26156 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of

Enforcement, 8484 Georgia Ave., Suite

415, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910,

Telephone (301) 427–2300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

Under the Marine Mammal Protection

Act (Act) Alaskan natives may take

marine mammals only for subsistence

purposes or for creating and selling

native handicrafts. The possession of

marine mammals so taken are limited to

natives or to registered agents or

tanners. Agents or tanners must apply

for registration, and after registration

must annually submit copies of

transaction records. The information is

collected to (1) grant certain members of

the public an exemption under the Act

to which they would not otherwise be

entitled, and (2) to manage the program

and provide for effective law

enforcement.

II. Method of Collection

Respondents will meet the

requirements set forth in the regulation.

No forms will be used.

III. Data

OMB Number: 0648–0179.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular Submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for

profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

75.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2.0 hrs.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 150.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to

Public: $0 (no capital expenditures).

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden

(including hours and cost) of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of this information collection;

they also will become a matter of public

record.

Linda Engelmeier,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office

of Management and Organization.

[FR Doc. 98–12604 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Final Certification for the Combined

Consolidation and/or Automation and

Closure of 80 Weather Service Offices

(WSOs) and Consolidation of Two

WSOs

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1998 the Under

Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

approved and transmitted 14 office

consolidation, 46 office automation, and

80 office closure certifications to

Congress. Pub. L. 102–567 requires that

the final certifications be published in

the Federal Register.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

final certification packages should be

sent to Tom Beaver, Room 11426, 1325

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Beaver at 301–713–0300 ext. 144.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The two

consolidation certifications for Astoria

and Wichita Falls were proposed in the

December 27, 1996 Federal Register and

the 60-day public comment period

closed on February 25, 1997. The

remaining 80 certification packages

were proposed in the January 7, 1997

Federal Register and the 60-day public

comment period closed on March 10,

1997. Thirteen timely and three late

public comments were received

pertaining to WSO Astoria. Individual

public comments were received

pertaining to each of the following

WSOs: Muskegon, Michigan; Rapid

City, South Dakota; Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania; Apalachicola, Florida;

and Port Arthur, Texas. Two public

comments were received pertaining to

Athens, Georgia and one comment was

received that pertained to Pennsylvania

sites in general. These comments and

responses are set forth here for

reference.

Comment: Thirteen timely and three

late comments were received from

individuals in the Astoria, Oregon area.

Individuals providing comments

included Congresswoman Elizabeth

Furse, State Representative Jackie

Taylor, Senator George H. Smith,

Congressman Earl Blumenauer, State

Representative Tim Josi, Sheriff and

Director of Emergency Services John P.

Raichl, Airport Manager and Director of

Operations Port of Astoria Ron Larsen,

and Captain and President Columbia

River Bar Pilots George A. Waer. The

main concern presented by all

individuals was the loss of face to face

interaction with National Weather

Service (NWS) personnel and the

perceived inability to forecast for the

‘‘unique’’ weather conditions at Astoria

from Portland.

Response: To ensure all concerns

were addressed and understood, the

March 1997 Modernization Transition

Committee (MTC) meeting was held in

Astoria. The community leaders and

anyone else concerned with NWS

Modernization actions had the

opportunity to express their concerns to

the Committee. The MTC and the public

in attendance listened to both the NWS

management from Portland and the

public. The major topics discussed

during the six-hour public comment

period on the Astoria Consolidation

Certification during the March 18, 1997

meeting are summarized below. A major

concerns surrounding the Astoria

Consolidation was the ability of the

Portland NEXRAD Weather Service

Forecast Office (NWSFO) to provide

information on the Columbia River Bar

and offshore marine environment. To

address these concerns the NWS

presented the following: (1) the Portland

office has access to all data that the

Astoria office did and access to data that

the Astoria office never had; (2) the

Astoria WSO never produced the

marine forecasts, these products have

always been issued from Seattle or

Portland; (3) mariners can contact the

forecasters in Portland directly by

phone; and (4) an Internet home page

maintained in Portland allows ready

access to current weather forecasts and

products for Oregon and the coastal

waters.

The ability of the Portland office to

recognize rapid changes in the Atoria

weather was questioned. However, the

infrastructure affecting this ability has

only improved since services were

transferred to Portland. The more timely

and robust data sets of the

Modernization (i.e., Doppler radar, high

resolution satellite imagery and

continuous surface observations)

provide a superior platform for Portland

to monitor rapid weather changes than

was previously present in the Astoria

office. The severe weather spotter

volunteers previously used by Astoria

are still in place, except they now call

Portland when severe weather threatens.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices 26157

The Portland office also employs two

staff from the Astoria WSO, so ‘‘local’’

expertise is available.

Since Portland is serving a larger

metropolitan area, the ability of the

office to give the Astoria community

attention was challenged. However,

most of the forecast services for Astoria

have always come from Portland. A

result of the Modernization in Oregon is

that the Portland area of responsibility

is decreasing substantially; thus more

time is being spent on Astoria than

before. A Warning Coordination

Meteorologist and Weather

Coordination Officer are assigned to the

Portland office and coordinate with the

Astoria office to ensure everyone

receives adequate attention. Portland

has made significant service

adjustments in the NOAA Weather

Radio (NWR) and marine reports

program to meet the Astoria community

needs, and will continue to take this

approach in the future. After hearing

both sides, the MTC members

determined that there would not be a

degradation of services associated with

this proposed Consolidation

certification. However, the MTC

recognized potential future degradation

of services associated with Automation

and Closure certification and made the

following recommendation:

The Portland WFO will work with the

Astoria WCO and the community to define

the remaining concerns and develop and

implement procedures to ensure degradation

of service does not occur. The issues

identified by the committee include, but are

not limited to, the need to ensure the

adequacy of ASOS augmentation, the

availability of consultation concerning river

bar forecasts, and the implementation of

special procedures during extreme

conditions. In addition, the Committee has

determined that a data buoy in proximity to

the bar is essential. However, the

characteristics of Data Buoy 46029 are not

adequate to provide needed services.

The Committee agreed to pay careful

attention to future actions concerning

the Astoria office and requested followup briefings from the NWS at future

meetings. The MTC also encouraged the

public to keep them advised through

public comments. Both the public and

the NWS management seemed satisfied

with the MTC conclusion, and everyone

gained a better understanding of the

problems and required solutions.

Comment: Mr. Roy Wheeler, Assistant

Director of the Muskegon County

Emergency Services, responded to the

Federal Register Announcement

concerning the Consolidation,

Automation, and Closure Certifications

for Muskegon, MI. He expressed

concern that: (1) he is not being served

as well with the Modernized technology

and organizational structure as he was

with the ‘‘old system’’; (2) during severe

weather he does not receive ‘‘adequate

weather reports’’ and he does not

receive accurate information in support

of major fires and chemical spills; (3)

the Amateur Radio Community is

installing automated weather observing

equipment; (4) while the staff at

NEXRAD Weather Service Office

(NWSO) Grand Rapids has been

cooperative, he has lost the personal

contact that he received from the ‘‘old

system’’; and (5) ‘‘on more than one

occasion this past season, we were not

notified when severe weather was

present’’.

Response: The staff at NWSO Grand

Rapids have had numerous contacts

with the Emergency Management

Services of Muskegon County since

becoming operational in August of 1995

(open houses, seminars, spotter training

sessions for Muskegon County, etc.).

Some of the contacts were for normal

operational issues, while others were to

explain modernized technology and the

new organizational structure. Every

Emergency Management organization in

the NWSO Grand Rapids County

Warning Area has access to the severe

weather forecaster via toll-free 800

service. Severe weather watches and

warnings are provided via NOAA

Weather Wire Service (NWWS), NWR,

Internet Web Page, Emergency Manager

Weather Information Network (EMWIN),

as well as the Law Enforcement

Information Network (LEIN). During

HAZMAT situations on October 16,

1996 and December 13, 1996, surface

observation data (i.e. wind speed and

direction, temperature/dewpoint,

pressure, etc.) from the Automated

Surface Observing System (ASOS) at the

Muskegon Airport as well as forecasts

for the local area were provided to

Muskegon County Emergency Dispatch

and 911 upon request. NWSO Grand

Rapids and the Amateur Radio

Community have entered into a

cooperative arrangement to expand the

use of automated surface observation

equipment. In fact, the NWS has

provided some funding in support of the

demonstration project. The automated

equipment has been purchased

commercially and is similar to the

automated observation equipment used

by television stations, utility companies,

road departments, etc. NWSO Grand

Rapids has been responsible for issuing

severe weather warnings for Muskegon

County for only the 1996 severe weather

season. During that season, 3 warnings

were issued. Two of them verified with

reports of large hail. The other warning

had no severe weather reported. Lead

times were 7 and 13 minutes. When

contacted in the Fall of 1996, in

association with the Confirmation of

Services for the NEXRAD Doppler radar

at NWSO Grand Rapids, Mr. Wheeler

responded ‘‘Warnings are as good as

before, but I still wish the radar had

been located at Muskegon’’. Mr.

Wheeler has stated on previous

occasions that his primary concerns are:

(1) The lack of telephone contact

initiated by the staff at NWSO Grand

Rapids during times of severe weather;

and (2) that he would have preferred the

WSR–88D be located in Muskegon

instead of Grand Rapids. Technology

(NWR, EMWIN, Internet, NWWS, EAS,

LEIN, etc.) allows severe weather

warnings and statements to be

transmitted quickly to all the Emergency

Managers in the County Warning Area

(CWA). The Muskegon County

Emergency Management Services (EMS)

has access to NWWS and to NWR as

well as to the LEIN. Mr. Wheeler can

contact the Grand Rapids staff via the

800 service anytime, but it is not

possible for the staff at NWSO Grand

Rapids to make calls to each of the

Emergency Management Organizations

in their 28 county warning area during

severe weather events. The WSR–88D at

Grand Rapids is of optimum range (20–

50 miles) from Muskegon County for

severe weather detection. Leo Grenier,

the Warning Coordination Officer

(WCO) at Muskegon, has made several

contacts with the Muskegon County

EMS and the 911 Service, discussed

their concerns, and explained the most

efficient means for them to receive

severe weather watches, warnings, and

statements, Dan Houser, Meteorologist

in Charge, and Mike Heathfield,

Warning Coordination Meteorologist

from Grand Rapids have also had

similar conversations. Mr. Houser is

organizing a follow-up meeting with the

Muskegon County EMS, Muskegon

County 911, and the Director of the local

amateur radio club. Mr. Houser will

make every attempt to satisfy the

concerns of the participants. [On April

30, 1998 in a conversation between Mr.

Wheeler and NWSO Grand Rapids staff,

Mr. Wheeler said he was satisfied with

the current services provided by NWSO

Grand Rapids.]

Comment: Mr. Norman Pudwill,

Director of the Fall River County

Emergency Management Organization,

responded to the Federal Register

Announcement concerning the

Consolidation, Automation, and Closure

Certification for Rapid City. While he is

‘‘very happy’’ with the products and

services provided by the new NWS
26158 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices

office in Rapid City, he is concerned by

the lack of high quality NWR coverage

in Fall River County.

Response: In a reply letter from the

Central Regional Director, two

alternatives requiring private/public

partnerships were described for Mr.

Pudwill. The NWS is not funded for

NWR expansion, so it is incumbent on

Mr. Pudwill to work with private groups

or local government entities to acquire

a transmitter/antenna system that is

compatible with NWS programming

consoles. Central Region Headquarters

will continue to work with Mr. Pudwill

in his effort to improve NWS coverage

in southwest South Dakota. [Central

Region Headquarters has advised Mr.

Pudwill of the requirements for an

additional transmitter. As of April 30,

1998, Mr. Pudwill has been unable to

obtain a local funding source for the

additional equipment.]

Comment: A public comment from

Representative George W. Gekas raised

an issue regarding deficiencies in

NEXRAD coverage for the Harrisburg

metropolitan region. The comment cited

several documented cases of severe

weather conditions which went

undetected by the NEXRAD system, the

most recent being in May 1996.

Response: Both the June 1995

National Research Council study,

‘‘Toward a New National Weather

Service—Assessment of NEXRAD

Coverage and Associated Weather

Services’’ and the follow-on October

1995 ‘‘Secretary’s Report to Congress on

Adequacy of NEXRAD Coverage and

Degradation of Weather Services under

National Weather Service

Modernization for 32 Areas of Concern’’

concluded that NEXRAD coverage for

the Harrisburg area and associated

weather services would not be

degraded. Harrisburg, PA was one of 32

areas of concern established by public

comments solicited by the Secretary of

Commerce between November 1994 and

January 1995. This information as well

as the detailed findings in the

Secretary’s Report was conveyed to

Representative Gekas in an August 26,

1996 letter from Mr. Louis J. Boezi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for

Modernization of the NWS. The August

26 letter also responded with the

particulars on the May 1996 severe

weather event and referenced previous

replies from the NWS on the earlier

weather events cited by Representative

Gekas.

Comment: A public comment from

Larry Wells, Gulf County Emergency

Management, raised the issues that the

WSR–88D covering Gulf County is 60

miles away from Apalachicola and that

NWSO Tallahassee (the office which is

responsible for Gulf County) has almost

50 counties under its responsibility

versus the two counties for which WSO

Apalachicola was responsible. The

comment also mentioned a severe

thunderstorm warning for Gulf County

on February 14, 1997 which Mr. Wells

thought was issued after a storm had

already passed through Gulf County.

Response: Gulf County is within

overlapping coverage of both the

Tallahassee and Eglin Air Force Base

WSR–88Ds. Almost all of Gulf County is

within 60 nm of both WSR–88Ds. Even

though NWSO Tallahassee is

responsible for more counties than was

WSO Apalachicola, NWSO Tallahassee

had a much larger staff than did WSO

Apalachicola. Archived data from the

Tallahassee WSR–88D indicated that the

February 14, 1997 severe thunderstorm

warning for Gulf County was timely.

Comment: A public comment from

W.M. Timmerman, Jr. mentioned

inaccurate weather information

broadcast by The Weather Channel and

a local TV weather reporter. Mr.

Timmerman also mentioned two other

instances of inaccurate weather

information.

Response: The NWS is not

responsible for weather information

presented by The Weather Channel or

local TV weather reporters. Not enough

information was presented about the

latter two instances in the letter to

determine if the weather information

was from the NWS or from local TV

stations. Mr. Timmerman was contacted

by NWSO Lake Charles with an

invitation to visit the NWSO and

become a local storm spotter/rainfall

observer for the Port Arthur area.

Comment: A public comment from

Barry Church, Habersham County

Emergency Management, (Athens,

Georgia) stated his concern over the lack

of attention given by NWSO Greenville/

Spartanburg to spotter reports during a

February 21, 1997 tornado event in

Habersham County. Mr. Church also

mentioned poor NWR reception in

Habersham County and his perceived

lack of attention given to the six

northeast Georgia counties during a

statewide tornado drill on February 26,

1997.

Response: NWSO Greenville/

Spartanburg’s log for February 21, 1997

indicated that a tornado watch which

included Habersham County was issued

at 2:28 PM EST. NWSO Greenville/

Spartanburg issued a Severe

Thunderstorm Warning for Habersham

County at 2:51 PM EST which was valid

until 3:30 PM EST. Habersham County

was advised by telephone of the

warning at 2:53 PM. Habersham County

called NWSO Greenville/Spartanburg at

3:09 PM EST with a report of damaging

winds county-wide with the first

damage having occurred at about 3:00

PM (some of the damage was later

identified as F–1 tornado damage). At

3:28 PM EST NWSO Greenville/

Spartanburg received a call from

Habersham County with three reports of

funnel clouds just north of Cornelia.

However, by this time the line of storms

had already passed through Habersham

County. Poor NWR reception in

Habersham County has been an ongoing

problem. NWSO Greenville/Spartanburg

has had recent discussions with officials

in Graham County, North Carolina

concerning a possible new NWR

transmitter in that county financed by

Natahala Power Company. The NWR

signal from such a transmitter should

reach into Habersham County. If a

repeater is necessary for reception in

Habersham County, Mr. Church has

offered to donate a tower site.

Habersham County was included in the

Georgia statewide tornado drill held on

February 26, 1997. NWSO Greenville/

Spartanburg issued a practice warning

during the drill which included

Habersham County. NWSO Greenville/

Spartanburg verified through a

telephone call that Habersham County

received the practice warning.

Comment: A public comment from

Peggy Hewatt, Barrow County

Emergency Management, questioned

whether NWSFO Atlanta could

communicate with her office as well as

WSO Athens had in the past.

Response: Ms. Hewatt gave no

specific instance where NWSFO Atlanta

had failed to communicate weather

information to Barrow County and even

stated that her comment ‘‘does not mean

that Peachtree City is not doing a fine

job * * *’’ NWSFO Atlanta’s area of

responsibility is larger than that which

WSO Athens had and it may be that

NWSFO Atlanta may not be able to use

the telephone to communicate with

each individual county as often as WSO

Athens did in the past. However,

communication methods such as NWR,

NWWS, and EMWIN are available for

the receipt of weather information.

Comment: A public comment from

Senator Arlen Specter raised an issue

regarding the reliance on stand-alone

ASOSs at Lehigh Valley Airport

(Allentown, PA) specifically and

throughout Pennsylvania generally. The

comment stated ‘‘since the start of

ASOS operations on November 12,

1996, Lehigh Valley International

Airport has been forced to deal with

numerous discrepancies in determining

visibility and types of precipitation at

the airport.’’ The comment also stated
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices 26159

that Bradford Regional Airport had

experienced several ASOS power losses.

Response: None of the NWSsponsored ASOSs located at WSOs in

Pennsylvania are stand-alone systems.

All of these are classified as Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) service

level C or higher which means that

humans will be present to provide

augmentation and back-up for the

ASOSs. Augmentation means adding

parameters that ASOS does not

measure. Back-up means measuring

parameters in the event of an ASOS

failure or if the ASOS measurement is

not representative of the meteorological

conditions. Augmentation and back-up

is done either by FAA controllers or a

contractor. ASOS operations at Lehigh

Valley International Airport did not

start on November 12, 1996. This ASOS

was commissioned on November 1,

1995 after a pre-commissioning

checkout period to determine that the

system was performing reliably and

correctly. Upon commissioning, NWS

employees at WSO Allentown

performed required augmentation and

back-up of the ASOS until November

12, 1996 when responsibility for this

was transferred to the FAA. FAA was

planning to provide the augmentation

and backup at service level C by air

traffic controllers at the airport,

however, the Lehigh Valley

International Airport Authority

sponsored a contract to provide level B

service. The Bradford Regional Airport

is an FAA-sponsored expansion site.

This means that prior to the ASOS being

commissioned there on December 2,

1996, this airport had no round-theclock surface observation.

The MTC considered and endorsed

these certifications at its March 18, 1997

meeting, concluding that these

certifications would not result in any

degradation of service.

(1) Astoria, OR—Consolidation

(2) Wichita Falls, TX—Consolidation

(3) Omaha, NE—Consolidation/Closure

(4) Sacramento, CA—Consolidation/

Closure

(5) Akron, OH—Automation/Closure

(6) Allentown, PA—Automation/

Closure

(7) Atlanta, GA—Automation/Closure

(8) Atlantic City, NJ—Automation/

Closure

(9) Baltimore, MD—Automation/Closure

(10) Baton Rouge, LA—Automation/

Closure

(11) Chicago, IL—Automation/Closure

(12) Columbia, MO—Automation/

Closure

(13) Columbus, OH—Automation/

Closure

(14) Dayton, OH—Automation/Closure

(15) Daytona Beach, FL—Automation/

Closure

(16) Detroit, MI—Automation/Closure

(17) El Paso, TX—Automation/Closure

(18) Flint, MI—Automation/Closure

(19) Knoxville, TN—Automation/

Closure

(20) Lubbock, TX—Automation/Closure

(21) Lynchburg, VA—Automation/

Closure

(22) Mansfield, OH—Automation/

Closure

(23) Moline, IL—Automation/Closure

(24) Montgomery, AL—Automation/

Closure

(25) Norfolk, VA—Automation/Closure

(26) Oklahoma City, OK—Automation/

Closure

(27) Raleigh, NC—Automation/Closure

(28) Richmond, VA—Automation/

Closure

(29) Roanoke, VA—Automation/Closure

(30) San Antonio, TX—Automation/

Closure

(31) San Diego, CA—Automation/

Closure

(32) Sioux City, IA—Automation/

Closure

(33) Stockton, CA—Automation/Closure

(34) Toledo, OH—Automation/Closure

(35) Tulsa, OK—Automation/Closure

(36)West Palm Beach, FL—Automation/

Closure

(37) Wilke-Barre, PA—Automation/

Closure

(38) Williamsport, PA—Automation/

Closure

(39) Wilmington, DE—Automation/

Closure

(40) Youngstown, OH—Automation/

Closure

(41) Asheville, NC—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(42) Augusta, GA—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(43) Cincinnati, OH—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(44) Fargo, ND—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(45) Greensboro, NC—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(46) Lewiston, ID—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(47) Muskegon, MI—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(48) Rapid City, SD—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(49) Savannah, GA—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(50) Springfield, IL—Consolidation/

Automation/Closure

(51) Apalachicola, FL—Closure

(52) Athens, GA—Closure

(53) Austin, TX—Closure

(54) Bakersfield, CA—Closure

(55) Billings, MT—Closure

(56) Bristol, TN—Closure

(57) Cape Hatteras, NC—Closure

(58) Columbus, GA—Closure

(59) Del Rio, TX—Closure

(60) Eugene, OR—Closure

(61) Fort Myers, FL—Closure

(62) Galveston, TX—Closure

(63) Grand Island, NE—Closure

(64) Harrisburg, PA—Closure

(65) Helena, MT—Closure

(66) Klamath Falls, OR—Closure

(67) Los Angeles, CA—Closure

(68) Macon, GA—Closure

(69) New Orleans, LA—Closure

(70) New York City, NY—Closure

(71) Olympia, WA—Closure

(72) Orlando, FL—Closure

(73) Pensacola, FL—Closure

(74) Phoenix, AZ—Closure

(75) Port Arthur, TX—Closure

(76) Reading, PA—Closure

(77) Reno, NV—Closure

(78) Rosewell, NM—Closure

(79) Salem, OR—Closure

(80) St. Louis, MO—Closure

(81) Waco, TX—Closure

(82) Winslow, AZ—Closure

After consideration of the public

comments received and the MTC

endorsements, the Under Secretary for

Oceans and Atmosphere approved these

82 combined consolidation and/or

automation and closure certifications

and transmitted them to Congress on

May 6, 1998. Certification approval

authority was delegated from the

Secretary to the Under Secretary in June

1996. The NWS is now completing the

certification requirements of Pub. L.

102–567 by publishing the final

consolidation and/or automation and

closure certifications in the Federal

Register.

Dated: May 7, 1998.

John J. Kelly, Jr.,

Assistant Administrator for Weather Services.

[FR Doc. 98–12605 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–12–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

AGENCY: Deputy Chief of Staff for

Personnel (DAPE–ZXI–RM), Department

of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

In compliance with Section

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, the Department

of the Army announces a proposed

public information collection and seeks

public comment on the provisions

thereof. Comments are invited on: (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper