors.''
    NWS Response: At a March 18, 1998, meeting, the NWS advised the MTC 
it had worked with the Bar Pilots and all issues were resolved. 
Additional communications links to the Portland office have been 
established with the Astoria community. NWS reported ASOS system 
limitations will not permit the addition of a second set of 
discontinuity sensors as requested by the Astoria airport manager. The 
MTC directed NWS to compare the number of surface observation remarks 
for a 1-year period before ASOS was installed to the number of remarks 
for a 1-year period after ASOS and its discontinuity sensor was 
installed.
    At the June 18, 1998, meeting, NWS presented results of the 
comparisons to the MTC. The comparison showed more remarks have been 
reported with ASOS than prior to ASOS. The comparison also showed the 
ASOS ceiling discontinuity sensor is located in the proper quadrant to 
detect lower ceilings. However, the visibility discontinuity sensor 
would be more effective if moved to the northeast quadrant. The ASOS 
permits splitting of the ceiling and visibility discontinuity sensors. 
This option was offered to the airport manager, but he prefers to keep 
both discontinuity sensors together in the northwest quadrant. After 
reviewing the before and after comparison, the MTC concluded there was 
no safety impact to aviation operations at the airfield, and the 
current ASOS and discontinuity sensor provided an accurate observation 
for the airfield.
    The Honolulu Automation and Closure certifications were proposed in 
the April 9, 1998, Federal Register, and the 60-day public comment 
period closed on June 8, 1998. No public comments were received for 
Honolulu. The MTC, at its June 18, 1998, meeting concluded these 
Astoria and Honolulu actions would not result in any degradation of 
service and endorsed the certifications.
    After consideration of the public comments received and the MTC 
endorsements, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere approved 
these 52 combined consolidation and/or automation and closure 
certifications finding there would not be any degradation of service. 
The Under Secretary transmitted a list of the approved certifications 
to Congress on November 30, 1998. 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 of 
Public Law 102-567 by publishing this notice of the final consolidation 
and/or automation and closure certifications in the Federal Register.


[[Page 70107]]


    Dated: December 14, 1998.
John J. Kelly, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator for Weather Services.
[FR Doc. 98-33551 Filed 12-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-KE*-M