[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC DURING EMERGENCIES: AN UPDATE ON FEDERAL
ALERT AND WARNING EFFORTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE,
AND COMMUNICATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 8, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-256 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Peter T. King, New York, Chairman
Lamar Smith, Texas Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Daniel E. Lungren, California Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike Rogers, Alabama Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Michael T. McCaul, Texas Henry Cuellar, Texas
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Paul C. Broun, Georgia Laura Richardson, California
Candice S. Miller, Michigan Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Tim Walberg, Michigan Brian Higgins, New York
Chip Cravaack, Minnesota Jackie Speier, California
Joe Walsh, Illinois Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Ben Quayle, Arizona William R. Keating, Massachusetts
Scott Rigell, Virginia Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Billy Long, Missouri Vacancy
Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania
Blake Farenthold, Texas
Mo Brooks, Alabama
Michael J. Russell, Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Kerry Ann Watkins, Senior Policy Director
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
I. Lanier Avant, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND COMMUNICATIONS
Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida, Chairman
Joe Walsh, Illinois Laura Richardson, California
Scott Rigell, Virginia Hansen Clarke, Michigan
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania, Vice Kathleen C. Hochul, New York
Chair Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
Blake Farenthold, Texas (Ex Officio)
Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Officio)
Kerry A. Kinirons, Staff Director
Natalie Nixon, Deputy Chief Clerk
Curtis Brown, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications..................... 1
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications........... 2
WITNESSES
Panel I
Mr. Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator, National Continuity
Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
RADM James Arden Barnett, Jr., Chief, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission:
Oral Statement................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
Panel II
Mr. Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory
Affairs, CTIA--The Wireless Association:
Oral Statement................................................. 29
Prepared Statement............................................. 31
Ms. Suzanne D. Goucher, President and CEO, Maine Association of
Broadcasters, Testifying on Behalf of The National Alliance of
State Broadcasting Associations:
Oral Statement................................................. 32
Prepared Statement............................................. 34
Mr. Allen W. Kniphfer, Emergency Coordinator, Jefferson County,
Alabama:
Oral Statement................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 43
FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Florida, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Statement of Jeff Littlejohn, Executive Vice President,
Distribution Development, Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.... 4
COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC DURING EMERGENCIES: AN UPDATE ON FEDERAL
ALERT AND WARNING EFFORTS
----------
Friday, July 8, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
and Communications,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bilirakis, Richardson, Clarke, and
Hochul.
Mr. Bilirakis. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Response, and Communications will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive an update on
the efforts of Federal agencies to work with each other and
emergency management, emergency response providers, and with
industry to create and implement a Nation-wide alert and
warning system that will provide timely and accurate alerts to
the public during an emergency.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
The various disasters we have had in this country thus far
this year have served to illustrate that timely communication
is vital in an emergency and the availability of critical
information can help individuals protect themselves from harm.
Be it through television, radio, mobile devices, the internet,
social media, reverse 9-1-1, or warning signs, emergency
managers, and emergency response providers must have prompt and
reliable means to provide information to their citizens.
At a joint subcommittee hearing last month, Sheriff Richard
Berdnik of Passaic County, New Jersey, when I asked him a
question, he noted the challenges his jurisdiction faces in
alerting the public to an impending hazard. He told us that it
would take 7 days to reach all of the residents of his county
using their reverse 9-1-1 system. In my opinion, that is
unacceptable. This is why I am pleased to hear from our
witnesses today about advancements in alert and warning
capabilities.
This November, FEMA and the FCC will hold the first-ever
National test of the Emergency Alert System. Following on
successful tests in Alaska in 2010 and earlier this year, this
National test will demonstrate the ability to quickly
disseminate messages Nationally across broadcast media.
FEMA and the FCC are also working to deploy a system to
send geographically-based alerts to cell phones, very exciting.
It is required by the WARN Act. This system known as CMAS or
PLAN now is required to be deployed Nation-wide by April, 2012.
Early deployment in New York City and Washington, DC, will
occur this November.
At a field hearing in my district last month, we received
testimony from State and local emergency managers. They are
very optimistic about the implementation of CMAS or PLAN,
especially because of its ability to reach commuter and tourist
populations.
I will note that there have been some privacy concerns
raised about PLAN, and I will ask the panel to elaborate on
that. I am interested to hear from our Federal witnesses about
the privacy safeguards for the system.
I would also like to hear about the training that will be
provided to message originators to ensure proper use of the
system. It is very important the system be used in a targeted
way to ensure that when an eminent threat alert is sent people
take notice.
As we work to ensure that we reach as many individuals as
possible through our alert and warning systems, I am interested
in hearing how the needs of individuals with functional needs,
such as hearing and visual impairments, are incorporated into
those efforts. I think we can all agree that the more notice
and information we can give to citizens to help them get out of
harm's way of course the better.
I thank our witnesses for appearing here today, and I look
forward to your testimony.
I now recognize the Ranking Minority Member, Ms. Richardson
from California, for any statements she would like to make. You
are recognized.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to all of you, and I want to thank you in
particular, our witnesses, for the service for our country that
you have done for participating in today's hearing.
For the record, I want to advise you that at this exact
same time I am supposed to be in Transportation and
Infrastructure where we are going to have a markup on votes
which may require me to depart. So I wanted to make sure that
you knew that that would be the only reason why I would not be
here present today.
Getting back to the point of our hearing, a key component
of emergency preparedness is the ability to alert and warn the
public of an impending disaster. The Integrated Public Alerts
and Warning System, IPAWS, has been designed to do just that by
enabling alerts to be sent via audio, video, text, and data
alert messages. These alerts will have the ability to be sent
to our residential telephones, websites, pagers, email
accounts, and cell phones, in addition to the traditional
broadcast media. I don't want to steal too much of Mr. Penn's
thunder.
We all know the important role that emergency alerts play
in saving lives. Most recently, it played a key function in
alerting local citizens about the devastating tornados in
Missouri and Alabama.
As a representative of the 37th Congressional District, I
represent a large number of constituents whose families were
directly affected by the Tsunamis that occurred in 2009 in
American Samoa. I have heard numerous stories about families
having little time to respond to the massive waves that headed
to the island.
Sadly, failures in providing sufficient warning systems
have led to less people having the ability to seek shelter
prior to a storm surge. Examples here at home and abroad echo
the need for enhanced alert and warning capabilities that can
leverage the numerous ways citizens receive information,
including through text, email, TV, and social media.
Through a fully functioning IPAWS system and the
coordination between our Federal, State, and local governments,
commercial carriers, broadcasters, and other preparedness
stakeholders, we will be in a better position to utilize this
innovative technology and ultimately save lives, which is all
of our goals.
I am aware of the good work FEMA has done with IPAWS
through our oversight efforts last year in Congress. Last fall,
I was proud to host an IPAWS demonstration event for my
colleagues; and that was the second opportunity I had to work
in partnership with Mr. Penn. The demonstration provided a
clear example of the capability of IPAWS, and I look forward to
hearing more of how we have progressed.
I continue to encourage the efforts of FEMA's Office of
Disability and Integration Coordination and other disability
stakeholders to ensure that new alert and warning technologies
meet the needs of all of our Americans. Individuals with
disabilities are often the most at risk at times of crisis.
That is why I plan on sharing with our Chairman a legislation
called the Disability Integration and Coordination Improvement
Act, which will ensure that the Federal Government has the
resources it needs to protect all Americans from impending
disasters, including our Nation's most vulnerable. The
importance of protecting these communities is critical to our
emergency preparedness goals.
Unfortunately, the great progress of IPAWS over the past 2
years can be derailed due to budget cuts on the Federal, State,
and local levels. The IPAWS reduction proposed in FEMA's full
year 2012 budget request will delay retrofitting Primary Entry
Points, PEP, stations, including one in Los Angeles that will
directly affect my district and over 20 million citizens. PEP
stations serve as the primary source of initial broadcast for a
Presidential or National EAS message.
I am interested in hearing from those who are testifying
today how we might move forward and how you view some of the
budget cuts that will impact the work that we need to do.
Additionally, this Congress has proposed a number of
devastating cuts to grant programs, and your thoughts on those
areas would be welcomed as well.
The increased intensity of National disasters, combined
with our need for continued readiness for potential terrorist
attacks, requires investments and not cuts to our State and
local partners. I am interested in learning how these
capabilities will be affected and what suggestions you might
give us on how we can help.
I thank you for your testimony and for you being here
today, and I look forward to everyone's participation.
I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
I would like to first welcome Representative Hochul from
the great State of New York to the subcommittee. I look forward
to working with you. If you would like to say a few words, you
are welcome. You are recognized.
Ms. Hochul. I am a representative from upstate New York. We
have Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and four border crossings with
Canada. So anything related to Homeland Security is critically
important.
I come from local government as well. I was a Town Board
member and oversaw our police department, our emergency
operations at the local level, and also was a county official.
So I come with a various diversity of perspectives to this so I
am anxious to learn more from this hearing, and I am very
delighted to be a Member of this committee.
Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
statements may be submitted for the record.
Before I introduce our first panel, I ask unanimous consent
to insert in the record a statement from Mr. Jeff Littlejohn of
Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.
Without objection, so ordered. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Littlejohn follows:]
Statement of Jeff Littlejohn, Executive Vice President, Distribution
Development, Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.
July 8, 2011
My name is Jeff Littlejohn. I am executive vice president for
distribution development for Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. Clear
Channel Broadcasting is a subsidiary of CC Media Holdings, Inc., and is
licensed to operate 892 radio stations in the United States. We operate
stations in 47 of the top 50 radio markets and 89 of the top 100 radio
markets. According to Arbitron our weekly listening base is nearly 120
million Americans.
Congress has long recognized the importance of radio during times
of crisis. It passed the ``Radio Act of 1912'' in the aftermath of the
sinking of the Titanic to require U.S. ships to be equipped with ship-
to-shore radios and have trained operators on board around the clock.
While much has changed in the last 100 years, radio remains an
important link to the American public when disaster strikes. Radio
provides the public with advance warning of a pending natural disaster;
it informs the public while a disaster is occurring, and afterwards it
helps listeners recover from a disaster.
Radio is uniquely effective for emergency communications. Radios
can operate on battery power, so they work even if the electricity
fails. Virtually every home and automobile in the country has a radio.
They are portable. And they are inexpensive.
The Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') has required radio
stations to comply with emergency broadcast regulations for years. Many
of us remember the weekly tests that interrupted the programming we
were listening to while local radio stations fulfilled their
obligations to the FCC. In 1997 the Commission updated the old
Emergency Broadcast System with a new Emergency Alert System (``EAS'').
The new EAS enables the President, State and local governments, and the
National Weather Service to override local broadcasts to send emergency
information to the public. Its digital architecture improves crisis
communications by enabling radio stations to send and receive emergency
information quickly and automatically.
Every one of Clear Channel Broadcasting's 892 stations complies
with the FCC's EAS regulations. We look forward to working with the
Federal Government as it conducts the Nation's first-ever Nation-wide
EAS test on November 9th of this year. We take our responsibility
seriously and look at this testing as a great opportunity to assess the
effectiveness of the EAS system and seek ways to further improve upon
it.
We at Clear Channel regard the FCC's EAS requirements as a floor,
and not a ceiling. We take extreme pride and honor in our ability to
help our neighbors in an emergency. Following Hurricane Katrina and
other local crises that affected other parts of the country, Clear
Channel determined that we should always strive to do an even better
job serving the public during an emergency. We have thus established
our Emergency Operations Center (``EOC'' or ``Center'') and have
customized emergency plans for every market in which we operate.
The Center is located in Cincinnati, Ohio, and is staffed around
the clock by trained personnel. It serves several functions that
improve our ability to respond to a crisis and get important emergency
information out to the public in a timely manner.
It serves as a ``backstop'' to our personnel in local markets
during a local emergency. It provides enhanced access by community
leaders and first responders during a crisis. It is in a position to
assist local markets to deliver critical information to the public on
as ``as needed'' basis. In fact, it has the capability to create and
air local emergency announcements and originate EAS messages during an
emergency, if the local markets need that assistance. To effectively do
this, the EOC staff monitors EAS, EMnet, NOAA Weather and news events,
as well as critical internal broadcast systems to improve the overall
availability of emergency information in each market. In the event that
an alert is issued, EOC staff can listen to the program content of any
of our local stations and monitor the transmission of EAS Alerts in
response.
While our local stations are primarily responsible for EAS, our EOC
is an ideal location to centrally monitor the effectiveness of our
stations' EAS activity and we hope that during this November's Nation-
wide EAS test we will have public officials visit the Center to witness
Clear Channel's performance.
Let me give you an example of the EOC in action. In an emergency,
station personnel may not always be available. The telephone lines may
be down, or they may be on the phone with police, fire, or other public
officials, or perhaps moving from the station to a safer location. We
have established a local ``hot line'' phone number which is given to
our local community leaders as a single place for them to call to reach
station management. If the mayor of a city calls the hot line and the
Manager is unavailable for any reason, the mayor's call is
automatically routed to our 24/7 EOC where a trained staffer will
handle the call and make sure that whatever emergency information the
mayor has is relayed to the local management team and if appropriate is
broadcast out over the air. EOC personnel have the home and cell phone
numbers of our key local market personnel and can quickly connect with
them at any time of the day or night.
This past winter our investment in the Center paid off for the
people of Somerset, Kentucky. Local law enforcement wanted to close a
particular street late one night, and need to get the word out to the
public. They called the GM, who wasn't available, so after about 5
rings the call was automatically rolled over to the EOC, thus avoiding
what could have been a never-ending game of phone tag. After speaking
to the local officials and connecting with local management, the EOC
staff created a short announcement about the street closing, and
shipped it back to our local Kentucky station where it went out over
the air--all within 10 minutes of the initial call to the station. EOC
assisted our local stations carry out this important task while it was
also focusing on other local efforts; local law enforcement was
assisted in its efforts to protect the public, and the local community
was informed and assisted in a time of emergency.
If any Member of the subcommittee or its staff has an interest in
coming out to Cincinnati and seeing the Center first-hand, we would be
glad to show you around--we're very proud of this facility and the
trained personnel dedicated to running it.
In addition to our EOC, Clear Channel has created and maintains its
``Disaster Assistance and Response Plan''--we call it ``DARP''--that
has amassed and deployed reserve radio transmitters, emergency power
generators and news-gathering equipment, satellite phones, fuel
supplies, mobile housing and even a portable tower, all ready to move
on short notice to help restore operations in one of the cities where
we operate. When disaster strikes we have the ability to quickly and
efficiently supplement or replace equipment so we can stay on the air
and get information out to the public.
The transmitter site of an AM station in Minot, North Dakota (KRRZ)
has been under the floodwaters that struck Minot in late June. We were
able to send the necessary equipment to Minot and keep KRRZ on the air
broadcasting from a different--and drier--location, providing the
residents of Minot with needed information on the levels of the Souris
River; as well as information regarding the availability of emergency
assistance.
Because our DARP program has warehoused reserve equipment in
several cities across the country, when there is an emergency we are
able to get it to a locality that is in need in a relatively short
period of time and keep the emergency information flowing to the
public. We have built and selected the storage facilities so that at
least one is within no more than a day's drive from each of the local
markets that Clear Channel serves.
I am proud to say that Clear Channel has shared our DARP resources
with our radio industry brethren in times of need. Most recently, Clear
Channel donated use of our DARP RV to several Zimmer Radio employees in
Joplin, Missouri who had lost their homes.
One of the company's primary focuses in the area of emergency
preparedness has been on the facilities and equipment that Clear
Channel has deployed to enhance our ability to respond in the event of
a crisis. In my view these are making a very real contribution to
improving the ability of civil authorities to communicate with the
public before, during, and after a disaster strikes. But I would be
remiss if I didn't take a moment to comment on the commitment of all of
our employees to the communities that they serve.
This past April, a tornado ripped through Tuscaloosa, Alabama,
killing 43 and leveling substantial parts of the city. Clear Channel
operates four stations in Tuscaloosa. Immediately after the extent of
the damage became evident, our market manager for Tuscaloosa made the
decision to pre-empt the normal broadcasts of these stations and
instead set up a relief clearinghouse through simulcasts. People would
drop off home-cooked meals at the stations' doors, and our disc jockeys
delivered them to people who had nothing to eat. The Wall Street
Journal ran a story on the Clear Channel clearinghouse. The article
appears at the end of my statement. To quote the story:
``In a typical pattern, someone calls in to express a need for a
particular area or group. Fifteen minutes later, the same listener
relates that 10 people showed up and offered their services. Churches
and other groups often call in to specify a shortage of particular
goods, such as bug spray and suntan lotion for volunteers, and an
excess of others, such as diapers. This allows givers to tailor their
donations. Wal-Mart and other businesses call in to offer free
prescriptions, charging stations for cell phones, and trucks to remove
debris upon request.''
I am extremely proud of all that Clear Channel is doing to enhance
communications with the public during emergencies. Our Emergency
Operations Center has added substantially to our ability to support our
local stations in their communities. And our DARP program helps to
ensure that Clear Channel stations can remain on the air during and
after disaster strikes, getting important information out to their
communities to assist in relief efforts. Most of all, I am proud of the
people of Clear Channel. They care deeply about the communities where
they live and work, and when disaster strikes, they respond
appropriately.
I will be happy to answer any questions that the subcommittee may
have, and I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony to you
and assist the subcommitte in compiling a record.
Attachment
TALK RADIO RIDES TO THE RESCUE
How Clear Channel Stations promoted a remarkable network of volunteers
for tornado relief
May 7, 2011, David T. Beito, The Wall Street Journal
The tornado that tore through here late last month left 41 dead and
12 still missing. Whole neighborhoods now resemble bombed-out postwar
Tokyo or Berlin. But this devastation is only part of the story.
Tuscaloosa is now the scene of an inspiring volunteer relief effort
taking place without the guidance of any central planner.
Instead of going home for break, for example, students in the Greek
system at the University of Alabama and historically black Stillman
College stayed to cook more than 7,000 meals per day. Local churches
have assembled armies of volunteers and vast stores of goods, ranging
from dog food to child car seats, and are dispersing them with no
questions asked at ``free department stores.'' It is doubtful that a
more secular city could have fared as well.
Other than churches, much of the strength of Tuscaloosa's extensive
mutual aid comes from an unlikely source: Right wing talk radio. The
four Tuscaloosa Clear Channel stations have pre-empted their normal
fare of Rush, Hannity and top 40 songs to serve as a relief
clearinghouse through simulcasts. Gigi South, the local market manager
for Tuscaloosa Clear Channel, says that it was her decision to begin
the simulcasts.
It was hard to do otherwise. Employees saw demolished neighborhoods
outside their windows and the desperate calls for help came in almost
immediately. Because many residents lost power and were unable charge
cell phones, battery-operated and car radios often became their only
form of communication.
These stations have only 12 full-time employees among them, but
they've had a vast impact. The on-air jocks have taken on grueling
shifts, sometimes working 10 hours straight.
The goal of the simulcasts is simple: Connect givers and victims
and allow them to exchange information. According to Ms. South, ``this
whole thing has been about connecting listener to listener. They are
the ones doing this. We're just the conduit.''
Ms. South is being modest. In many cases, people have dropped off
goods--sometimes dozens of cooked meals--at the station's door. The on-
air jocks have rushed them to those in need. The higher-ups at Clear
Channel have fully supported the local initiative to pre-empt normal
programming and have provided generators and engineers to keep the
stations on the air 'round the clock.
In a typical pattern, someone calls in to express a need for a
particular area or group. Fifteen minutes later, the same listener
relates that 10 people showed up and offered their services. Churches
and other groups often call in to specify a shortage of particular
goods, such as bug spray and suntan lotion for volunteers, and an
excess of others, such as diapers. This allows givers to tailor their
donations. Wal-Mart and other businesses call in to offer free
prescriptions, charging stations for cell phones, and trucks to remove
debris upon request.
In one particularly moving case, a worn-out relief coordinator for
an outlying trailer park broadcast a desperate appeal. She had been
cooking meals for several undocumented Hispanics living in tents who
were afraid to go to the authorities. She was heartbroken because she
wanted to visit her mother in Mississippi who had suffered a stroke,
but she feared leaving her neighbors unaided.
Within minutes, two nurses, translators, and other volunteers were
on the scene. The simulcast now includes brief Spanish language
announcements. And listeners, even if they are normally angered about
illegal immigration, show no hesitation in lending a hand in such
cases.
Callers unable to get through because of tied-up phone lines can
make use of associated Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. Tuscaloosa
Clear Channel's tweets now reappear, along with announcements from the
local government, on outdoor electronic message boards throughout the
city and the University television station carries live feeds of the
simulcast.
Although Tuscaloosa Clear Channel normally caters to a white,
conservative audience, grateful listeners often make tearful calls from
predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods like Alberta that bore
the brunt of the tornado. No other radio or television stations in the
community, public or private, have come close to matching this effort.
More than a week after the tornado, the calls continue to flow into
the stations. But Ms. South worries that many Americans are forgetting
Tuscaloosa as other stories, such as the raid on Osama bin Laden,
increasingly dominate the news. ``This is like nothing I've seen
before. This is awful. We're going to need help outside of our town.
The bottom line is that here the people that we are talking to on air
are the people that have no homes. They have no home, they have no
phone service. They have no television. Nothing except the radio.''
Mr. Bilirakis. I would like to welcome our first panel here
today.
Our first witness is Mr. Damon Penn. Mr. Penn is the
Assistant Administrator of the National Continuity Programs
Directorate within the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
FEMA. He is currently overseeing the development of FEMA's
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, IPAWS. Mr. Penn
joined FEMA in 2004 as a defense coordinating officer in
Florida, my home State. He also served as the DCO the following
year in support of Mississippi's efforts during Hurricane
Katrina.
Prior to joining FEMA, Mr. Penn served 30-plus years with
the U.S. Army, holding numerous leadership positions. We thank
you for your service.
Mr. Penn studied at the U.S. Navy War College, earning a
master's degree in national security and strategic studies. He
also earned a master's of science administration from Central
Michigan University in 1993 and a bachelors of science degree
in criminal justice from UNC Charlotte.
Our next witness is Rear Admiral James Barnett.
Welcome, Admiral.
Admiral Barnett is the Chief of the Federal Communications
Commission, FCC, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. In
this capacity, he is responsible for overseeing the FCC
activities pertaining to public safety, homeland security,
emergency management, and disaster preparedness and represents
the Commission on these issues before Federal, State, and
industry organizations.
Chief Barnett served over 30 years in the U.S. Navy and
Naval Reserves retiring in 2008. Before joining the FCC, Chief
Barnett was a Senior Research Fellow at the Potomac Institute
for Policy Studies, a policy think tank that focuses on science
and technology issues, primarily cyber conflict and
cybersecurity. Chief Barnett was also a senior partner in
Mitchell, McNutt, & Sams, P.A. in Tupelo, Mississippi.
Welcome. Your entire written statements will appear in the
record. I ask that you each summarize your statements for 5
minutes.
We will begin with Administrator Penn. You are now
recognized, sir.
I also want to tell the panel that we probably will break
around 10:45 or so for votes; and, of course, we will come
right back after votes.
You are recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF DAMON PENN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
CONTINUITY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Mr. Penn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Richardson and Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, or IPAWS, and to
update you on the significant progress we have made with our
partners in the Federal Communications Commission, the National
Weather Service, and private industry over the past 2 years.
Our vision of IPAWS has not wavered since the program's
inception. It must have the capability to notify the American
public, under all conditions, with a reliable, integrated,
flexible, and comprehensive system. We must be able to do this
by redundant means assure everyone is contacted.
What has changed is our population and how they receive and
process information. No longer do people solely rely on a
single source of information. Our reliance on wireless devices,
internet, social media, and others increase daily.
Alerting techniques and procedures have changed with
matched rapidity. Our emergency managers rely on a host of
alerting methods, including sirens, digital signage, weather
radios, and others, to communicate critical information to
their populations.
These two factors expanded our vision to not only alert by
multiple means but to be able to incorporate existing equipment
emergency managers are using while ensuring compatibility with
emerging technologies. This led us to a basic change in our
methodology. We found we could no longer rely on the
requirements-based approach, but IPAWS needed to turn to an
applications-based approach. This approach sets common
standards and compliance parameters and allows developers to
use their imaginations to develop solutions to problems that we
didn't even know that we had. In the alerts and warnings field,
this allows us to use existing technologies in use by the State
and local officials and opens doors for continued development
of applications.
If I could ask for your attention to the chart that we
provided. This depicts the alerting process. You will note that
the alerting authorities are on the left and the American
public is on the right with the message dissemination platforms
in the middle.
The keystone is the box at the bottom left of the page.
This is the Common Alert Protocol, or CAP. This is a messaging
standard that ensures all equipment involved with alerts and
warnings is interoperable. This is what makes it possible to
use existing technical solutions on the far right of the chart
with IPAWS. Emergency managers can upgrade the tools they use
to become complaint with CAP or purchase new devices with
confidence that they will work with the Federal backbone. The
approval of this standard in 2010 was a major breakthrough for
IPAWS and alerts and warnings.
Another critical path for FEMA was development of the IPAWS
open aggregator that you see near the center of the slide. This
is a platform that takes the CAP-compliant messages and
distributes them to the alert disseminators that you see. This
allows emergency managers at all levels to send a single
message via IPAWS through all the disseminators to the public
simultaneously. What you see depicted on the slide is not a
test, it is not a pilot, and it is not a concept. It is a
fielded capability that we continue to refine.
Over the past 2 years, FEMA has established interoperable
standards and interfaces as I just described. We created a
dissemination network with redundancy, and we integrated
disparate message distribution paths.
I would like to take just a few moments to tell you what we
have done and where we are going with each disseminator you
see.
First, the Emergency Alert System. EAS has its roots back
in the 1950s, and this is the part of IPAWS that communicates
over radio and television through primary entry points, as the
Ranking Member mentioned earlier. We have expanded our original
36 stations to 49 and will reach our goal of 77 by the end of
calendar 2012. With the overwhelming support that we received
from our partners in the broadcast industry, this will improve
our direct coverage to the American people by radio and
television from 67 percent to over 90 percent.
We are also updating existing stations to improve
reliability. Our EAS upgrades extend past the continental
United States and include the territories of Puerto Rico, the
U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Saipan, and the
Marianas. I would be happy to expand on those later if you
would like.
The Commercial Mobile Alert System, or CMAS, is the
wireless component of IPAWS. The public-friendly acronym that
we have adopted with the FCC is PLAN. As mentioned before, this
system provides Federal, State, territorial, Tribal, and local
governments the ability to send 90-character text message
transmissions to mobile devices. The capability is geo-
targetable and is disseminated directly from the wireless
tower, eliminating concerns for call congestion.
Currently, 142 providers have agreed to participate in the
program, and several have already completed testing with us to
ensure people with disabilities who subscribe to a wireless
service, receive emergency alerts. Wireless carriers are
required to transmit messages with both vibration cadence and
audio attention signals.
Our coordination with the FCC and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration continues to produce geo-targeting
capabilities and will allow specific targeting methods to be
used.
We are currently working on the ability to geo-target
messages based on plume and weather modeling. Coordination with
interservice providers continues, and several of the major
internet service providers have developed applications and
tested software with us.
Two major milestones that we have in the upcoming year have
already been mentioned. That is the CMAS rollout in New York
City. Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your support and
leadership and for that of the Mayor and the Commissioner of
Emergency Management in New York to make that a reality, as
well as the support of wireless community. Then the other
pivotal accomplishment, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was the
Nation-wide test that will be held 9 November.
I am proud to serve with a dedicated team of professionals
at all levels of government throughout the private sector and
all have worked diligently to ensure that we live up to our
responsibilities to the American public. I would like to thank
them and thank the committee for unwavering support.
I also would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today, and I look forward to any questions that you may
have. Thank you, sir.
[The statement of Mr. Penn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Damon Penn
July 8, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of
the committee. My name is Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Continuity Programs
(NCP) Directorate. As a U.S. Army Colonel prior to joining FEMA in
August 2009, I served as the Director of Operations for the Joint Force
Headquarters (JFHQ) at the National Capitol Region of the United
States. While leading the JFHQ, I oversaw intelligence, operations,
force protection/anti-terrorism, planning, the operations center,
training, ceremonies, and security. I have also served as the Defense
Coordinating Officer for Florida and was responsible for all Department
of Defense assets mobilized to assist Florida and Mississippi's
emergency management efforts during Hurricane Katrina. Now as the
Assistant Administrator of NCP, I am charged with managing the Federal
Executive Branch Lead Agent for continuity of National essential
functions and the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). I
want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss our accomplishments, challenges, and vision.
It is my privilege to lead the dedicated professionals with whom I
work at FEMA. FEMA serves as the Nation's focal point for Government
continuity planning, guidance, and operations support, and is also
responsible for ensuring the President is able to address the Nation
under the most extreme circumstances. The technology used to fulfill
this central mission has undergone many changes, beginning in 1951,
when the Control of Electromagnetic Radiation system, or CONELRAD, was
the chief method of Federal communication during a disaster. CONELRAD
was replaced by the Emergency Broadcast System in 1963, followed by the
Emergency Alert System (EAS) in 1994. IPAWS is a modernization and
integration of the Nation's alert and warning infrastructure.
Under 47 U.S.C. 606 and regulations implemented by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) (47 CFR Part 11, et seq.), broadcast
radio and television stations, cable television stations, direct
broadcast satellite services, and satellite radio operators are all
required to carry National (Presidential) EAS alerts and support State
and local EAS alerts and tests. In support of these requirements,
Executive Order 13407 states, ``It is the policy of the United States
to have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive
system to alert and warn the American people.''\1\ FEMA created IPAWS
to be a system of systems to: (1) Modernize the EAS and expand the
Primary Entry Point (PEP) station system; (2) create an Open Platform
for Emergency Networks, or IPAWS-OPEN, which can be used at no cost by
State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety partners; (3)
promote collaboration with industry to leverage existing or develop new
standards and to integrate current and future technologies seamlessly
into IPAWS; (4) expand traditional alerting and warning communication
pathways; and (5) working with the Department of Commerce and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to deliver
alerts through NOAA Weather Radio All-Hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Executive Order 13407, Section 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPAWS' SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN THE LAST 2 YEARS
The IPAWS program has made significant progress over the past 2
years, and FEMA is on schedule to achieve our IPAWS vision in fiscal
year 2012 by having established the following:
1. Interoperable standards and interfaces;
2. Redundancy in the dissemination network;
3. Integrated disparate message distribution paths, meaning that
one message can travel many paths to reach the American public;
and
4. Direct coverage for 90 percent of U.S. residents by at least one
means of communication.
We have cleared several significant hurdles in order to ensure
success moving forward, yet challenges remain. By the end of this
calendar year, we will roll out the Commercial Mobile Alerting System
(CMAS) in New York City and Washington, DC in conjunction with the
major cellular providers. CMAS will enable wireless carriers to provide
customers with geo-targeted, timely, and accurate emergency alerts and
warnings to their cell phones and other mobile devices. We are also
scheduled to conduct the first ever National Test of the Emergency
Alert System on November 9, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. EST. In parallel with
the technical challenges and accomplishments, the IPAWS Program
Management Office (PMO) works closely with industry, State, local, and
territorial emergency managers, and our Federal interagency partners at
the FCC and NOAA to help further our mission.
The IPAWS PMO continues to: (1) Train the alerting community,
including public safety officials, industry partners, and the American
public; (2) implement and expand new communications paths; (3)
provide--at no cost to State, local, territorial, and Tribal public
safety officials--the capability to use IPAWS-OPEN to send alerts and
warnings through multiple communication pathways to individuals within
their jurisdictions; and (4) ensure an environment suitable for
innovation of new alerting capabilities.
THE IPAWS VISION
We remain steadfastly committed to our vision for IPAWS as a timely
and accurate alert and warning to the American people in the
preservation of life and property. In the coming months IPAWS will
create an integrated capability accessible to all levels of public
safety officials, allowing State, territorial, Tribal, and local
officials to issue public alerts and warnings for all hazards. Next,
IPAWS will expand beyond radio and television, alerting over multiple
communications channels while maintaining the EAS as an all-hazards
alerting component. Finally, IPAWS will retain a capability to foster
growth and development of future alerting capabilities through the
adoption and promotion of common technical standards and protocols.
INNOVATIVE AND ADAPTABLE TECHNOLOGIES
IPAWS has moved from a requirements-based, single technology
network approach to an applications-based, open standards platform
approach. This ensures that IPAWS is accessible to a broad range of
information processing technologies, networks and equipment so that
existing private sector alerting and communication systems can easily
integrate with IPAWS-OPEN. While even basic phones with texting
capability can receive an alert from IPAWS-OPEN, the open standards
platform will also allow for future technologies to integrate with
IPAWS.
IPAWS-OPEN supports an environment which leverages the industry-
adopted Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) Emergency Data Exchange Language
standard to improve interoperability across a wide variety of
technologies and other solutions. As a result, there are 46 private
sector vendors and 12 public sector organizations currently developing
and testing products to leverage the IPAWS-OPEN application
capabilities. The National Public Radio (NPR) also uses CAP messages
from IPAWS to deliver alerts to people with visual or hearing
impairments by providing alerts directly to prototype devices that
activate a bed shaker, display an audio alert in text, or output the
text to a Braille printer.
IPAWS' OPEN provides our industry partners with flexibility in the
development of new types of technologies and fosters greater
competition and innovation in the development of public alert and
warning tools.
IPAWS' MILESTONES
IPAWS has achieved notable accomplishments since the beginning of
fiscal year 2010, including adopting CAP, expanding the PEP station
system, conducting two successful live code EAS tests in Alaska,
developing the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) in partnership
with the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T), and supporting individuals with access and
functional needs. These accomplishments are a result of the consistent
vision of IPAWS, support from authorizing authorities such as this
committee, and the strong relationships IPAWS PMO has established with
our public and private partners.
COMMON ALERTING PROTOCOL
FEMA IPAWS officially adopted the CAP Standard on September 30,
2010, after it was developed by a partnership between S&T and the
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards,
an international standards body. Similarly, FEMA IPAWS adopted the CAP
to EAS Implementation Guide in May 2010 after it was developed by the
EAS to CAP Industry Group. The FCC regulates CAP compliance actions by
EAS participants (such as radio, cable, and television providers,
etc.). FEMA contracted with Eastern Kentucky University to test vendor
products for CAP compliance. Vendors' test results are posted on the
FEMA Responder Knowledge Base website.\2\ The FEMA Responder Knowledge
Base benefits State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety
officials, as well as EAS participants, because it confirms whether
equipment they are considering purchasing will work with the modernized
EAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The FEMA Responder Knowledge base website at https://
www.rkb.us/ provides emergency responders, purchasers, and planners
with a trusted, integrated, on-line source of information on products,
standards, certifications, grants, and other equipment-related
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMARY ENTRY POINT
The PEP system is a Nation-wide network of broadcast stations and
other entities that is used to distribute a message from the President
or designated National authorities in the event of a National
emergency. The IPAWS Program Management Office continues to expand the
number of PEP Stations across the United States. In August 2009, the
system originally had 36 PEP stations providing direct coverage to 67%
of the American people. Currently, there are 49 operational PEP
Stations and five PEP Stations under construction, resulting in direct
coverage of 75% of the American people. By the end of 2012, the number
of PEP Stations will increase to 77 and will directly cover over 90% of
the American people.
New PEP Stations use a standard configuration, saving maintenance
costs and ensuring an ease of movement between stations. The stations
have double-walled fuel containers with spill containment and a modern
fuel management system and Electromagnetic Pulse-protected backup power
and transmitters. Legacy stations are being retrofitted to meet current
PEP Station resiliency standards.
While EAS is currently being used in Puerto Rico, FEMA is working
with the Puerto Rican government so they can locally generate island-
wide alerts. In the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), FEMA has already begun
the process of helping the USVI Government locally generate territory-
wide alerts, as well as assisting them with EAS testing. The IPAWS PMO
is installing PEP Stations in other territories, including American
Samoa, in fiscal year 2011 while Guam and Saipan are still in the
planning phases.
LIVE-CODE EAS TESTS IN ALASKA
The IPAWS Program Management Office worked closely with the Alaska
Association of Broadcasters, the State of Alaska, the FCC, and other
key public and private sector partners to conduct two successful live-
code tests in Alaska in January 2010 and January 2011. The purpose of
these tests was to establish an EAS capabilities baseline and set the
stage for the first ever National Test of the EAS. The live-code tests
in Alaska helped FEMA and EAS participating stations refine equipment
installation/maintenance and standard operating procedures, and clarify
certain alerting procedures.
COMMERCIAL MOBILE ALERT SYSTEM
Using IPAWS-OPEN, CMAS sends non-subscription based 90-character
text messages directly from wireless towers and targets phones in the
geo-targeted area. State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety
officials can, at no cost, alert or warn individuals affected by an
imminent threat or Presidential Message. CMAS mitigates wireless call
congestion and individuals can receive the alert even if wireless
towers in their location can no longer support subscriber-to-subscriber
messaging.
The IPAWS PMO works closely with S&T, commercial mobile service
providers, and the FCC to realize our mutual goal of expanding the
number of communication pathways for alerts and warnings. For example,
the commercial mobile industry is developing cellular broadcasting
technology to support Nation-wide alert delivery. As authorized by the
Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, S&T is providing the
research, development, testing, and evaluation support necessary to
fully implement CMAS.
The IPAWS PMO adopted industry-developed CMAS interface
specifications in December 2009, and made the IPAWS CMAS Gateway
available to carriers for testing in February 2011. Since May 2011,
most major carriers have or are in the process of completing
development and testing on the IPAWS CMAS Gateway. The IPAWS Program
Management Office began C-Interface testing with tier 1 carriers in
March 2011, over a year ahead of schedule. Since then, Sprint has
completed testing, and US Cellular, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon
Wireless are currently undergoing testing, with other providers
planning to test in the near future.
CMAS alerts will be transmitted to cell phones within the area of a
disaster and are by design sent only to phones within the affected
area. FEMA IPAWS is working with NOAA to develop software for State,
local, Tribal, and territorial emergency managers that will allow
alerts and warnings to be geo-targeted. The Geo-Targeted Alert System
software models the forward progress of a chemical cloud or toxic
spill, for example, so emergency managers can specifically warn those
in its anticipated path.
Our industry partners have reported that some mobile user devices
currently on the market are already CMAS capable, with all other
commercially available devices capable by 2014.
SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE WITH ACCESS AND FUNCTIONAL NEEDS
The IPAWS Program Management Office has remained engaged with
agencies, organizations, conferences, and private industry to promote
IPAWS capabilities and opportunities for the integration of alert and
warning technologies for people with access and functional needs. We
have partnered with private organizations such as Signtel, Deaf-Link,
Alertus, NPR, Readspeaker, Roam Secure, VPN Voice Corp, and public
organizations such as NOAA, to demonstrate products that incorporate
CAP-enabled technologies for alerting persons with access and
functional needs. These technologies and products are routinely
incorporated into IPAWS demonstrations and have been displayed at such
events as the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM)
Annual Conference, National Association of Broadcasters Show, National
Council on Independent Living Annual Conference, the IPAWS
Congressional Demonstration, and the National Disabilities Rights
Network Annual Conference. The IPAWS PMO has also participated in such
events as the Interagency Disability Educational Awareness Showcase,
FEMA Getting Real Conference, and IAEM's Special Needs Committee
meeting.
The IPAWS Program Management Office also partnered with FEMA's
Office of Disability Integration and Coordination and initiated a
semiannual outreach roundtable for Federal partners and industry
experts on disability-related issues. The roundtable includes
representatives from over a dozen leading organizations representing
Americans with access and functional needs; it is intended to provide
periodic updates to our industry Federal partners, as well as elicit
information on emerging technologies and systems that can integrate
CAP.
THE FUTURE OF IPAWS
Two major milestones remaining for this calendar year include the:
(1) CMAS roll-out in New York City and (2) the first ever National EAS
Test. The IPAWS Program Management Office is actively implementing
strategic technical and outreach plans to communicate with and engage
stakeholders and partners to ensure successful implementation and
testing of both CMAS and the EAS.
We have already had exceptional cooperation from the wireless
industry in adapting CMAS. While participation by commercial mobile
carriers is voluntary, 142 mobile service providers have already filed
their intent to participate, with the major wireless carriers providing
CMAS capability 4 months ahead of schedule.
In addition to the strong working relationship between the wireless
community and the IPAWS Program Management Office, there has been great
cooperation from S&T, the New York City Mayor, city leadership, and NYC
Office of Emergency Management in advance of the first large-scale
integration test of CMAS between local authorities and IPAWS. We plan
to make CMAS available in New York City and Washington, DC by the end
of this calendar year, with the expectation that CMAS will be
operational throughout the United States in April 2012.
The National EAS Test is scheduled to take place on Wednesday,
November 9, 2011, at 2 p.m. EST. The date and time for the test was
coordinated with the cooperation of numerous public and private
partners--most notably the broadcast industry and the FCC--to take
place after peak hurricane season and outside of rush hour on both
coasts.
The National EAS Test will help determine where adjustments need to
be made. We anticipate the test will help us establish an effective
baseline for future tests, devise mitigation strategies for common
issues, and assess and adjust training and standard operating
procedures.
The 2011 National EAS Test will not incorporate IPAWS system
technologies. It is an end-to-end test of our Nation's alerting
capability to demonstrate the readiness and effectiveness of the
National EAS. The National EAS Test on November 9 will use the legacy
EAS infrastructure to deliver television and radio alerts across the
Nation.
CONCLUSION
The IPAWS vision of providing timely alert and warning information
to the American people in the preservation of life and property remains
clear and consistent. FEMA is fully committed to IPAWS and recognizes
its importance to the American public.
Between now and the end of calendar year 2012, the IPAWS PMO will
continue to work with State and local alerting authorities to help them
leverage the IPAWS system and capabilities, including providing the
certification tools State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety
officials will need to have authenticated for access to IPAWS-OPEN. The
IPAWS PMO will also continue to conduct extensive outreach and training
to State, local, territorial, and Tribal public safety officials.
We will continue to work with industry and academia for the
development of capabilities to alert people with access and functional
needs and those whose primary language is not English. We will also
continue our work with the FCC to evolve alert and warning regulations
to encompass whole of community alerting capabilities, and will work
with NOAA to fully integrate their alert and warning systems with
IPAWS.
The IPAWS PMO will complete the EAS Modernization and PEP Expansion
program through 77 PEP stations directly covering 90% of the American
people, retrofitting legacy PEP stations to current specifications for
all-hazards, resilient capability and modern environmental protection
configuration. IPAWS will also incorporate back-up EAS through
satellite messaging capability within the PEP system.
We will continue to increase the IPAWS-OPEN Alert Aggregator's
resilience through greater accessibility, reliability, and redundancy.
We will continue to work with S&T, industry, and other partners to
explore means of providing alerts through internet services and ``new
media'' in a secure and integrated fashion. We will continue to promote
IPAWS standards and CAP, and will encourage the developers of future
technologies to provide IPAWS capable alerting tools to America's
public safety officials.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify and I am
pleased to take any questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Chief Barnett, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RADM JAMES ARDEN BARNETT, JR., CHIEF, PUBLIC
SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Admiral Barnett. Good morning, Chairman Bilirakis and
Ranking Member Richardson and Members of the subcommittee. I
really appreciate the opportunity to come talk to you about the
Federal Communication Commission's recent work in alerting and
warning the public.
With over 1,400 tornados and widespread flooding, we have
already seen too much loss of life from natural disasters this
year. A bright spot from these terrible reports occurs
sometimes when we hear survivors say, I got the warning and I
got to safety.
This is the crucial premise of all alerts and warnings. We
may not be able to protect every single person from every
disaster, but if we can get timely, accurate information about
imminent danger to people in harm's way, they can take action
to save themselves and their loved ones. Alerts provide the
information that turns precious seconds into survival.
One of SEC's primary statutory obligations is to promote
safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communications, and we are committed to this responsibility.
We recognize that this would be a team effort, and that is
why I am pleased to be here with my friend and colleague, Damon
Penn of FEMA. The FCC works closely with FEMA to bring the
future of emergency alerting to citizens now.
Pursuant to the WARN Act, the FCC in 2008 adopted rules
allowing wireless carriers to voluntarily transmit emergency
text like alerts to subscribers' cell phones. Since then, the
FCC, FEMA, the wireless industry, State, and local governments
have all worked together to make Personal Localized Alerting
Network, or PLAN, a reality. Four carriers--Sprint, AT&T, T-
Mobile, and Verizon--have committed to making PLAN available in
New York City by the end of year, and these carriers and others
will begin to deploy PLAN in other parts of the country by
April 7, 2012, which is the deadline set by the FCC.
PLAN will serve as an important complement to other alert
systems like the Emergency Alert System, or EAS, by using new
cellular broadcast technology that will allow Government
officials to send this text-like emergency alert to everyone in
a targeted geographic area who has an enabled mobile device.
This will ensure that alerts reach only the people in danger,
and there is no charge to the consumer for receiving these
alerts.
PLAN creates a fast lane for emergency alerts so critical
information is guaranteed to get through, even when there is
congestion on a carrier's network. Moreover, with PLAN, neither
the alert initiator nor anyone administering the system will
know who receives the alert. PLAN cannot be used to monitor
wireless devices or a consumer's location.
The FCC has also adopted rules to enhance the reliability
of EAS. EAS requires radio and television broadcasters, cable
operators, and satellite providers to have equipment that can
deliver emergency alerts to the public. Although the State and
local components of EAS are tested regularly, to date EAS has
never been tested on a Nation-wide basis. To remedy this, FEMA
and the FCC have announced the first top-down Nation-wide test
of all the components of the EAS for November 9 of this year.
The agencies will also work together to be sure that the public
is aware of the Nation-wide test before it occurs.
Another key element of public safety communications is the
ability for someone to call first responders for help. Today,
the average American sends about 20 texts per day. If you are a
teenager, that is over 100 texts a day. Almost all mobile
phones now have cameras, and most of these can shoot video,
too. But when I tell people that you can't text or send
pictures to 9-1-1, they are incredulous.
The sad truth today is that if your child winds up in an
emergency situation and texts 9-1-1 for help, that call for
help will go unanswered. This is why the FCC is doing all that
it can to promote the evolution of a broadband-based, next-
generation 9-1-1 system. As recommended in the National
Broadband Plan, the FCC has initiated proceedings to have all
of the 9-1-1 centers, the PSAPs, have access to broadband
technologies to communicate with 9-1-1 dispatchers and to
accelerate the deployment of next-generation 9-1-1 which would
allow the public to send those text messages, video, and photos
to 9-1-1.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today. This concludes my testimony. I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement of Admiral Barnett follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Arden Barnett, Jr.
July 8, 2011
Good Morning Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson and
other Members of the House Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness,
Response, and Communications. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you on behalf of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
discuss the FCC's recent work in alerting and warning the American
public and our partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and other Federal partners in this vitally important area.
INTRODUCTION
National Weather Service preliminary reports show that over 1,400
tornados have occurred in the United States already this year. We have
seen many disasters in 2011, and too much loss of life and property. In
some of the news reports, though, there is a hopeful note. We
occasionally hear a disaster victim report, ``I got the warning, and I
got to safety.'' This is the crucial premise of all alerts and
warnings. We may not be able to protect every single person from every
disaster, but if we can get timely, accurate information about imminent
danger to people in harm's way, they can take cover, they can move to
safety, they can save themselves, they can save their families. This is
truly a situation in which seconds count and can make the difference
between life and death.
One of the FCC's primary statutory obligations is to promote the
safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communications, and the FCC has a singular commitment to the protection
of the American public through constantly evolving alert and warning
systems. We recognize that this should be a team effort, and I am
pleased to be here with my friend and colleague Damon Penn of FEMA. The
FCC works closely with FEMA, the National Weather Service and other
Federal partners to bring the future of alert and warning systems to
consumers now.
An essential element of that FCC obligation is the ability to alert
the American public in times of emergency. Through various initiatives,
the FCC continues to take significant steps toward implementing one of
its highest priorities--ensuring that all Americans can receive timely
and accurate emergency alerts and warnings over each communications
platform they use.
Today, I will discuss the FCC's efforts to date regarding the
Personal Localized Alerting Network, or PLAN, (also known as the
Commercial Mobile Alerting System, or CMAS) and the Emergency Alert
System (EAS). I will also discuss briefly our next steps in ensuring
that the public can receive alerts over multiple communications
technologies. Finally, I will update you on our efforts to ensure that
the public has access to more advanced 9-1-1 systems. Like emergency
alerting, these initiatives are all part of our comprehensive
commitment to promoting public safety through communications.
THE PERSONAL LOCALIZED ALERTING NETWORK (PLAN)
Wireless devices have become ubiquitous across our Nation and, as
such, provide a particularly effective means to reach the American
public quickly and efficiently in an emergency. Accordingly, in 2006
Congress passed the Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act.
The WARN Act sets forth a process for the creation of a warning system
whereby commercial wireless carriers may elect to transmit emergency
alerts to their subscribers. This legislation required the FCC to
undertake a series of actions to accomplish that goal. I am happy to
report that the FCC has met all of its WARN Act deadlines, and in
conjunction with FEMA and the wireless industry, has taken significant
steps to develop PLAN.
On December 12, 2006, the FCC established and convened an advisory
committee to recommend technical requirements by which commercial
wireless carriers could voluntarily transmit emergency alerts--the
Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC). The CMSAAC
consisted of 44 members representing State, local, and Tribal
governments; wireless providers; manufacturers; commercial and
noncommercial broadcasters; the disabilities community; FEMA; and other
organizations. By the time it had concluded its work, this unique
Government/industry partnership had overwhelmingly approved a set of
recommendations for technical requirements for what would become the
PLAN. On October 12, 2007, the FCC received these recommendations. On
April 9, 2008, the FCC adopted requirements that would govern the
voluntary transmission of emergency alerts by commercial wireless
carriers.
Under these rules, participating wireless carriers must begin PLAN
deployment by April 7, 2012. In May of this year, Chairman Genachowski,
FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
and top executives of the four major Nation-wide carriers--AT&T,
Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless announced that PLAN would be
available in New York City by the end of this year, months ahead of
schedule.
PLAN is a new technology and service that will turn mobile devices
into emergency alert devices with transmission of potentially life-
saving messages when there are threats to public safety. It will serve
as an important complement to other alert and warning systems like the
EAS. PLAN will allow Government officials to send text-like emergency
alerts to everyone in a targeted geographic area who has an enabled
mobile device. Since the alerts will be geographically targeted, they
will reach the right people, at the right time, with the right
messages. A PLAN alert will be accompanied by a unique attention signal
and vibration, which is particularly helpful to people with hearing or
vision-related disabilities, and there is no charge to the consumer for
receiving alerts.
Unlike other wireless-based alerting systems that require
subscribers to sign up for the service, subscribers will automatically
receive PLAN alerts as long as they have a PLAN-capable mobile device
and their carrier participates in PLAN. Alert originators can send
three types of alerts using PLAN--alerts from the President regarding
National emergencies, alerts about other emergencies involving imminent
threats to life or safety, and Amber alerts. Pursuant to the WARN Act,
subscribers may opt out of receiving all but the National emergency
alerts.
PLAN creates a fast lane for emergency alerts, so vital information
is guaranteed to get through even if there's congestion in the network.
As we have learned from past large-scale emergencies, a spike in
customer calls and text messages during emergencies can overload
communications networks. PLAN effectively addresses this problem by
using a technology that is separate and different from that used for
voice calls and traditional text messages, allowing PLAN alerts to get
through as long as the network is operating.
It is also important to note that with PLAN, neither the alert
initiator nor anyone administering the system will know who receives a
particular alert. Accordingly, PLAN cannot be used to monitor wireless
devices or a consumer's location or track where someone is. The
technology is similar to a portable radio--someone receives the radio
station's broadcast, but the radio station doesn't know where that
person is or even if she is listening.
The FCC's partnership with FEMA has been essential to the rollout
of PLAN and will help ensure a successful Nation-wide launch of PLAN.
As reflected in the diagram attached as Appendix A, the PLAN
architecture consists of two major components--the Alert Aggregator/
Gateway and the Carrier Gateway and Infrastructure. The Alert
Aggregator/Gateway is administered by FEMA as part of its Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). This component will receive
and authenticate alerts from Federal, State, Tribal and local
governments; verify the originator of the alert; and send the alert
over a secure pathway to gateways and infrastructure administered by
participating wireless carriers. These gateways and infrastructure will
receive alerts and push them out to any PLAN-capable handsets and other
mobile devices within the alerts' targeted geographic area.
Over 100 commercial wireless carriers have elected to participate
in PLAN, so by next April, PLAN will be deployed in cities across the
country not only by the four major Nation-wide carriers, but also by
many small and regional carriers. I want to note that, pursuant to the
WARN Act, participation in PLAN by wireless carriers is completely
voluntary. Thus, some carriers will offer PLAN over all of their
service areas, others over parts of their services areas, and others
over all or only some of their wireless devices. Ultimately, we expect
that market forces will encourage carriers to make PLAN available in
most of the country. In the mean time, and starting right now, the FCC
recommends that consumers ask their carriers whether and where they
will offer PLAN alerts to PLAN-capable handsets. For more information,
we encourage the public to visit our website at www.fcc.gov/pshs.
THE EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM
I also want to report about steps the FCC is taking to better
evaluate and enhance the reliability of the Emergency Alert System
(EAS). For over 50 years, what we now call the EAS has provided
emergency alerts to the American people, including the ability for the
President of the United States to deliver a message to the public in
the event of a National emergency. The EAS requires broadcast and
satellite radio and television service providers, cable systems, and
wireline video systems (``EAS Participants'') to install and operate
equipment capable of delivering emergency alerts to their viewers and
listeners. The current EAS has been in existence for over 15 years and
is used successfully and extensively by State and local authorities for
weather-related and other emergency warnings. The FCC, FEMA, and the
National Weather Service are charged with maintaining the EAS.
State and local components of the EAS are tested, respectively, on
a monthly and weekly basis. However, to date, the EAS has never been
tested on a Nation-wide basis. EAS is a significant National asset, yet
we do not know how well the system will work on a National scale. Only
a top-down, simultaneous test of all components of the EAS can provide
an appropriate assessment of system performance.
To remedy this situation, FEMA and the FCC, in conjunction with
other stakeholders, are now planning to conduct a truly Nation-wide
test of the EAS. This past February, the FCC issued a rule mandating
Nation-wide testing, and on June 9, 2011, FEMA and the FCC announced
that this first test will take place on November 9 of this year.
In addition to ensuring that the EAS works as intended, the FCC
continues to make improvements to the EAS. These include expanding the
traditional analog EAS to digital technologies, including digital radio
and television, digital cable, satellite radio and television, and
wireline video systems. The FCC has also required all EAS Participants
to be able to receive EAS alerts in the Common Alerting Protocol
(``CAP'') standard adopted by FEMA. CAP is a standard alert messaging
protocol that allows alert originators to, among other things, send a
single emergency alert over multiple communications technologies,
thereby increasing the efficiency of sending alerts and expanding the
ways in which consumers can receive them.
NEXT STEPS FOR EMERGENCY ALERTING
Looking to the future, the FCC will continue to explore whether
other communications technologies can provide ways for Americans to
receive alerts and warnings about imminent threats to safety of life.
For example, as recommended in the National Broadband Plan, the FCC
will examine the role that broadband technologies, social networks, and
other internet-based tools can play in emergency alerting. We will
continue to learn from experiences at home and abroad. For example,
earlier this year, Japan experienced a devastating earthquake and
tsunami that resulted in significant loss of life and damage to
property. Although these losses were severe, they may have been greater
if not for Japan's earthquake detection and warning system, which
relied on elements of broadband technologies to alert the public. These
experiences can inform our own thinking about how to leverage
communications technologies to warn the public about impending
disasters.
The FCC will continue to take steps to ensure that the public has
access to emergency alerts and warnings over multiple communications
technologies. We will continue to work closely with FEMA, the National
Weather Service, industry, and State and local governments to ensure
that the benefits of PLAN are available to consumers in all parts of
the country and to ensure that the EAS continues to provide a reliable
and effective method to transmit timely and accurate emergency alerts
to the public. We will aggressively pursue technologies that convey
information about imminent danger to Americans in harm's way so they
can take action to save themselves and their families.
9-1-1 DEVELOPMENTS
Another key element of public safety communications is the ability
of someone to alert first responders of a need for assistance. It is
critical that we take steps to ensure that today's 9-1-1 system
supports the communications tools of tomorrow. The communications world
has changed in so many dramatic ways in recent years, with the dramatic
growth in the use of mobile phones and broadband. In 2005, not that
many Americans sent text messages, and the average cell phone
subscriber typically sent less than two texts a day. Today, it's about
20 texts a day, and the average teenager sends over 100 a day, which
tells you something about the direction that this is going.
In 2005, only 18 percent of U.S. cell phones had cameras. Now
almost all of them do, and a growing number can also shoot video. Five
years ago, if I had told people you can't text 9-1-1 or send pictures
to 9-1-1, they would have said, so what? Today, they think I can't be
serious. But that's the sad truth. There is a gap between what ordinary
people do every day with communications technology and the capabilities
of our emergency response network. That gap is unacceptable and cost
lives. Right now, if your child winds up in an emergency situation and
texts 9-1-1 for help, that call for help will go unanswered, even though it
may never occur to your child that emergency responders cannot receive
text messages. When texting is the primary way that many people use
their mobile devices that doesn't make any sense. Fixing this will
require a sustained team effort, and we're actively working with our
Federal, State, and local partners to make this a reality.
The FCC is doing everything it can to promote next generation 9-1-
1. As recommended in the National Broadband Plan, the FCC has initiated
a proceeding to ensure that the public has access to broadband
technologies to communicate with 9-1-1 dispatchers and to accelerate
the deployment of next generation 9-1-1, which could allow the public
to send text messages, video, and photos to 9-1-1. The FCC has also
taken actions to improve 9-1-1 by enhancing location accuracy
requirements for wireless service providers, to be sure first
responders can find those who call 9-1-1 from their mobile phones.
These efforts, like our emergency alerting initiatives, serve to
ensure that the public has access to an effective and reliable public
safety communications system and, ultimately, to provide for a safer
America.
CONCLUSION
Public safety and homeland security depend on reliable public
safety communications, which in turn depend on three key elements.
First, is the ability of public safety officials and first responders
to communicate with each other. Second, is the ability to provide
timely, accurate warnings to the public of imminent danger. Third is
the ability for the public to call for assistance when it is needed.
The FCC is committed to ensuring the availability of all three
elements. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
This concludes my testimony, and I am pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
APPENDIX A
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To send a PLAN alert, an authorized local alert initiator enters
descriptive data about an emergency into the PLAN-compliant alerting
system (``A''). The information is sent to a FEMA Alert Aggregator,
where it is authenticated and directed to a FEMA-operated Gateway
(``B''), which reformats the data so it is useable by each wireless
carrier, and sends it over a secure pathway (``C'') to a wireless
carrier's Gateway (``D''). The carrier then distributes the alert to
all customers in the area affected by the emergency by sending it to
the towers in that area (``E''). PLAN-compatible handsets in the area
will receive the transmission, deliver the unique PLAN attention signal
and vibration, and begin to scroll the 90 characters of text across the
screen.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
I will recognize myself for questions, and I will stay
within the 5-minute period.
Looks like we are going to have votes earlier than I
thought. So we will try to get through--we will definitely get
through the first panel. Thank you.
Administrator Penn, as I noted in my opening statement, I
am interested in hearing more about CMAS training that will be
provided to message originators. I am concerned that some alert
systems currently in use by State and local emergency
management officials, such as Alert DC, are used for more than
just emergency alerts.
My concern is that if proper training is not provided, CMAS
may be used to send messages that do not rise to the level of
imminent threat alerts. This may result in message saturation,
and individuals may ignore, unfortunately, important messages.
What outreach has FEMA conducted with State and local
emergency managers to educate them on the upcoming deployment
of CMAS? What training will FEMA provide to message originators
to ensure appropriate use of CMAS? What steps will FEMA take as
the message validator to ensure that the information arises to
the level of CMAS alert?
Mr. Penn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very good questions.
The next major step for us is training and certification of
message originators, and the points that you mention are all
valid. The challenge is to be able to provide them access to
the system but be able to monitor their progress and be able to
police the system if we get to a position where they are
abusing the alerts of imminent threats. We have a program
developed or are developing a program that is internet-based
that will give them the basic knowledge that they need to be
able to input the message and do the buttonology it takes to
input into IPAWS.
Part of that certification also includes best practices
that we have seen throughout the country and a clear definition
of what imminent threat and what the intent of IPAWS is. So we
think that is a start.
Mr. Bilirakis. Can you give us that definition now of
imminent threat?
Mr. Penn. I don't have the exact verbiage here before me
here, Mr. Chairman, but I will be more than happy to provide
that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yeah, could you provide that to the
committee?
Mr. Penn. We have spent quite a bit of time drafting that
to make sure the language is exactly what we want it to be. I
will provide that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Please do, thanks.
Mr. Penn. The part that we can help to police ourselves as
the system matures and it comes into use is we will be able to
monitor each alert that has been sent by the originators, be
they State and local or whatever level the alert has
originated. We will be able to, by controlling access to the
system, take anyone off the system that we find is abusing the
intent and not using the imminent threat guidelines that we
have laid down. So I think that we have the capability to do
that, and I think we have a capability to monitor and protect
the system.
The real challenge is that each jurisdiction is a little
different and some of their requirements are a little
different. We have to be very sensitive to the conditions of
the State and locals and discuss these in some detail with the
providers. We have met at several State and local emergency
manager conferences. We continue to have daily contact with the
emergency managers on this.
Again, we have shared some best practices, and we are
assembling those, and those will be part of the training
process, and through our outreach I think we can solve a good
portion of the problem.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Are we on time as far as I believe it is going to be
implemented in the District of Columbia and New York by
November and then in the spring of 2012 around the Nation?
Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. Actually, we are a little ahead of
that. We will be able to start to certify initiators within the
next 2 months or so and get that program started.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Chief Barnett, some people have expressed privacy concerns
about CMAS or PLAN technology including the ability to track
cell phone users. You mentioned this in your opening statement,
and I have concerns. Would you please elaborate on the privacy
safety guards in place for this technology? We obviously need
to get the word out.
Admiral Barnett. Yes, sir.
Sir, one of the great things about PLAN is the technology
it uses really does not allow tracking or monitoring, neither
by the system administrators--and the way that I would
analogize it is it is more like your portable radio. In
essence, the alert comes through the Federal aggregator, it
hits the cell tower, and it goes out. You don't know who is
there. The only thing we know is that that particular cell
phone, enabled cell phone, is in that particular danger area.
But they receive it. There is no way to tell it has been
received by the person. There is no way to tell where their
location is. So think of it like a radio broadcast, and that
way they can be assured that no one is tracking, no one knows
the location for them.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
Well, I think I better yield to our Ranking Member, because
we are running out of time. So I yield.
I recognize you for 5 minutes. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Penn, my first question is, in light of some of the
budget cuts as I mentioned in my opening statement, do you
anticipate any further delays for retrofitting the primary
entry point stations due to these cuts?
Additionally, how do you see, if there are delays expected,
that that would affect the overall progress of IPAWS?
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. We currently have adequate funds to
complete the program that we have scheduled for 2012. We did
make a concession, as you mentioned, by moving the building of
four primary entry point stations to the right into 2013. That,
right now, is the only concession that I see that we are going
to have to make in the program. The administrator of FEMA fully
supports what it is we are doing, as does the director of
Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, and
they have been very judicious in protecting our program.
A critical path for IPAWS in general is 2012 as we continue
to develop the aggregator, as we bring other capabilities on-
line, and I think we have adequate funding to do what we need
to do.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. My next question is, how are the
territories in the Tribal areas doing in terms of working with
you to utilize all the available systems that we are
developing?
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am.
We have done a lot of work with the territories in recent
months. In fact, we have PEP stations now in Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands. American Samoa, we have started PEP
construction and will complete that in August of this year. We
have surveyed sites for PEP stations in Guam, Saipan, and the
Marianas. Those are part of our spring 2012 projects.
We have also worked with the territories to talk to them
about emergency management and message distribution throughout
the territory and how they can use best practices that we have
seen here on the mainland to help communicate their messages
better. They have all been very proactive and very excited
about what we are doing and accepted everything that we have
offered in the way of advice and in the way of best practices.
The last contact that we had was with the Puerto Rico
Telecommunications Regulatory Board back in May when we
discussed CMAS and talked to them about how to integrate CMAS
into what they are doing.
So I am very confident that we made the progress that we
need to make in the territories and we are moving forward. As
you know, each are somewhat unique in their requirements, but
everything that we can provide provides another level of alert
and warning that they didn't have before we started the
process. So I think it is going very well.
Ms. Richardson. So could you please provide to the
committee in writing what you just said? All of the
territories, whether they have PEP stations or whether they
don't, when they should be fully on-line and are there any
other requirements or participation that we need of them to be
fully up and running.
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am, would be my pleasure.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
My next question is for our Rear Admiral, Mr. Barnett. When
we talk about the WARN Act, how willing have you found that the
wireless carriers have been in providing this service to their
customers, given the fact that it is voluntary?
Admiral Barnett. The wireless industry has really stepped
up to the plate on this. It is voluntary, but currently we have
carriers who indicate they will provide coverage, plan coverage
for part or all of their carriers that we cover, some 95
percent of subscribers. I have a feeling that once that gets
fully into place that that percentage is going to go up, and so
we work very closely. This has been very much a collaborative
effort between FEMA, the FCC, the wireless industries, and
State and local government.
Ms. Richardson. What is your plan--in your testimony,
though, you referenced, as you just said now, that you think
the market forces and as it has rolled out more will
participate. What happens if they don't? What is the plan?
Admiral Barnett. We will have to take that under
advisement. I think the first thing is to get it up and
running. I think the market pressures will do that. If they do
not for some reason, if it does not roll out that way, we will
certainly want to look at that. I really see PLAN as the next
major step in alerting the public because of the near ubiquity,
it seems, of mobile devices. So this is something that we will
remain focused on.
Ms. Richardson. If there is no objection from the Chairman,
what I would like to request is that you come up with a plan
if, in the event there was not the participation. Because what
we don't want to do is wait 6 months or a year and then we find
out various areas might be particularly vulnerable. Sometimes
that happens in rural communities, in areas where traditionally
rollout is a little slower. So if we could look at what is that
plan now so we are ready so once you do the assessment and you
know who is or is not participating we would be ready with next
recommendations.
Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Now Ms. Hochul from the great State of New York, the
gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hochul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I am in a learning curve here, but I did want to
follow up on the Ranking Member's question. Would you consider
a proposal to make PLAN mandatory? I am sure there was a lot of
give and take when this was passed. I wasn't here at the time.
But is there an argument against making it mandatory so we
ensure 100 percent coverage?
Admiral Barnett. I am sure that was discussed when the WARN
Act was passed. I think, after full deliberation, they decided
to make it voluntary. Once the carrier signs up, they do have
to comply with the FCC's rules. Certainly Congress can decide
if they wanted to make it mandatory. However, I am very
encouraged by the fact that under a voluntary basis that so
many have signed up. You are already seeing devices that are
PLAN capable that are on the market now. Others can be made
capable through minor software changes. So I think with 95
percent of the subscribers it looks like it will be covered to
some degree. That is a first big step.
Ms. Hochul. Thank you.
I am also concerned about the statements about not being
able to send pictures or texts to 9-1-1. What steps do you
think need to be taken? What do you need from the Federal
Government? How do we make that happen?
Because, as you stated so accurately, that is the primary
means for communication for young people. My kids go out in the
car. They are not even going to know how to dial a phone
number. All they know how to do is text. I think people would
be surprised to find out they could not send a picture of an
accident or a quick text that says, going off the road----
So I think, to me, there should be some sense of urgency
with that. I am just wondering what your thoughts were on how
we ratchet up the interest in that and make that happen a lot
sooner. Because that is how young people communicate all the
way up to--I think that is just the reality. We need to accept
that. So----
Admiral Barnett. I think you are exactly right. It was
brought home to me during the Virginia Tech massacre, where you
had people hiding, they had to be quiet, they were texting 9-1-
1, and those texts never got through, because the system is
simply not set up.
Because really what happened is that 9-1-1 was based on an
old circuit-switched basis, and then when cell phones came
along we just kind of modified it slightly. Next-generation 9-
1-1 is the way we need to go. The Commission is very focused on
this. We have already had a notice of inquiry that gathers a
great deal of information. We intend--we are in preparation now
for a notice of proposed rulemaking on that.
There is some very interesting technologies out there, and
I am very excited about the aspect of being able to get texts,
video, and pictures to 9-1-1. There is a lot of preparation--
because the PSAPs, the 9-1-1 centers have to be ready to accept
those and process.
But you are exactly right. The potential there for dealing
with terrorists, for dealing with crime, for dealing with
medical emergencies is vast. So that is why I think the
chairman and the commissioners have been so focused on next-
generation 9-1-1.
Ms. Hochul. Is there anything you need from the
legislature, from Congress? Is there any assistance you need
from us?
Admiral Barnett. Well, the fact of the matter is some of
the
9-1-1 centers--I guess most of them are not set up for this
right now. There are going to need to be some funding questions
that are addressed on this. The FCC right now is trying to get
a picture on that.
During the National Broadband Plan we actually tried to
look at how many PSAPs actually have broadband connection right
now. We determined over half. It is certainly not much more
than half at this point. So they need to be able to upgrade.
That will take some money. There will need to be some training
involved in that. We are trying to develop now kind of a cost
model so that Congress will and other leaders will have
something to go on to figure out what it will take to bring the
entire country into the broadband world with regard to 9-1-1.
Ms. Hochul. That is encouraging that you are on it; and,
hopefully, we can remedy that very shortly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank
you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Well, I think we can start a second round, if that is all
right. Maybe a couple questions each before we dismiss the
first panel.
I wanted to follow up on Ms. Hochul's question. When do you
anticipate--on the 9-1-1 generation, very exciting and we want
to be very helpful, when do you anticipate that being
implemented?
Admiral Barnett. We completed the notice of inquiry and got
the information back--I think it was back in March. We are
still moving through that, preparing the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
While I don't like to speak for the commissioners as to
when they take something up, I know that it is very high on the
chairman's list, on the commissioner's list. I would hope
before the end of this calendar year and maybe significantly
before that we would be able to take that up.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
A question for the entire panel. FEMA and the FCC have
announced the first National test for the Emergency Alert
System will be conducted, as you mentioned in your testimony,
on November 9, 2011. Would you please discuss what each of your
offices will be doing to ensure the success of this test?
Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, the requirement for the
organization and the actual conduct of the test rests with our
office. We are the ones that will initiate the message, and we
are the ones that then will maintain contact with the industry
and others to make sure that the message has properly been
sent. We will gather information afterwards and determine what
worked and what didn't work as part of the system.
So everything from the initial construct of the message,
the initial broadcast, through the after-action review and the
recommendations and findings all belong to FEMA as a
responsibility for the test.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
Chief.
Admiral Barnett. The FCC adopted some rules that set up the
National test and even required the EAS participants to report
their information back in. Under the previous set of rules,
when they did local tests, monthly tests, they just recorded
it. It is something that our field agents would go around and
check the logs every now and then.
We actually need to have all that information brought back
so the FCC and FEMA can use it to improve the system. That is
one thing already done.
We will work with FEMA to make sure that we get out
information. Our side of it is primarily working with our
licensees and regulatees--the broadcasters, the cable
providers, satellite folks.
You will be talking to Suzanne Goucher in the second panel.
She can tell you that the broadcasters are very excited about
this.
The participants have stepped forward to do this. First
with the tests that were conducted in Alaska January of this
year, January the year before that, we learned a lot from that.
We will be reaching out to groups that represent various
disabilities, State and local government, any number of the 9-
1-1 centers. We will be talking to State broadcast
associations, everybody, so that they know what is coming and
can understand it.
Now, for most Americans, they are going to just see this as
another test of the Emergency Broadcast or Emergency Alert
System--every now and then I say Emergency Broadcast because I
grew up with Emergency Broadcast--Emergency Alert System. I
think the only slight difference that they might notice in that
and the previous one, this one will be a little bit longer. But
we are working very closely with FEMA to get the word out.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
One more quick question and I will yield to Ms. Richardson.
Why the name change from CMAS to PLAN with regard to the
cell phone alerting system?
Admiral Barnett. I think the thought on that----
Mr. Bilirakis. It creates a little confusion, in my
opinion.
Admiral Barnett. Right. Interestingly, I think the thought
was cellular mobile alerting system or commercial and mobile
alerting system was not seen as intuitive to the public. I
think the Personal Localized Alerting Network and an easy
acronym like PLAN was that. I will say this. In talking with
the cellular industry and wireless industry, I think they are
going to use wireless emergency alerts. So whether or not PLAN
continues to be used--and you may ask Mr. Guttman-McCabe about
that, about what their plans for that are.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Now I would like to yield to the Ranking Member for a
couple of questions.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Penn, two witnesses on the next panel mention in their
testimony the need for increased training for emergency
managers as critical areas will be addressed. What steps are
being taken to train these emergency managers on IPAWS?
Mr. Penn. As I mentioned before, one of the critical parts
that we are doing is training the emergency managers on how to
initiate messages; and part of that will also be them coming
back to us and telling us who within their jurisdiction is
authorized to be a message originator.
The training program I mentioned is mostly web-based, and
we will certify them as being able to do the buttonology that
it takes to format the message. There is a pre-directed form
where they just fill in the blanks to send out the message.
Then it also tells them again what kinds of messages are to be
sent and what imminent threat is and how that whole piece works
together. So a lot of what we do will be centered around that
and the training program associated with that.
Ms. Richardson. Well, sir, if I can interrupt you for one
second, because I only have 3 minutes and 49 seconds.
One of the problems with the way that we work is you
testify. Oftentimes, the first panel leaves, and then the
second panel comes in. What I am saying to you, though, is that
the next panel of witnesses say that they need more training or
that enough, sufficient training hasn't occurred. So can we
have a commitment from you that you will go back and test and
validate if in fact the appropriate folks who should be trained
are getting the appropriate training or they know how to
communicate with you guys to get that?
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. I concur with their thoughts. We do
not have enough training. We are trying the best that we can.
We will expand it and will continue to do more. But I will work
very closely with them to understand their concerns and that
our program is headed in the right direction.
Ms. Richardson. Possibly a schedule that they might be able
to anticipate so if they are not in the first wave then they
can catch into the second one.
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. Just as an example, we have attended
125 events since January to try to do that very thing. So we
will continue to work.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. My next question is, what efforts are
being made in regards to alerting individuals with
disabilities, including those with hearing, vision, and other
functional disabilities?
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am, that is a very good question as well.
We have done quite a bit of work with the access and
functional needs communities. Our most recent engagement was at
the semiannual Conference For Federal Partners and Industry
Leaders on Disabilities. We meet routinely with the National
Center for Accessible Media, we meet with Gallaudet University
as they are leveraging university work on emerging
technologies, the National Organization on Disabilities, and
several others. What I have learned from them is much different
from what I thought I would learn.
The disabilities community isn't really faced with a lack
of technology. The technology exists and a lot of things exist
that can help them function from day to day. The problem that
they really have is making the technology affordable.
To give you an example, when we went to the Association of
Broadcasters convention we met with an engineer from National
Public Radio, told him what we were doing, and he brought a
system over that had he been working on that he connected to
one of our radios. It took a test alert message that we sent,
turned it from voice and turned it into text, and then turned
it from text into Braille. The whole system worked with plug-
and-play technology with no additional software needed. A great
capability that we didn't know existed that our applications-
based approach helped us achieve that we found out just in a
sidebar conversation.
The problem is that device, as an example, retails for over
$5,000. So we continue to work with the disabilities community
and help to determine their needs. I was really surprised to
find that their need is not in the technology but what the
technology costs for the individual to be able to bring it into
their home.
Ms. Richardson. So if you could supply to this committee
any cost of various things of technology that might be impeding
folks within the disability community so that we might then
look at other funding options that might assist as you roll out
your program.
Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am, I will.
Ms. Richardson. Finally, the current state of local
broadcasters of emergency management are private-owned systems,
and they pay for EAS through their own budget. This is a
question now for our other witness. How do you view that people
are really going to be able to switch over to this new program?
I mean, are you getting any pushback in terms of economic
impacts?
Admiral Barnett. We are certainly hearing it from some
smaller broadcasters, for instance. But a good number have
already made the switch. One of the things that I have been
amazed, the broadcasters and the EAS participants really see
this as a civic duty. It is a civic duty that costs money.
These new units can cost from $2- to $4,000. FCC is not a grant
agency and does not provide grants on this, but primarily I
think they do see this as an advantage and something that the
transition is already occurring. So while we recognize that it
does cost money, I think that the transition will go smoothly.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members,
of course, for their questions.
With that, I will dismiss the panel. Thank you so much for
being here. Appreciate it.
What we will do, we are expecting a lengthy series of
votes. They called the votes already. I understand it is eight
votes. The subcommittee will stand in recess until the
conclusion of the votes. We will convene immediately following
the last vote. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Bilirakis. The subcommittee will come to order.
I welcome our second panel. I understand other Members are
on their way, but we will get started. Thank you for your
patience. I appreciate it very much.
Our first witness is Mr. Christopher Guttman-McCabe. Mr.
Guttman-McCabe is the Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, at
CTIA--The Wireless Association. Since joining CTIA in 2001, he
has worked on a wide range of issues, including spectrum and
homeland security. In his current capacity as vice president,
he oversees and coordinates the Association's regulatory policy
advocacy.
Prior to joining CTIA, Mr. Guttman-McCabe worked as an
attorney at a D.C.-based law firm and served as an associate in
the Communication Practice Group advising clients on wireless
and common carrier issues. Mr. Guttman-McCabe received his B.A.
in economics from Swathmore College and his J.D. magna cum
laude from Catholic University with a certificate from the
Institute for Communications Law Studies.
Our next witness is Ms. Suzanne Goucher. Welcome.
Ms. Goucher is the President and CEO of the Maine
Association of Broadcasters. She is testifying on behalf of the
National Alliance of State Broadcasting Associations. Ms.
Goucher joined the Maine Association of Broadcasters in 1994.
She also served on the Maine Right to Know Advisory Committee
and is co-chair of the Maine Business Association Roundtable.
Prior to joining the Maine Broadcasters, she was the news
director of WFAU-AM and WKGC-FM radio stations. Ms. Goucher has
a Bachelor's Degree in business administration from Babson
College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, and a certificate from the
Publishing Laboratory at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville,
New York.
Finally, we will receive testimony from Mr. Allen Kniphfer.
Mr. Kniphfer is the Emergency Coordinator for Jefferson County
in Alabama. Prior to joining the Jefferson County Emergency
Management Agency, he has worked in fire prevention and
security at Hayes International. Mr. Kniphfer played a key role
in developing Birmingham's action plan when Hurricane Katrina
struck. Mr. Kniphfer earned his bachelor's degree in management
from the University of Alabama, Birmingham.
Welcome. We look forward to your testimony. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes,
please. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE PRESIDENT,
REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA--THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman
Bilirakis. Thank you for affording CTIA the opportunity to
participate in today's hearing.
My name is Christopher Guttman-McCabe, and I serve as the
Association's Vice President for Regulatory Affairs. In that
capacity, I have been involved in the wireless industry's
efforts to implement the commercial mobile alert service called
for by the WARN Act, and I am pleased to have the chance to
share with you today what the wireless industry is doing to
begin delivery of a state-of-the-art alerting system by early
2012.
The WARN Act became law as Title VI of the SAFE Ports Act.
CTIA strongly supported enactment of that legislation, which we
believe struck a reasonable balance by attempting to augment
the existing Emergency Alert System without imposing technology
mandates on the wireless industry. This approach was consistent
with and built upon previous public-private partnerships that
led to the successful creation of Wireless Priority Service and
wireless AMBER Alert programs.
In the WARN Act, Congress developed an innovative procedure
to address the goals of emergency alerting by securing the
participation of wireless companies in the development and
deployment of what has been envisioned as a 90-character, geo-
targeted, succinct alert capability that would let consumers
carrying a wireless device know that there was an imminent
threat to health or safety.
From CTIA's perspective, it appears that Congress' vision
is working as designed. In the first year after the WARN Act
became law, the FCC established the Commercial Mobile Service
Alert Advisory Committee, comprised of more than 40 individuals
representing Tribal, local, State, and Federal government
agencies, including FEMA and NCS, communications providers,
vendors, broadcasters, consumers groups and other technical
experts. I served on that committee on behalf of CTIA. Over 11
months, the Advisory Committee generated more than 600
documents, held hundreds of meetings, and spent thousands of
man-hours to develop a thorough, workable, commercial mobile
alert systems plan.
The FCC has issued orders largely adopting the
recommendations of the committee. Among other things, the FCC's
orders set forth the alerting service architecture proposed by
the Advisory Committee and concluded that a Federal entity
should aggregate, authenticate, and transmit alerts to the
participating wireless providers. As Administrator Penn has
detailed, FEMA will play this role.
The FTC also has required that participating providers must
transmit three classes of alerts--Presidential, imminent
threat, and AMBER Alerts--and that consumers be permitted to
opt out of the latter two but not the first. Importantly, the
FCC agreed with the Advisory Committee that wireless providers
opting to deliver alerts should ``not be bound to use any
specific vendor, technology, or device to meet their
obligations under the WARN Act.''
Following issuance of the FCC's first report and order,
wireless carriers had to elect whether they would participate
in the delivery of CMAS messages well in advance of finalizing
the technical specifications for implementing alerts. I am
pleased to tell the subcommittee that mobile providers
representing nearly 97 percent of wireless subscribers elected
to participate and provide wireless emergency alerts,
demonstrating the success of this public-private partnership.
Moreover, this figure is likely to increase as additional
carriers elect to offer the alerts to their customers once the
system is deployed.
Since providers made their initial election, the wireless
industry has been working in close consultation with FEMA and
the FCC to make the investments and system modifications
necessary to enable wireless carriers to begin deployment by
April, 2012; and through advanced efforts by the industry, the
FCC, and FEMA, CMAS capabilities will be available in New York
City by the end of this calendar year.
While we believe the wireless industry is hitting all the
marks necessary to deliver on the promise of the WARN Act,
there are two areas beyond our control that must be addressed
if a seamless National deployment is to occur and be
operational next year.
First, FEMA must stand up its CMAS gateway and be capable
of receiving and distributing alerts to participating carriers.
Through our cooperative coordination with FEMA, we believe that
is on track to occur in a timely manner.
Second, substantial and on-going care must be taken to
ensure that potential alert originators at the State, county,
and local levels are properly trained about how and when alerts
should be originated. This is crucial, because it is these
alert originators who are responsible for disseminating
critical information to the public in a timely manner. If
consumers receive confusing or unnecessary alerts, then even
the best alerting system will ultimately fail. We urge you to
exercise your oversight authority to ensure that these
objectives are received.
The addition of wireless alerting capabilities to the
Emergency Alert System will greatly enhance the ability to
promote public safety and health in times of crisis. The
wireless industry is committed to begin delivering CMAS
capabilities next year and to working with FEMA and the FCC to
ensure that subsequent generations of wireless alerts support
additional functionality. We look forward to an on-going
dialogue with the subcommittee as this process moves forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear on today's panel,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Guttman-McCabe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Guttman-McCabe
July 8, 2011
Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for affording CTIA \1\ the opportunity to
participate in today's hearing. My name is Christopher Guttman-McCabe,
and I serve as the Association's Vice President for Regulatory Affairs.
In that capacity, I have been involved in the wireless industry's
efforts to implement the Commercial Mobile Alert Service (``CMAS'')
called for by the WARN Act, and I am pleased to have the chance to
share with you today what the wireless industry is doing to deliver a
state-of-the-art alerting system by early 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CTIA--The Wireless Association is a nonprofit membership
organization that has represented the wireless communications industry
since 1984. Membership in the association includes wireless carriers
and their suppliers, as well as providers and manufacturers of wireless
data services and products. Additional information about CTIA may be
found at http://www.ctia.org/aboutCTIA/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Warning, Alert, and Response Network or WARN Act became law as
Title VI of the SAFE Ports Act \2\ in October 2006. CTIA supported
enactment of the legislation, which we believe struck a reasonable
balance by attempting to augment the existing emergency alerting system
without imposing new cost or technology mandates on the wireless
industry. This approach was consistent with, and built upon, previous
public-private partnerships that led to the successful creation of
Wireless Priority Service (a collaborative effort between the National
Communications System and the wireless industry) and the AMBER Alert
program (a joint effort involving the Department of Justice, the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the wireless
industry).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pub. L. 109-347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the WARN Act, Congress developed an innovative procedure to
address the problem of emergency alerting by securing the participation
of interested non-governmental parties in the development and
deployment of what has been envisioned as a 90-character, geo-targeted,
succinct alert capability that would let consumers carrying a wireless
device know that there is an imminent threat to health or safety. From
CTIA's perspective, it appears that Congress's vision is working as
designed.
In the first year after the WARN Act became law, the Federal
Communications Commission (``FCC'') established the Commercial Mobile
Service Alert Advisory Committee (``CMSAAC'' or ``Advisory Committee'')
comprised of more than 40 individuals representing Tribal, local,
State, and Federal government agencies (including FEMA and the NCS);
communications providers; vendors; third-party service bureaus;
broadcasters; consumers' groups; and other technical experts. I served
on the Advisory Committee on behalf of CTIA. Over 11 months, the
Advisory Committee generated more than 600 documents, held hundreds of
meetings, and spent thousands of man-hours to develop a thorough,
workable, commercial mobile alerts system plan.
Following delivery of the Advisory Committee's recommendations, the
FCC has issued orders largely adopting the recommendations developed by
the CMSAAC. Among other things, the FCC's orders set forth the alerting
service architecture proposed by the Advisory Committee and concluded
that a Federal entity should aggregate, authenticate, and transmit
alerts to the participating wireless providers. FEMA will play this
role. The FCC also has required that participating providers must
transmit three classes of alerts--Presidential, Imminent Threat, and
AMBER alerts--and that consumers be permitted to opt-out of the latter
two but not the first. Importantly, the FCC agreed with CMSAAC that
wireless carriers opting to deliver alerts should ``not be bound to use
any specific vendor, technology . . . [or] device'' to meet their
obligations under the WARN Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the Matter of The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket
No 07-287, adopted April 9, 2008, at paragraph 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following issuance of the FCC's first report and order, wireless
carriers had to elect whether they would participate in the delivery of
CMAS messages, well in advance of finalizing the technical
specifications for implementing the alerts. I am pleased to tell the
subcommittee that mobile providers representing nearly 97 percent of
wireless subscribers elected to provide wireless emergency alerts,
demonstrating the success of this public-private partnership. Moreover,
this figure is likely to increase as additional carriers elect to offer
the alerts to their customers once the system is rolled out.
Since providers made their initial elections in September 2008, the
wireless industry has been working, in close consultation with FEMA and
the FCC, to make the investments and system modifications necessary to
enable the CMAS system to be operational by April 2012. And, through
advance efforts by the industry, the FCC, and FEMA, CMAS capabilities
will be available in New York City by the end of this calendar year.
While we believe the wireless industry is hitting all the marks
necessary to deliver on the promise of the WARN Act, there are two
areas beyond our control that must be addressed if a seamless National
deployment is to occur and be operational next year. First, FEMA must
stand-up its CMAS gateway and be capable of receiving and distributing
alerts to participating wireless carriers. Through our cooperative
coordination with FEMA, we believe that is on track to occur in a
timely manner. Second, substantial and on-going care must be taken to
ensure that potential alert originators at the State, county, and local
levels are properly trained about when and how alerts should be
originated. This is crucial because it is these alert originators who
are responsible for disseminating critical information to the public in
a timely manner. If consumers receive confusing or irrelevant alerts,
then even the best alerting system will ultimately fail. We urge you to
exercise your oversight authority to ensure that these objectives are
achieved.
The addition of wireless alerting capabilities to the Emergency
Alert System will greatly enhance the ability to promote public safety
and health in times of crisis. The wireless industry is committed to
delivering CMAS capability next year, and to working with FEMA and the
FCC to ensure that subsequent generations of CMAS support additional
functionality and granularity. We look forward to an on-going dialogue
with the subcommittee as that process moves forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear on today's panel. I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Goucher, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SUZANNE D. GOUCHER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MAINE
ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF STATE BROADCASTING ASSOCIATIONS
Ms. Goucher. Thank you. I am very honored to be here with
you today to share the often lifesaving and valuable public
service that full power local radio and television stations
provide during times of crisis.
When disaster strikes, Americans know they can turn to
their local broadcasters for news and information. When the
power goes out, which it does, when phone service and the
internet go down, which they do, broadcasters move heaven and
Earth to stay on the air delivering vital information to
battery-operated receivers. Wildfires, floods, tornadoes,
chemical spills, no matter what the event, everywhere across
our Nation local communities depend on their broadcasters to
deliver on-the-ground, street-by-street coverage before,
during, and after disaster strikes.
In addition to our on-going comprehensive news coverage of
emergencies, broadcasters are also the backbone of our Nation's
Emergency Alert System. As you know, EAS is a network that
seamlessly connects public safety authorities to over-the-air
radio and television stations and cable systems with the push
of a button. EAS is used during sudden, unpredictable, or
unforeseen events to alert people to take immediate action to
preserve life and property.
Perhaps the most visible headline-grabbing and heartwarming
use of EAS is for AMBER Alerts. Since broadcasters created this
program in 1996, AMBER Alerts have helped to bring 523 children
home safely after being abducted.
Radio and television stations are very proud of our
keystone role in EAS. For 60 years, from CONELRAD through EBS
to EAS and now on to the next generation of alerting,
broadcasters stand ready to be America's first informers. We
consider the delivery of timely alerts and warnings to be the
highest and best use of our spectrum, our facilities, and our
resources.
The hot new buzz in the alerting community is social
networking, and broadcasters are also leveraging their news
dissemination capabilities across these pathways. When you
receive an email, a text alert, or a Facebook message from your
local radio or TV station, you know you are getting reliable
information from an authoritative source.
The on-going effectiveness of the EAS network depends on
several important factors.
First, as previously mentioned, a training program for
State and local public safety officials on how to use EAS is
desperately needed. The knowledge and expertise of local
authorities as to how and when to deploy EAS is currently at
what we consider an unacceptable level. We stand ready to
deliver the message, but first we need someone to deliver it to
us.
We applaud our friends at FEMA for undertaking the
development of a training program which will certify State and
local officials to send alerts through the Federal IPAWS
gateway. While this is a good first step, it does not address
those State and local officials that don't have the fundamental
understanding of or willingness to use EAS. Some sort of
incentive for them to take this training, such as possibly
tying it to grant funding, would encourage a greater
understanding of the beneficial uses of the system.
Second, as you know, FEMA is in the midst of implementing
the next generation of public alerting, which will modernize
the technology used to deliver EAS messages through the
introduction of the Common Alerting Protocol, or CAP. This will
require most broadcasters to replace their EAS equipment at
their own expense. This may cost a broadcasting station
anywhere from $1,200 to $3,000, but broadcasters will do this
willingly because we consider EAS to be at the core of our
public service mission.
We must ensure that as our stations are upgrading to
receive and retransmit a CAP-formatted message, local and State
jurisdictions have the proper training and funding to be able
to send us a CAP-formatted message.
In addition, States and localities must purchase their own
EAS origination equipment, and the Federal Government must
ensure that its primary entry point network is fully built out.
All of this will ensure that the public will indeed benefit
from the next generation of public alerting.
We respectfully urge the committee to consider the creation
of a National working group on emergency alerting. Governance
authority for our National warning system is divided among
several Federal agencies, while the primary use of the system
is at the State and local level. At present, there is no
mechanism to bring the message originators and the message
deliverers together except on an ad hoc basis. As a result, the
system is not being used as effectively as it could be.
Creation of a National working group would help to ensure that
problems get addressed, lines of communication remain open, and
ideas for continual improvement of the system are brought to
the fore.
Finally, broadcasters need credentialing from State and
local authorities to allow them to access their facilities
during times of emergency. Congressional action in this area
could greatly enhance our ability to maintain operations and
deliver vital information to our audiences.
I am so grateful for this opportunity to share my views on
emergency communications to the public, and I look forward to
working with you toward our shared goal of keeping the American
people safe through timely alerts and warnings.
Thank you so much.
[The statement of Ms. Goucher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Suzanne D. Goucher
July 8, 2011
Good morning, Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Richardson,
Members of the committee. My name is Suzanne Goucher. Since 1994 I have
been the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Maine Association
of Broadcasters. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today
about the valuable, often life-saving services that full power local
radio and television stations provide during natural disasters and
other crises.
As discussed in detail below, local broadcasters are the most
important source of vital emergency information for all Americans. In
addition, local radio and television stations serve as the backbone of
this Nation's Emergency Alert System (EAS). I am pleased to share with
you today the views of Maine's broadcasters about how to improve our
emergency communications system in the digital age.
To date, much of the discussion related to emergency communications
has concerned improving interoperability among fire, police, and other
public safety authorities and emergency operations; namely, the ability
of these various authorities to communicate with one another during a
disaster. While broadcasters support this laudable goal, we also
believe the time is ripe to expand the conversation to include improved
emergency notification to the public. To a significant degree,
interoperability and public alerting go hand-in-hand, such that the
success of each depends partly on the success of the other. For
example, the lessons learned during 9/11 demonstrate that improved
emergency communications among public safety officials certainly would
have improved the critical, life-saving information that could have
been shared with the public. Below, I will focus my remarks on public
alerting, and our efforts in Maine to improve emergency notification to
the public.
I. BROADCASTING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE FOR CRITICAL, LIFE-SAVING
EMERGENCY INFORMATION FOR ALL AMERICANS
Broadcasters' commitment to public service is never more apparent
than during times of crisis. During an emergency--particularly one that
arises with little notice--no other industry can match the ability of
full power broadcasting to deliver comprehensive, up-to-date warnings
and information to affected citizens. Local television broadcasters
reach 99% of the approximate 116 million households in the United
States, while local radio reaches an audience of more than 243 million
Americans on a weekly basis. The wide signal coverage of broadcasters
ensures that anyone in a car, at home or even walking around with a
mobile device can receive up-to-the-minute alerts when disaster
strikes. As a ubiquitous medium, broadcasters understand and appreciate
their unique role in disseminating emergency information. Radio and
television broadcasters are first informers during an emergency, and
Americans know to turn to their local broadcasters first for in-depth
coverage.
Radio and television stations are also our Nation's most reliable
network for distributing emergency information. Even if the electricity
is out, causing the internet and cable television to go down, and phone
service is lost because networks are clogged or cell towers or phone
lines are down, free, over-the-air broadcasters can still be on the
air. Our dedicated news and weather personnel use their familiarity
with the people and geography of their local communities to provide the
most useful, informative news to their audiences, whether that includes
information on where to shelter-in-place, or which streets will serve
as evacuation routes, or where local businesses may find fuel or
generators.
Broadcasters deliver emergency information with passion. Let me
give you some recent examples. In May of this year, in the town of
Joplin, Missouri, local radio station KZRG began wall-to-wall coverage
an hour and a half before the unprecedented tornado devastated this
area.\1\ Immediately after the tornado, cell phones, the internet and
landline telephones went down. KZRG's one-story office building
remained standing. Zimmer Radio, which owns KZRG and five other
stations in Joplin, consolidated multiple broadcasts into a single feed
of nonstop disaster coverage.\2\ Music announcers and talk show hosts
transformed into on-air first responders and informers.\3\ Employees
drove to the station immediately after the tornado in order to provide
information on medical assistance, to help locating missing family
members, and to direct residents as to where they could buy gas and
groceries.\4\ Seven of Zimmer Radio's staffers had lost their homes,
but still they reported for duty to help their neighbors.\5\ In nearby
Springfield, Missouri, Clear Channel's five radio stations collected
nearly 50,000 pounds of food and $20,000 of cash for Joplin victims
from listeners.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Moni Basu, ``Radio Stations Chug Along 24/7 in tornado-
devastated Joplin,'' CNN (May 24, 2011).
\2\ Matt Pearce, ``Joplin Radio Stations Become a Lifeline for
Tornado-Stricken Residents,'' L.A. Times (May 25, 2011).
\3\ Id.
\4\ Doug Lung, ``Broadcasters Inform Citizens During Weather
Emergencies,'' TV Technology (May 26, 2011).
\5\ ``Radio's Multi-Platform Reach Informs, Alerts Joplin, MO
Tornado Victims,'' All Access (May 25, 2011).
\6\ ``Radio Beams Regional Tornado Relief Message,'' Inside Radio
(May 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A month after the Joplin tornado, flooding in Minot, North Dakota,
has sent hundreds fleeing from their homes. Residents turned to local
broadcast television stations for current information. One station,
KXMC, has been replaying coverage of the floods over and over at the
request of residents who want to see what is left of their
neighborhoods. And as The New York Times said in an article last week,
when the station ``has not been showing viewers their submerged homes,
it has been broadcasting news conferences, explaining the intricacies
of dike construction and sharing viewer photos from around the
town.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Brian Stelter, ``This Just In: How Your House Is Faring,'' The
New York Times (June 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, as a devastating storm developed near Springfield,
Massachusetts, last month, all three local broadcast television
stations went wall-to-wall with coverage. In an area not used to
tornadoes, the stations captured dramatic images--including those from
sky-cams of the tornado whipping up water from the Connecticut River--
and broadcasting them to viewers. Following the storm, the stations
continued to report on the damage and recovery and provided information
on relief and food supplies.\8\ And the four local radio stations cut
all music and gave continuous news updates, including live phone calls
from the Governor and the head of the Red Cross. The news director and
an announcer also took calls from dozens of listeners looking for
information on what to do and where to go.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Scott Fybush, ``Radio, TV React to Mass. Tornadoes,'' NorthEast
Radio Watch (June 6, 2011).
\9\ ``CC Cluster in MA. Superserves During Last Week's Tornado,''
Radio Ink (June 7, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local stations also offer hyper local weather alerts and
information on multicast channels. TV stations are in the process of
rolling out innovative mobile DTV services, which will enable viewers
to receive live, local broadcast television programming--including
local news, weather, sports, emergency information, and entertainment
programming--on an ``on the go'' basis on mobile-DTV capable devices
such as smart phones, laptop computers, and tablets. Over 70 stations
in Washington, DC, and elsewhere around the country have commenced
offering mobile DTV service, and hundreds of other stations have
announced plans to continue the Nation-wide roll-out of mobile DTV in
the near-term. Mobile DTV is a reliable and spectrally efficient (one-
to-an-unlimited-number) means of disseminating emergency information to
viewers. Following the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan,
residents reported that the country's mobile television service was a
lifeline source of information, particularly in the wake of cellular
network and power outages.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Michael Plugh, ``What I Left Behind In Japan,''
Salon.com (March 22, 2011), available at http://www.salon.com/life/
feature/2011/03/22/japan_i_left_behind/index.html. See also Live Blog:
Japan Earthquake, The Wall Street Journal (March 11, 2011, 8:06 a.m.
posting of Chester Dawson) (``Unable to use cell phones, many used
their smartphones to tune into television broadcasts and find out what
had happened. `It's very convenient being able to watch live TV when
the phones are down,' said Minori Naito, an employee of Royal Bank of
Scotland in Tokyo. `Otherwise, we'd have no idea what is going on.'
'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In times of local crisis such as these, broadcasters provide
astounding service to their communities.
Beyond anecdotal evidence, statistics paint a vivid picture of the
power that the broadcast medium has to save lives. Following tornadoes
that struck in Alabama in late April, Raycom Media conducted a survey
of residents who were impacted. According to the survey results, a vast
majority--71% of adults--said they were warned about the storm by
watching television.\11\ An additional 10% of those surveyed learned of
the tornadoes via radio. A mere 6% of respondents learned of the
tornadoes through internet, smartphones, or Twitter/Facebook.\12\ This
occurred despite the fact that 75% of those interviewed were at home
during the tornadoes, presumably with access to the internet and other
sources of information.\13\ This reliance on radio and television for
dependable, up-to-the-minute information was true even for young
citizens ages 18 to 24. We might expect this demographic to rely more
on the internet and social media for information, but fully 77% of them
reported that they tracked the storms via radio or TV.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Alabama Tornado Survey, Billy McDowell, VP of Media Research,
RAYCOM Media (May 2011).
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
\14\ 2010 was also a critical year for local broadcasters and the
communities they served. For example, in early May of 2010, as record
rainfall hammered the State of Tennessee, every local news station in
Nashville preempted regular programming in favor of continuous,
commercial-free weather event content for almost an entire weekend.
Local radio stations provided constant weather alerts. During the
flooding, Dennis Banka of WUCZ in Carthage, Tennessee, managed to
single-handedly keep his station on the air for almost 48 hours
straight for the benefit of local listeners in need. Mr. Banka and his
station had vital contacts with emergency personnel and other
authorities and were able to report critical information about the
known instabilities of two local dams in a timely manner. Here in
Washington, during the blizzards that hit the East Coast in 2010,
broadcasters provided up-to-the-minute information that was critical to
affected residents. For instance, Washington, DC station WRC-TV's wall-
to-wall coverage and ``potentially life-saving newscasts'' were lauded
by Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. John Eggerton, ``As the Snowy
World Turns,'' Broadcasting & Cable (Feb. 10, 2010). As Federal
Communications Chairman (FCC) Chairman Genachowski observed, ``Not only
were local broadcasters a lifeline for the community, WRC-TV used its
robust website and Twitter feed to help residents who had lost power
get up-to-the-minute information through their computers and phones.''
Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski, NAB Show 2010, Las
Vegas, Nevada, at 2 (April 13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there are many more examples. Broadcast stations continue to
provide emergency information and other services even though the
costs--in overtime for personnel, in meals and hotels, in equipment,
and of course in advertising lost due to providing wall-to-wall news
and information coverage--are substantial. For example, one station
reports that a single season's hurricane coverage cost $160,000 before
accounting for lost advertising revenue.\15\ Another station reports
that it lost 50 percent of its revenue for an entire month following
the events of September 11, 2001, because its intensive news
programming preempted so much of its normal programming.\16\ Emergency
journalism clearly requires the commitment of substantial resources
from the Nation's local broadcasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Economic Realities of Local Television News--2010: A
Report for the National Association of Broadcasters (April 2010) at 24,
attached to Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters,
Examination of the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities
in a Digital Age, GN Docket No. 10-25 (filed May 7, 2010).
\16\ Id. at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. LOCAL BROADCAST STATIONS REMAIN THE BACKBONE OF THE NATION'S
EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM
In addition to the on-going, comprehensive coverage that
broadcasters provide during emergencies, we are also the backbone of
the Emergency Alert System (EAS). EAS is a largely wireless network
that connects over-the-air radio, television and cable television
systems. The in-place infrastructure of EAS allows the prompt
dissemination of alerts to the widest possible audience, or to target
alerts to specific areas, as appropriate. EAS is intended for use
during sudden, unpredictable, or unforeseen events that pose an
immediate threat to public health or safety, the nature of which
precludes any advance notification or warning.
Under EAS, local broadcasters put their facilities and their
airwaves at the disposal of Government authorities to transmit life-
saving emergency warnings. EAS can be accessed or triggered by the
President, Governors, and local authorities under certain conditions.
Most alerts are originated by the local and regional offices of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National
Weather Service (NWS). Broadcasters typically work in partnership with
State, county, and local emergency managers and public safety officials
on how best to deploy EAS.
The content of EAS messages can vary depending on the nature of the
emergency, but may include information on evacuation plans and routes,
shelter-in-place instructions, storm paths, and America's Missing:
Broadcasting Emergency Response Alerts, or Child Abduction AMBER
Alerts, which help expand the eyes and ears of local law enforcement
when a child is abducted. Nation-wide, since the inception of AMBER in
1996, AMBER alerts have helped safely recover more than 523 abducted
children.\17\ In fact, the Amber Plan was originally created by
broadcasters with the assistance of law enforcement agencies in the
Dallas/Fort Worth area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/
PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_- US&PageId=2810#2 (last visited June
28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, EAS participation is an important component of
broadcasters' public service. Although participation in EAS on a local
level is technically voluntary, virtually all radio and television
stations participate, and do so proudly. All EAS equipment is purchased
by broadcasters at their own expense. All stations must test their EAS
systems on both a weekly and monthly basis. We have all seen or heard
the familiar announcement: ``The following is a test of the Emergency
Alert System. This is only a test.''
In January 2010, and again in January 2011, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) jointly conducted State-wide tests of the EAS in
Alaska.\18\ Radio and television stations in Alaska coordinated closely
with Federal and local authorities in Alaska to help ensure the success
of these tests. Their efforts included a comprehensive public awareness
campaign that provided Alaskans with repeated advance notice of the
State-wide EAS tests, and helped to prevent any undue surprise or
confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., Alaska Plans EAS Test Using EAN Code, Radio
Magazine (Dec. 31.2009), available at http://radiomagonline.com/
studio_audio/EAS/alaska_ean_test_1231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building upon the lessons learned in the Alaska tests, the FCC and
FEMA announced that they would conduct a Nation-wide test of the EAS
system on November 9, 2011.\19\ The broadcast industry supports this
National EAS testing. We are committed to working with our Federal and
local partners to ensure that the National test is useful and
informative. Broadcasters are also preparing for the National exercise
by reviewing their internal EAS equipment and processes, and if
appropriate, upgrading software or hardware in advance of the National
test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Public Notice, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
Announces That First Ever Nationwide Diagnostic Test of the Emergency
Alert System Will Occur On November 9, 2011 at 2 PM EST, EB Docket No.
04-296, rel. June 9, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although broadcasters provide EAS and in-depth emergency
information as part of their service to the public, and do so
enthusiastically, participating in a reliable, functional EAS is not
without certain challenges. For example, in June 2006, President Bush
issued Executive Order 13407, entitled Public Alert and Warning System,
which states:
``It is the policy of the United States to have an effective, reliable,
integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the
American people . . . establish or adopt, as appropriate, common
alerting and warning protocols, standards, terminology, and operating
procedures for the public alert and warning system to enable
interoperability and the secure delivery of coordinated messages to the
American people through as many communication pathways as practicable .
. . administer the Emergency Alert System (EAS) as a critical component
. . . ensure that under all conditions the President of the United
States can alert and warn the American people.''
In response, FEMA has served as the lead Federal agency for
developing this program, called the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System (IPAWS) Program. Among other things, IPAWS is designed to
improve public safety through the rapid dissemination of emergency
messages to as many people as possible over as many communications
devices as possible. To do this, FEMA's IPAWS program is planning to
expand the traditional EAS to include additional technologies, to
capitalize on recent shifts in how many Americans consume information.
IPAWS will enable Federal, State, territorial, Tribal, and local
emergency communication officials to access multiple broadcast and
other communications pathways for the purpose of creating and
activating alert and warning messages related to any hazard impacting
public safety and well-being. Broadcasters are working closely with
FEMA to ensure that EAS via free, over-the-air television and radio
remains the essential backbone of the next generation of EAS and public
alerting.
Broadcasters are also leveraging social media and other message
pathways to broaden dissemination of alert messages. When you receive
an emergency alert via email, text message, or Facebook from your local
radio or TV station, you know you're receiving reliable information
from an authoritative source.
In Maine, and Nation-wide, radio and television stations do a
commendable job assisting public safety officials in disseminating
emergency information, whether through our on-air news programming, or
through EAS. Regarding the latter, we fully intend to continue our
efforts to devote personnel and attention to making sure that our
internal EAS systems work properly. However, the on-going reliability
of the EAS network will depend on the success of several important
developments.
First, the success of EAS will largely turn on the expertise and
ability of local authorities to fully deploy EAS and act as a ``civil
authority'' with full access to the system. In the past, some of the
isolated instances where EAS could have been used more judiciously
directly resulted from a lack of awareness or expertise on the part of
local officials concerning EAS. In this day and age, it is unacceptable
that some local emergency managers remain unaware of the benefits of
EAS, or how and when to trigger an EAS alert. Clearly, many State and
local authorities need additional training on the proper use of EAS and
the proper crafting of alert messages. At present, the only training
they receive is the technical manual that comes with an EAS encoder-
decoder. FEMA is taking steps to address this vacuum by creating a
training and certification program for users of the system. We applaud
this initiative.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ To this end, it is critical that IPAWS continues to receive
full funding through the authorization and budgetary process to achieve
and maintain its public alerting missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, as mentioned above, FEMA is in the midst of implementing a
next generation of EAS. This new system will modernize the technology
used to deliver EAS messages from public safety officials to EAS
Participants. Under the Commission's existing rules, broadcasters and
other EAS Participants are required to process an EAS message that is
formatted in this new ``language,'' known as the Common Alert Protocol
(CAP).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ CAP is a messaging structure that allows emergency managers to
provide in a digital format (protocol) detailed descriptions of an
emergency event. It is an open, interoperable standard. See Second
Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 13285 22-25 (2007). CAP is also
backwards-compatible to work with EAS and the NWS' SAME (Specific Area
Message Encoding) protocol. Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC is in the process of reviewing its EAS Rules, including
whether to extend the current September 30, 2011 deadline for all EAS
Participants to install equipment capable of receiving a CAP-formatted
message.\22\ This will be a substantial burden for a number of
broadcasters, as it will require the replacement of EAS equipment at
most radio and television stations. The costs of such equipment are not
insignificant, particularly to small radio and television stations,\23\
still struggling from the recent severe recession. It is critical that,
as Participants are required to upgrade their equipment to receive a
CAP-formatted message, local and State jurisdictions have proper
funding and training to be able to transmit a CAP-formatted
message.\24\ This will ensure that the public will benefit from the
next-generation of public alerting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See, In the Matter of Review of the Emergency Alert System;
Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of
Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EB Docket No. 04-296, rel. May 26, 2011.
\23\ The cost for new CAP-compliant EAS equipment ranges from
$1,200 to over $3,000 per facility.
\24\ [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, authority for EAS is spread across multiple Federal agencies
with differing priorities, while the primary use of the system is by
State and local officials. At present, there is no mechanism for the
users of the system and the distributors of the messages to come
together to discuss issues and work out problems. I respectfully
request the committee to consider adopting language creating a National
EAS Working Group, and directing it to meet on a regular basis and
report back to this and other committees of jurisdiction, to ensure
that the lines of communication remain open and that ideas for
continuous improvement of the system have a forum in which they can be
heard.
One other critical improvement can be achieved without expenditure
of any funds. Specifically, broadcasters need credentialing from State
and local authorities to allow them to access their facilities, such as
studios and transmitter sites, during times of emergency. This will
enable radio and television stations to repair or maintain their
equipment and fully leverage their resources, local knowledge, and
training to keep the public informed during emergencies. While certain
States accommodate broadcasters who need to access their facilities,
such cooperation is not universal. Congressional action in this area
could greatly enhance our ability to maintain operations and deliver
vital information to our audiences.
Finally, in Maine, we are undertaking an effort to substantially
improve and modernize our emergency notification plan. Under this
``perfect'' notification plan, a managed ``system-of-systems'' would be
created through which multiple systems would work together to deliver
more alerts and warnings more securely, faster, and to more people.
This State-wide program would be designed to take advantage of existing
investments and future initiatives, including a modernized EAS system,
and would be poised for connection to any National system that is
developed. At the same time, however, the plan would maintain primary
responsibility for alerting at the local level and would include the
ability to target alerts geographically.
The goal of this Maine State-wide notification program would be to
deliver alerts and warnings throughout the State with sufficient
capability and speed, in advance of pending disasters, to help prevent
loss of life and property. The program would be consistent with State
and Federal initiatives and standards. This program will also require
funding. These funds would be used to create and manage the program,
facilitate collaboration, develop operational and governance guidelines
and training, purchase technology, and conduct public outreach. Maine
has recently undergone its third round of budget-cutting in the past 6
months. The State cupboard is bare, and a large question looms: How
will the State pay for the system it needs to take advantage of these
new technologies?
A properly working EAS is a fundamental and essential component of
our Nation's Homeland Security. It is crucially needed in our State of
Maine to respond to the myriad of potential man-made and weather-
related threats facing our region. One of the 9/11 terrorists began his
fateful trip at the airport in Portland, Maine, on his way to Boston.
We share a long, rural border with Canada that is difficult to secure.
We have a large oil depot in South Portland that provides our winter
heating supply. Bath Iron Works is a primary defense contractor to the
U.S. Navy. The Seabrook nuclear power plant sits just 15 miles below
our southwestern border. And we are experiencing seemingly more severe
weather events in recent years, including 25 tornado warnings between
2009 and last week, which have resulted in 15 confirmed tornado touch-
downs. Even in a small, rural State like Maine, a hardened, fully
capable alerting system is necessary to ensure the safety of our
citizens and our infrastructure.
Maine is grateful to Chairman Bilirakis and this committee for
hosting this hearing and for your interest in improving our
communications to prevent the loss of life and property in the future.
As we continue to discuss damage estimates, disaster-related costs, and
rebuilding our communities after the recent severe floods, tornadoes,
and wildfires around the United States, we must take care not to
overlook this opportunity to improve public warning and emergency
communications in advance of the next event, instead of during its
aftermath. We should be planning for the next emergency, not preparing
for the last one. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Kniphfer, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF ALLEN W. KNIPHFER, EMERGENCY COORDINATOR,
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
Mr. Kniphfer. Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee,
good morning. On behalf of the 665,000 residents of Jefferson
County, Alabama, thank you for this opportunity to testify
today.
On April 27, 2011, our county, which is the most populous
in Alabama, was struck by four tornadoes in a single day,
destroying or heavily damaging nearly 5,000 homes and
businesses and displacing thousands of residents. The cost of
cleaning up the rubble alone will approach $260 million, while
total property damage is estimated at $1 billion.
Our response to and recovery from this natural disaster has
reinforced a lesson we already had learned from hard
experience, that every emergency occurs at the local level.
With this in mind, local officials must be prepared to respond
quickly and effectively--especially in the initial phase of a
disaster--before our State and Federal Governments provide
supplemental assistance.
My office, the Jefferson County Emergency Management
Agency, is responsible for ensuring that the citizens of our
county are prepared to respond to, and quickly recover from,
any emergency or disaster that confronts us. As a result of our
preparations, we were ready to fulfill that mission when the
April tornadoes hit.
The single most important aspect of any disaster recovery
effort is the ability to communicate. Communication is not
simply the ability to speak to others but also the ability to
transfer data. By way of example, our neighbors in Tuscaloosa
County had less than an hour before the same storm struck
Jefferson County. All of the assets they owned for use in a
disaster were destroyed. Cell phone towers were damaged,
internet access was minimal, many roads were impassable, and
communication was virtually non-existent. Tuscaloosa County's
emergency responders found it difficult to communicate with
each other and with the outside world.
We were more fortunate in Jefferson County. Our emergency
operations center survived the storm intact. What we were not
prepared for was the enormous amount of in-bound phone traffic
that overwhelmed our telephone system and made out-bound
calling difficult. But we had a unique asset, a mobile
communications unit that gave our emergency management team
immediate, full-time phone and internet service.
This mobile communications unit, developed and built, Mr.
Chairman, by a small business called F4W, Inc., in your home
State of Florida, was a lifesaver for the people of Jefferson
County. It was up and running even before the tornadoes struck,
providing fixed and mobile communications to our emergency
responders throughout the entire recovery process.
Because we had the ability to communicate, we could execute
our emergency operations plan immediately. Our first responders
knew quickly what to do and where to go, and we were able to
help our citizens to begin recovering from this terrible
disaster quickly and efficiently.
In addition, we were able to increase our communications
capabilities throughout the recovery process, to meet needs we
had not previously anticipated. Because county residents had no
access to cell phones or the internet for a considerable period
of time, we established telecommunications registration centers
throughout the county, giving residents the means and
opportunity to make phone calls and report damage to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency via the internet. To
fulfill this need, we rented additional mobile communications
units from F4W.
In our emergency operation center, we further expanded our
abilities by installing, on the fly, a private branch exchange
system that mirrored our fixed-wire telephone system, enabling
our responders to speak to each other by dialing a four-digit
extension code, no matter what unit supported their
communications. They were also able to text-message,
electronically chat, and email each other seamlessly. Today,
this provides us with a redundant system in the event our
primary system is off line for any reason. The back-up system
kicks on, and we never miss a step. Once again, this was
provided for us by F4W.
When we learned that Tuscaloosa County's emergency response
team assets were destroyed along with their primary
headquarters, we dispatched our mobile emergency management
trailers there. With that support, their emergency management
infrastructure was back on-line less than 36 hours after the
storm hit. Again, the communication equipment we used to
support Tuscaloosa were products we have purchased from F4W
over the past several years.
Now that the emergency phase of the April 27 disaster has
mostly passed, I am focused on continuing to enhance our
ability to respond with optimal efficiency and speed,
regardless of the situation. My organization embraces the
standards established and administered by various Federal
agencies, including SAFECOM, the National Emergency
Communication Plan, the National Emergency Response
Interoperability Framework, and the Resilient Communication
System of Systems published under the DHS SECURE Program. We
also support CAP, HIPAA, IPAWS, OASIS, and Sarbanes-Oxley.
As emergency responders, we embrace the new standards and
technology developed from those protocols. But, regardless of
these standards and new discoveries, I must, above all, perform
the requirements of my position to serve the citizens of my
county to the best of my ability. Our organization realizes
that we cannot wait for decisions to be made in Washington when
our people need protection of their lives and property in the
immediate term.
The Emergency Broadcast Network, which has existed for
decades, did save lives during our recent emergency. But I
believe, in my county, that I require a more effective approach
to alerting the general public, one that meets our requirements
and one that we can afford. In that effort, budget cuts to
Federal programs make no difference in our organization,
because whatever happens we will find a way to acquire and
implement the tools necessary to support our citizens and, when
we can, our neighbors as well.
Another way of putting it is that, although budgets have
shrunk, our responsibilities to our citizens have not.
Disasters are going to continue to occur, regardless of how
much or how little resources are available to us. To the extent
that adequate funding continues to be a challenge, we will
continue to substitute innovation, longer work hours, and
complete dedication to our life-saving jobs.
Having said that, I would add that, yes, cutting Federal
grant funds to supplement the infrastructure of alert warning
systems could impact many communities. But in considering that,
we should also take the opportunity to ask how effectively
those funds have been spent to date. In my view, it might make
more sense, practically and financially, to target grant funds
for regional projects that take into consideration the specific
needs of affected communities, as opposed to using grant
funding to leverage for imposing uniform standards that leave
some critical needs on the local level unmet. This approach
would allow committees such as this one to see first-hand how
taxpayer dollars are spent and the results of successful
implementations, as well as learning from failures.
Here is how we are investing in our future in Jefferson
County: Our current system requires us to use specifically
designated and configured phones to communicate with each
other. We are now working with F4W on software that will allow
any ``smart'' cell phone to make encrypted calls and send and
receive text messages and data over the internet if the phone
has the right application installed. We can do this with or
without cellular infrastructure.
We are also working on the issue of persistent identity.
Within a few months, F4W expects to deliver a software package
that will allow people, not equipment, to determine access to
their emergency communications system. In other words, an
authorized emergency responder will be able to go to any
terminal or use any smartphone device and, using their preset
password or a device that identifies them, log in to any
network and conduct safe, fully-encrypted voice communications
and data sharing with others in their group.
In addition to improving our internal communications
capabilities and processes, we are working to expand and
enhance our ability to communicate with volunteer and
nongovernmental organizations, particularly as it relates to
credentialing of representatives of such organizations who have
critical interaction with our emergency response and recovery
efforts. At present, these organizations issue their own ID
cards, and our agency has no way of verifying those
credentials. There is a clear need to link their systems with
ours, for us to have some input into how their credentials are
created and the information that is provided on those
credentials.
Prior to the April 27 storms, I had been working on
development of such a system, utilizing a universal information
format that would allow us, along with appropriate State and
Federal agencies, to read and obtain information from cards
issued by NGOs. Moreover, this system can be implemented at
relatively low cost, utilizing existing bar code technology.
By way of further explanation, let me provide a little
background. After September 11, 2001, the Bush administration
issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, the purpose
of which was to develop a common identification standard while
still ensuring that Government facilities and sensitive
information remain optimally protected.
Mr. Bilirakis. Excuse me, can you wrap up in the next 30
seconds, please? The testimony is submitted for the record as
well.
Mr. Kniphfer. Okay.
The cost of issuing the ID cards would have been $140 per
card. We got it at no money for us. We worked in those cards
that way.
As previously stated, we incorporated FEMA's integrated
processing efforts in our system, and each of these potential
advances will help the Jefferson County Emergency Management
Agency meet our responsibilities.
As we go forward in working with these systems, as we go
forth on activities, we support everybody's work. We look
forward to working with everybody and thank you again for the
opportunity to testify and look forward to your questions, sir.
[The statement of Mr. Kniphfer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Allen W. Kniphfer
July 8, 2011
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: Good morning. On
behalf of the 665,000 residents of Jefferson County, Alabama, thank you
for this opportunity to testify today.
On April 27, 2011, our county, which is the most populous in
Alabama, was struck by four tornadoes in a single day, destroying or
heavily damaging nearly 5,000 homes and businesses and displacing
thousands of residents. The cost of cleaning up the rubble alone will
approach $260 million, while total property damage is estimated at $1
billion.
Our response to and recovery from this natural disaster has
reinforced a lesson we already had learned from hard experience: That
every emergency occurs at the local level. With this in mind, local
officials must be prepared to respond quickly and effectively--
especially in the initial phase of a disaster--before our State and
Federal Governments provide supplemental assistance.
My office, the Jefferson County Emergency Management Agency, is
responsible for ensuring that the citizens of our county are prepared
to respond to, and quickly recover from, any emergency or disaster that
confronts us. As a result of our preparations, we were ready to fulfill
that mission when the April tornadoes hit.
The single most important aspect of any disaster recovery effort is
the ability to communicate. Communication is not simply the ability to
speak to others, but also the ability to transfer data. By way of
example, our neighbors in Tuscaloosa County had their Emergency
Operations Center completely destroyed by an EF5 tornado on April 27,
less than an hour before the same storm struck Jefferson County. All of
the assets they owned for use in a disaster were destroyed. Cell phone
towers were damaged, internet access was minimal, many roads were
impassable, and communication was virtually non-existent. Tuscaloosa
County's emergency responders found it difficult to communicate with
each other, and with the outside world.
We were more fortunate in Jefferson County. Our Emergency
Operations Center survived the storm intact. What we were not prepared
for was the enormous amount of inbound phone traffic that overwhelmed
our telephone system and made outbound calling difficult. But we had a
unique asset: A Mobile Communications Unit that gave our emergency
management team immediate, full-time phone and internet service.
This Mobile Communications Unit--developed and built, Mr. Chairman,
by a small business called F4W, Inc. in your home State of Florida--was
a lifesaver for the people of Jefferson County. It was up and running
even before the tornadoes struck, providing fixed and mobile
communications to our emergency responders throughout the entire
recovery process.
Because we had the ability to communicate, we could execute our
emergency operations plan immediately. Our first responders knew
quickly what to do and where to go, and we were able to help our
citizens to begin recovering from this terrible disaster quickly and
efficiently.
In addition, we were able to increase our communication
capabilities throughout the recovery process, to meet needs we had not
previously anticipated. Because county residents had no access to cell
phones or the internet for a considerable period of time, we
established Telecommunication Registration Centers throughout the
county, giving residents the means and opportunity to make phone calls
and report damage to the Federal Emergency Management Agency via the
internet. To fulfill this need, we rented additional Mobile
Communications Units from F4W.
In our Emergency Operation Center, we further expanded our
abilities by installing, ``on-the-fly,'' a private branch exchange
system that mirrored our fixed wire telephone system--enabling our
responders to speak to each other by dialing a four-digit extension
code, no matter what unit supported their communications. They were
also able to text-message, electronically chat, and e-mail each other
seamlessly. Today, this provides us with a redundant system in the
event our primary system is off-line for any reason. The back-up system
kicks on and we never miss a step. Once again, this was provided for us
by F4W.
When we learned that Tuscaloosa County's emergency response team
assets were destroyed along with their primary headquarters, we
dispatched our Mobile Emergency Management Trailers there. With that
support, their emergency management infrastructure was back on-line
less than 36 hours after the storm hit. Again, the communication
equipment we used to support Tuscaloosa were products we have purchased
from F4W over the past several years.
Now that the emergency phase of the April 27 disaster has mostly
passed, I am focused on continuing to enhance our ability to respond
with optimal efficiency and speed, regardless of the situation. My
organization embraces the standards established and administered by
various Federal Agencies, including SAFECOM, the National Emergency
Communication Plan, the National Emergency Response Interoperability
Framework and the Resilient Communication System of Systems published
under the DHS SECURE Program. We also support CAP, HIPAA, IPAWS, OASIS,
and Sarbanes-Oxley.
As emergency responders, we embrace the new standards and
technology developed from those protocols. But regardless of these
standards and new discoveries, I must, above all, perform the
requirements of my position to serve the citizens of my county to the
best of my ability. Our organization realizes that we cannot wait for
decisions to be made in Washington when our people need protection of
their lives and property in the immediate term.
The Emergency Broadcast Network, which has existed for decades, did
save lives during our recent emergency. But I believe, in my county,
that I require a more effective approach to alerting the general
public, one that is meets OUR requirements--and one that we can afford.
In that effort, budget cuts to Federal programs make no difference in
our organization, because, whatever happens, we will find a way to
acquire and implement the tools necessary to support our citizens--and,
when we can, our neighbors as well.
Another way of putting it is that although budgets have shrunk, our
responsibilities to our citizens have not. Disasters are going to
continue to occur regardless of how much or how little resources are
available to us. To the extent that adequate funding continues to be a
challenge, we will continue to substitute innovation, longer work hours
and complete dedication to our life-saving jobs.
Having said that, I would add that yes, cutting Federal grant funds
to supplement the infrastructure of alert warning systems could impact
many communities. But in considering that, we should also take the
opportunity to ask how effectively those funds have been spent to date.
In my view, it might make more sense, practically and financially, to
target grant funds for regional projects that take into consideration
the specific needs of affected communities, as opposed to using grant
funding as leverage for imposing uniform standards that leave some
critical needs on the local level unmet. This approach would allow
committees such as this one to see first-hand how taxpayer dollars are
spent and the results of successful implementations--as well as
learning from failures.
Here's how we are investing in our future in Jefferson County: Our
current system requires us to use specially designated and configured
phones to communicate with each other. We are now working with F4W on
software that will allow any ``smart'' cell phone to make encrypted
calls and send and receive text messages and data over the internet if
the phone has the right application installed. We can do this with or
without cellular infrastructure.
We also are working on the issue of persistent identity. Within a
few months, F4W expects to deliver a software package that will allow
people, not equipment, to determine access to their emergency
communications system. In other words, an authorized emergency
responder will be able to go to any terminal or use any smartphone
device and--using their preset password or a device that identifies
them--log in to any network and conduct safe, fully-encrypted, voice
communications, and data-sharing with others in their group.
In addition to improving our internal communications capabilities
and processes, we are working to expand and enhance our ability to
communicate with volunteer and non-governmental organizations--
particularly as it relates to credentialing of representatives of such
organizations who have critical interaction with our emergency response
and recovery efforts. At present, these organizations issue their own
ID cards, and our agency has no way of verifying those credentials.
There is a clear need to link their systems with ours--for us to have
some input into how their credentials are created and the information
that is provided on those credentials.
Prior to the April 27 storms, I had been working on development of
such a system, utilizing a universal information format that would
allow us, along with appropriate State and Federal agencies, to read
and obtain information from cards issued by NGOs. Moreover, this system
can be implemented at relatively low cost, utilizing existing bar-code
technology.
By way of further explanation, let me provide a little background:
After September 11, 2001, the Bush administration issued Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), the purpose of which was
to develop a common identification standard while still ensuring that
Government facilities and sensitive information remain optimally
protected. The directive required agencies to issue ``smart'' cards to
Federal employees and contractors--a goal that was good in concept, but
which proved difficult to implement beyond the Federal level, largely
due to the cost involved.
The cost of issuing the ID cards mandated by HSPD-12 proved to be
in excess of $140 per card. The Federal Government was footing the bill
for these, so few people complained, other than some contractors who
had to buy their own cards in order to do their jobs. In response, in
May 2009, the Federal Chief Information Officers Council issued a
supplement to HSPD-12, titled ``Personal Identity Verification
Interoperability for Non-Federal Issuers.'' This put the States into
the Federally-compatible ID card business, with responsibility for
providing first-responder authentication credentials (FRACs) that
Federal agencies can read and honor.
But still, the cost issue remains a substantial hurdle to
implementation. To have true interoperability as specified in the 2009
directive, the non-Federal cards were still required to incorporate a
microchip with a format and security features approved by the Federal
Government. This chip was only approved for use in February 2011, with
the cost per card remaining roughly the same--in other words,
prohibitively expensive for State governments, like ours in Alabama,
operating under tight budgetary constraints. As coordinator of a county
EMA, I have to struggle to find enough money for necessities, let alone
funding the additional expense of Federally-interoperable ID cards.
So what did we do?
Working with ID card experts, I and others who work on the front
lines of public safety and emergency management began developing an
affordable FRAC system for State use. This system not only meets, but
exceeds the standards set forth in the May 2009 directive. The card I
wear each day contains my biometric data, my training certifications,
and my medical information. It works with or without a network in
place. It does not have a microchip--the single most expensive element
in the Federally-issued cards--yet it is FIPS-201 compliant in every
important way. It can even communicate with Federal systems for
identity verification with a network system that links all emergency
management agencies in every State of the Union. We call it NERVS,
which stands for National Emergency Responder Verification System.
Perhaps most notably, NERVS does not cost so much that it is
unaffordable to cash-strapped State and county governments. And it was
developed without a dime of Federal money. This show what can be
accomplished through innovation and dedication to task. It has already
been deployed in the State of Florida, and we are using it now in
Alabama. It is worth noting that the use of this system in Florida
began under Craig Fugate, before he became the head of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. In my opinion, his openness to and embrace
of such innovative approaches to critical issues is a big reason he was
appointed to his current position.
In working to develop and implement such approaches, F4W, others,
and we are mindful of the standards established in Federal Information
Processing Standard Publication 201 on Personal Identity Verification
Standards for Federal employees and contractors. All of the work we do
together will meet those standards.
As stated previously we incorporate FEMA's Integrated Public Alert
Warning System, or IPAWS, efforts. The mission of IPAWS is to provide
integrated services and capabilities to local, State, and Federal
authorities that enable them to alert and warn their respective
communities via multiple communications methods. To help extend this
technology to achieve the ultimate end solution meeting our needs not
defined in the standard published, F4W's engineers and ID software
engineers are working on creating a ``System of Systems,'' whereby
Voice Over Internet Protocols will enable any emergency responder,
using any commercially-available emergency communication system--not
only F4W's--to speak and exchange data with those using all other
communications systems. If they succeed, it will be a remarkable
accomplishment for a small business with very limited research and
development capabilities.
Each of these potential advances will help the Jefferson County
Emergency Management Agency better meet our responsibilities to our
citizens. We are also increasing disaster awareness among our
residents; continuing to train our emergency responders to meet any
possible contingency; educating our residents, including our children
on, what to do if disaster strikes--our next ``Community Awareness
Day'' is scheduled for October 6 of this year--and offering even more
resources to our population and our first responders through the
internet and elsewhere.
Through these activities and others, we hope to make Jefferson
County a model for the entire Nation in preparing for emergencies and
disasters, mitigating them, responding to them, and recovering from
them. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I look forward
to your questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, sir.
I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes or so. The
first question will be for Ms. Goucher.
Ms. Goucher, you testified that broadcasters must replace
their own EAS equipment at their own expense in order to
implement the Common Alerting Protocol, CAP, by September 30,
2011. That is the deadline. Can you help us understand the
financial and logistical challenges that a typical broadcast
station faces in complying with this mandate?
Ms. Goucher. Certainly. As I mentioned, the cost of the
CAP-enabled boxes is somewhere upwards of $2,000 to $3,000. For
many broadcasters, that is just a cost of doing business. They
budgeted for it. They have known it was coming. For some of my
smaller broadcasters, that is going to be a high hurdle for
them to overcome. I have got some small stand-alone stations,
some religious stations, some college stations that don't
exactly have $3,000 lying around not doing anything. My
association is looking at creative ways to help them fund those
purchases, and in the end they will all make the purchases
because, as I mentioned, not only is it a mandate but it is
core to our mission.
But we are also looking at some creative ways to fund the
State piece of our Emergency Alert System. The State coffers
are bare. In the State of Maine, we have had three rounds of
budget-cutting in the past 6 months, and every time I go in to
talk to my emergency management and public folks about this and
say we are moving to this new CAP-enabled system and you need
to buy some equipment in order to get on board with it, I get
that deer-in-the-headlights look, like how much is this going
to cost and where are we going to get the money.
We think in that regard that it would be most helpful if
FEMA could specify in their grant guidance that EAS is a
permissible use of grant funds. That would put it on the radar
screen for these officials when they are applying for the grant
money to specify that this is an acceptable use of that money.
When those dollars come in the door, they are spent four or
five or six times, but if it were in the grant guidance, it
would put the States on notice that they could apply for the
funds for this specific purpose.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
My next question is for Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
Recently, the Personal Localized Alert Network, PLAN, was
unveiled in New York City. This new public safety program is to
be initialized. Of course, it is to be deployed in New York
City and Washington, DC, by November, with Nation-wide
deployment in all major urban areas being completed by the
spring of 2012. It seems that the majority of the cellular
carriers have embraced the concept of the PLAN, which is great.
Can you please go into more detail of the impact of
implementing PLAN on the wireless industry and why the name
change? What is the purpose for the name change? Because it
seems like it is very confusing.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Sir, I will start with your last
question first, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know the reason for the name change, to be honest.
It didn't come from our side of the equation. I think the FCC
was trying to come up with something that they thought was
easier to comprehend or to understand and to promote, is my
understanding.
As Admiral Barnett suggested, we had already gone down the
path of trying to come up with a way to promote handsets that
are capable of delivering alerts, and we reached out to our
internal marketing department and we came up with something
called Wireless Emergency Alert Capable. So, again, it wasn't
sort of rocket science. We just tried to find a way that would
convey a meaning. I think at the FCC that was happening
simultaneously, and they came up with the acronym PLAN.
As long as there is an effort by the FCC, by FEMA, and by
the industry to make sure consumers understand, I think we can
bridge that gap of confusion that you and others suggest may
exist. Our goal is to make sure that consumers are aware when
the capability exists and which handsets have it, with the goal
of having all handsets ultimately have the capability as they
move through the production cycle.
You asked previously about the impact on the industry. This
is something that we brought to--Steve Largent, my CEO, brought
to my executive committee many years ago; and we embraced,
knowing there would be some significant cost to it. But, like
Ms. Goucher said, we recognize that this is something that is
the right thing to do, to embrace this technology. So our
industry is committed to it.
There were questions presented to the earlier panel about
why yet hasn't there been 100 percent. I am actually very proud
of the 97 percent that are represented. But one thing for the
record that should be recognized is that carriers had to make a
decision as to whether or not to participate voluntarily before
there was any idea of what the technology solution would be.
That was just one of the byproducts of the WARN Act. It was
just an outgrowth of the timing. So nine of our ten largest
carriers and a significant number of our smaller carriers
immediately went on-board and said yes, but they didn't really
know what they were saying yes to at that time. That is why we
expect the number will go up, because now there is a greater
understanding of what people were saying yes to.
You had asked Ms. Goucher about the cost. I think our
smaller carriers will enjoy the benefits of the economies that
are driven by the larger carriers purchasing the technology and
moving the handsets through the process.
So it is costly. It is significant, significant expense.
But yet it is one that the industry is bearing with a good
social responsibility that they have done many times. Whether
it is this or Wireless Priority Service or wireless AMBER
Alerts, it is something that the industry and particularly the
leadership of these companies really recognizes is important.
Mr. Bilirakis. Is there an effort by the industry to
educate people, the potential customers, with regard to the
privacy issue?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. There will be an effort by the industry
to alert consumers once the technology is up and running. The
privacy issue I guess we are going to have to make people aware
of. But it is not a concern from our perspective for the
reasons that Admiral Barnett suggested, which is this is a
broadcast-type technology, so the alert will be sent to a
certain number of cell towers and in essence broadcast out sort
of in concentric circles, and whichever devices are within that
circle will get the alert.
The carriers won't be measuring who gets it or who doesn't
get it. It is a whole new technology really for our industry,
and it is not designed to say X or Y handsets are in this area.
It is just to say any handsets that are in the alerting area
will get it. There is not going to be tracking of who gets it
and who doesn't.
Additionally, the wireless industry is subject to a range
of rules regarding privacy that are sort of overarching, beyond
just this WARN emergency alert effort. So those would still
hold, sort of protecting the privacy of the consumers.
Mr. Bilirakis. I think it is great. It is wonderful. But
the thing is we have to get the word out and educate the
people. It is so important to save the lives.
Mr. Kniphfer, last month, this subcommittee held a field
hearing where we heard from emergency management officials from
around the country. Actually, in my district we had the field
hearing. When asked about the upcoming deployment of PLAN, the
officials were supportive of this system because it will help
reach them reach commuter and tourist populations in a way that
reverse
9-1-1 systems cannot. You heard the story. It took 7 days in
that particular community to notify them with the reverse 9-1-
1. That is simply unacceptable, as far as I am concerned.
I am interested in your thoughts on the deployment of the
cell phone alerting system. What information have you received
from FEMA about this system? Do you believe that this system
will help to enhance your ability to alert and warn citizens in
your area?
Mr. Kniphfer. Sir, anything that will enhance the alerting
of people in time of emergency is going to help us. My worry is
what people do after we alert them. Will they take that alert
seriously, that educational process on the tourists? That is my
concern afterwards.
Those people in my area and yours in Florida, a lot of
people come to Florida and don't know what county they are in,
and we alert them through a cell phone that if you are in Lee
County, Florida, or Lake County, Florida, or Jasper or Gadsden
County, Florida, they are not sure what county they really are
in. So we have an educational problem, too, that goes along
with that. Do they know where to go to their place of safety?
That is an educational process that is going to have to go
along with that alert system. Do they heed that warning?
After Katrina, I heard a lot of people talk that we
survived a Cat-5 hurricane. There is nothing worse. When
Katrina came on shore, it was not a Cat-5. So that is my
situation.
Anything that is going to help us get an alert to the
people is going to help us, and that is my concern: How do we
get to everybody? As we move forward and as technology takes
over, we have kids now that don't read emails anymore. They
text and that is all they get on their cell phones. They don't
even read emails. So that is what we have got to go to as a
society, how do we get to them, and that is what we have to
look at now.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe, you talked a little bit about what is
necessary and what is unnecessary as far as warnings and
alerts. Elaborate on that.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Certainly. I think I want to clarify
that this is not an indictment of FEMA, because I think they
have really aggressively tried to go out and provide education
to the alerters. But at least from my perspective, and it may
be similar from Ms. Goucher's, I am looking at the alert tools
that are out there now, the alerting tools that exist now,
including the county that I live in, which is right across the
river but I won't say which it is because I am about to say
something potentially negative. But I have a small sort of
phone book here of alerts that I have received over the last 2
years, and I will give you a few examples of some of the
alerts.
I was alerted to the existence of ``a rapid fox.'' Not a
rabid fox, but a rapid fox. I was alerted to the fact that
there were going to be flyovers, that there was a cable outage,
that there was going to be buildings demolished, that it was
cold and flu season. I could go on and on, and these are all in
here.
To Mr. Kniphfer's point, he is concerned about what they
will do and will they take it seriously. Our concern is you can
build the greatest system and if you overuse it you get
immediately to what we call the car alarm syndrome. Nobody pays
attention to car alarms any more.
So when I look at sort of what has come out of this
alerting system, I think the last thing we want to do if we
build this is pepper it with alerts that aren't necessary and
then people just stop paying attention. The reality is,
unfortunately, I have fallen into that camp. So when a serious
one comes out, my wife sort of resends it to me to make sure.
Because if you went through this list you would find maybe 3
percent that were really an emergency alert, and that can't be
the case if we want to deploy this Nation-wide and we want
people to really take advantage of it and take advantage of the
ubiquity of mobile devices.
Mr. Bilirakis. Would you define, say, a storm, a major
thunderstorm, a necessary alert? Or a major accident, what have
you?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. I understand, and I completely
recognize that there is going to be a cutoff point that is
difficult to determine, and some alerts may fall on one side or
the other. But what NOAA generally does and the National
Weather Service, that completely makes sense. Those are alerts
that people should get, even though I know they have tiers of
warnings and then watches and things like that. But I also
think there are probably a significant percentage that you can
cut off.
An accident, I would say no, unless there are noxious fumes
or gasses or dangers. Anything involving traffic I would argue
no. This is me speaking personally. Buildings being demolished
or cold and flu season, that to me is really abusing the system
or using the system in a way that isn't going to support when
you really want people to respond to a very timely tornado, a
significant tornado where you only have minutes to respond, or
a tsunami.
You want people looking at these things every time they pop
up in case they are getting one that is that timely, and you
want to make sure that you don't overuse it such that people
stop paying attention.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. They need to take it
seriously. There is no question.
This is for Ms. Goucher. In your statement you note your
belief of the need of a National EAS working group and you
mentioned that and maybe you can elaborate. If such working
group were created, who do you believe should be members of the
group?
Ms. Goucher. Well, as I mentioned, there are several
Federal agencies that have governance authority for the
system--the Federal Communications Commission, FEMA, the
National Weather Service, the White House. There are also
several EAS participants, broadcasters, obviously, the cable
television industry, now the cellular telephone industry.
We just don't have a forum to get us all together in a room
on a periodic basis to hash out issues with the system. So we
think that some kind of formal structure for that process to
take place would be enormously helpful.
As long as I have the microphone, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I
would like to address the issue that----
Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely. Proceed.
Ms. Goucher [continuing]. That my friend to the left here
raised by about the education issue.
I do want to state for the record that broadcasters are not
asking for a mandate for FM chips in cell phones, but we do
think there is an enormous marketing opportunity here that is
being lost because we all carry these devices around with us
all the time. So if you receive a 90-character text message
that says ``tornado warning, Lincoln County, tune to local
radio and TV,'' wouldn't it make sense to be able to do that
right from the same device? So that now you have an all-in-one
mechanism in the palm of your hand to get not only the initial
alert, where it is and what it is, but the actual follow-on
information that you need, tornado warning, is it my house,
when is it touching down, how long do I have to grab Toto and
get into the cellar?
Broadcasters can put that information in front of people.
``Here are the evacuation routes.'' If I were Verizon or AT&T,
I would be all over this, to say, look, here is an all-in-one
device for you that will give you not only the initial alert
but also the follow-on information you need. Again, not a
mandate, but a little encouragement.
Mr. Bilirakis. Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Certainly, if I may. There are 41
handsets in the United States that have FM chip sets. As we
went through the process with the SimSac, the advisory group,
we considered sort of what different potential solutions would
be, and we had a similar request from the television broadcast
industry to put a television chip and we had a request from the
paging industry to put a paging chip and the satellite industry
to put a satellite chip.
What we were looking at as an industry is let's not have a
technology mandate. Let's let consumers decide what they want
in their devices and give them options. Having a choice of 41
different handsets, if that is what you choose, I think that is
a fair number of options.
We look at it, we are serving a wide range of consumers,
everything from a standard flip phone to a smartphone to a
tablet, and we try to make everyone happy. That is why there
are a range of options and handsets and different price points.
That is how we look at it.
NAB has moved away are from the desire to have a mandate. I
think that is a good thing. We talked with them maybe 2 years
ago about this, and in that interim you have gone from a few
handsets to 41. I think that is an evolution based on what
consumers want.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Guttman-McCabe again, with regard to
CMS, PLAN, are you satisfied with the progress that is being
made in regard to that and are there any improvements that can
be made?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. I think we are very satisfied. The FCC
and FEMA have been extremely active under Admiral Barnett and
Administrator Penn and their teams. We met with them last week.
We have about monthly meetings, maybe 20 or 30 of us in a room,
and we will have monthly meetings from now until the launch in
New York and the beginning of next year and are very happy with
how they are moving forward.
I do have to say FEMA in the last year or 2 years really
has accelerated the process and their efforts. So I do think
they are to be applauded for how much they have really focused
on this.
So we don't have any issues right now with how it is moving
forward. It is in our devices and being deployed in our
devices. Networks are being upgraded with the technology. So
this is a private-public partnership that we want to really
hold up as one that is working and has worked.
Mr. Bilirakis. Good. Excellent.
Mr. Kniphfer, as you know, in November, FEMA and FCC will
conduct the first-ever Nation-wide test for EAS. How is
Jefferson County preparing for this test?
Mr. Kniphfer. We will be ready for it, sir. We had
equipment ready to do that. We are ready to go down to the
level to put it out with our broadcasters. That is one of the
things we are working with the broadcasters.
I think if you go back to April 27, if it had not been for
our media, we would have lost a lot more lives. Like Ms.
Goucher said, our media that day were outstanding. Our radio-TV
were on the air 24/7 covering the tornadoes, and had it not
been for them, there would have more bodies that we would be
counting today. They were a vital part of the alert warning
system.
Any device you carry is only as good as the system as a
whole. You have got to know what to do. Our four TV stations
worked very good together that day in putting out the
information. They tracked the storms coming out of Tuscaloosa
County right through, and I think the people heeded the
warning. Tuscaloosa County had a high death rate I think
because they were hit quickly. Jefferson County saw it come
through Tuscaloosa County and took the warning seriously and
took shelter, and we only had 21 deaths because of that.
I would also like to address the concern of the wireless
industry and the amount of notifications you get. We need to
look at that situation as an alert warning notification system
where people can opt into what is that. If you want a alerts,
then you get emergency alerts. If you want warnings, you get
warnings. If you want community notifications of events, then
that is notifications of such things as buildings being torn
down, roads, and detours.
You have to design the system. Some people want to know
about every red light that is going to be tore down today,
every street that is going to be blocked or anything. There is
just news people out there wanting news information. They want
to know what is going on all over town. Others just want to
know if there is a storm in the area that is going to tear my
house down, tell me. Don't bother me with anything else. So
those people want to be alerted strictly to that type of
information.
So there is things you can do to regulate what kind of
information you send to people, and you can break it down to
alert, warning, notification. Usually, these are what we write
down. This is what we are going to put out for alert. If you
have an abducted child, that is primary to me as an alert.
Let's get that out as quick as anything. If we are going to be
demolishing a building, then that is notification for people in
an area that doesn't bother a lot of other people. So if you
want that kind of notification, you opt into that stuff and not
just the AMBER Alert.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Actually, bringing up AMBER Alert, Ms. Goucher, would you
provide the subcommittee with a better sense of the impact that
local, even in general, local broadcasters have had in saving
the lives of children through AMBER Alert?
Then I want to ask you about Silver Alert, too. Are you
familiar with Silver Alert as well? If you can talk about that,
too, define Silver Alert. I can define it, but you will
probably do a better job.
Ms. Goucher. Sure. I will do both. I will do all the colors
of alert.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay, good.
Ms. Goucher. As I am sure you know, Mr. Chairman, the AMBER
Alert program arose out of a terribly tragic situation in the
Dallas-Fort Worth area where a young child named Amber Hagerman
was abducted and murdered. The broadcasters in that area got
together and went to local law enforcement and said, look, we
have a tool that you can use to help prevent these situations.
We can put the eyes and ears of everyone on the street at your
disposal to try and find the vehicle, the abductor, the child.
We have this Emergency Alert System. Why don't you use it?
So they developed the first AMBER Alert system. My dear
friend, the late Carl Smith of the Oklahoma Broadcasters
Association, was the first one to do a State-wide AMBER Alert
program. The other State broadcast associations piggybacked on
that, took the program, brought it home to our own States and
developed it from there to the point where we now have AMBER
Alert programs in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
It is not hubris on my part to say that we have an AMBER Alert
program in Maine because of me.
We are now moving into Silver Alerts. Numerous States are
bringing that idea forward. That is where we have an impaired
adult, someone who doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for an
AMBER Alert, which is an abducted child under age 18, generally
for people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease or dementia who
may wander away and be lost for a period of time. So, again,
the media are stepping up to work with law enforcement to be
able to get the word out quickly about these situations.
We passed a Silver Alert program in Maine last year. We had
one just last week. Luckily, the woman was found safely after
about a day and a half, but only because you put people's eyes
and ears out there on the street to help in the search, to help
in identifying what is going on and report back to law
enforcement.
Mr. Bilirakis. It has been very successful, as far as I am
concerned. I know it has been in my State of Florida.
Mr. Kniphfer, you wanted to comment as well on maybe Silver
Alert or AMBER Alert?
Mr. Kniphfer. Those two items right there we are working
very closely with law enforcement and with the elderly people
putting those notices out very quickly in the broadcast world.
It has helped us on two occasions already find our elderly that
have come up missing. We have a couple of people that keep
walking off from nursing homes that way, and they have come
very close to getting those where we don't have people we find
later on in the wrong way. So that has helped us a lot with our
broadcasts, getting the message out to people to locate those
type of people.
That is the kind of things that we need. That is what I
call a really quick alert to me, is get that information out
quickly and get it back so we can find it.
If we can get that alert out to the people, they can get it
on their devices, they can see pictures of the car or pictures
of a kid that has been abducted. As quick as we can get a
picture out there on a cell phone device, they can see what it
looks like, a tag, a partial tag, they can get that information
back to 9-1-1, to the dispatch centers, to law enforcement. We
can capture that individual a lot quicker and possibly save
lives. It is going to save a lot more lives.
Mr. Bilirakis. Anyone want to comment on the next
generation of 9-1-1?
I have actually finished with my questions. I went way over
my time. I want to give you an opportunity to say anything you
would like on this subject matter. Anyone on the panel?
Mr. Kniphfer. They said earlier we are doing a lot of
things with video teleconferencing and getting pictures back
from the field where we can actually transmit pictures back
using these cell phone devices, wireless devices back, so we
are moving toward holding video teleconferencing back with
wireless devices with our people, responders in the field. It
is going to be greatly enhanced, that we can actually
communicate your command-and-control with video
teleconferencing back from the operations center to the field
commanders in the field.
Things we are doing with the tablets now, with GIS and
everything else, we are actually doing damage assessment a lot
quicker. We can go out and take pictures of houses and do
damage assessment real quick real-time now. We just did, thanks
to the Federal Government in Operation Clean Sweep, cleaned
property and debris removed quickly. In the State of Alabama
after Katrina that was such a problem. We just now cleaned up a
lot of the State of Alabama that way. We are trying to get an
extension through for FEMA for 60 more days to go right of
entry on property.
The wireless technology we are using now can go along with
the integrated process of a warning system, and integrating all
these systems together is going to allow us to pass data and
information, to get the information up to FEMA headquarters and
to the President and quicker declare emergencies and disasters.
We provide that information quicker and easier so we can
actually show that response time, that disaster information
that the President needs to see to declare disasters quicker.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
Ms. Goucher.
Ms. Goucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo Mr. Guttman-McCabe's comments about FEMA.
They have come a tremendously long way in the last couple of
years toward fulfilling Presidential Order 14307--my memory
escapes me.
I have been at this a long time, and there was a period of
time about 5 or 6 years ago where FEMA and the FCC weren't even
talking to each other about these issues. At least now they are
getting in the same room and working together to move this
forward.
We are tremendously excited about IPAWS and the new CAP-
enhanced EAS. That is going to give us so many more
capabilities for enhanced messaging. A picture of the abducted
child can be embedded in a CAP EAS alert. Now, that saves two
or three steps on the part of law enforcement. You can just
send out one message with all the information you need, the
evacuation map, the route where the chemical cloud is blowing.
So we are greatly looking forward to the rollout of this
system, because it is going to enhance our own news
dissemination capabilities.
I think it is interesting, however, that we have seen the
good and the bad in alerting here with a jurisdiction that
truly knows how to use the system and use it wisely versus one
where we have feral foxes--what was it--``rapid foxes.''
That takes us right back to the issue of training. We need
to get down to the granular level with not just the State
folks, but police, fire, EMTs, all the emergency responders.
If my counterpart from Texas were here today, Ann Arnold
from the Texas Association of Broadcasters, she would tell you
an absolutely heartbreaking story about some wildfires in West
Texas a few years ago. The local fire marshal sent his people
up and down the roads with bullhorns to tell the people the
fire was coming, evacuate, the fire is coming, evacuate,
because they couldn't think of any other way to get the word
out. There were two elderly ladies who lived down a half-mile
dirt road that didn't hear the bullhorns and died in the fire.
They were soap opera fans. They were watching TV at the
time. So Ann Arnold called the fire marshal the next day and
said, why didn't you fire off an EAS alert? They would have
seen it on TV. His response was, what is EAS?
That to us is unacceptable. You know, this system has been
around in one form or another for 60 years. It should be in the
DNA of emergency responders to think of using this system--not
overusing it but using at times like that.
I wind up going around the State providing training
because, to date, there has been nothing else. The only
training emergency senders, alert senders receive is the
technical manual that comes with their encoder-decoder. There
has been nothing else.
So, to reiterate some of my oral testimony, we are very
excited that FEMA is actually undertaking the development of
this training program, but all it will wind up doing is
certifying that you can send a message through the Federal
aggregator. If you are not inclined to send an EAS message in
the first place, that is not going to matter to you. So we need
some kind of a carrot and stick to bring these folks to the
table, to make them recognize this tool is at their disposal.
We will put our airwaves and transmitter at your disposal.
Please use them. This is what the system is for. Just use it
wisely.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe, anything further?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. I guess, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I
would just say I was in front of this committee several years
ago before the legislation was enacted; and the future that I
envisioned is happening. To me, that is a testament to
Government reaching out to industry, private industry, and
working in a collaborative fashion.
We had 17 different organizations representing the wireless
industry on the committee that developed the standards. There
was a full commitment. If you look at that and you look at
wireless AMBER Alerts, which picked up on the great work by the
broadcasters and Wireless Priority Service, these are all
voluntary efforts that the industry can really get behind and
feel good about.
The same is true to a large extent about next-generation 9-
1-1. The industry realizes that 9-1-1 needs to continue to
evolve. It has evolved multiple times since I have been at CTIA
over the last 10 years. But is a process. It takes a while to
standardize and then move it into the technology and then
deploy it.
So we agree with some of the statements that some of the
subcommittee members made about the need to able to text to
9-1-1 and things like that. Yet it is not as simple as saying
tomorrow you can text. My most recent alert, which was a text-
based alert, and CMAS or PLAN or wireless emergency alerts,
they will come as a text, but they are not text-based. They are
not an SMS or a text. They are a broadcast service.
But my most recent text alert from my local county was
``fternoon.'' It took me a little while to figure out what
``fternoon'' was. It took my 11-year-old 2 seconds. She said,
Dad, it is ``afternoon'' minus the ``A.'' Well, that was the
only thing I received from them. I didn't receive the text
before that ended with ``afternoon'' or anything afterwards.
To me, that was an illustration of why you can't just send
9-1-1 text, because the system is not designed for this type of
an exchange. When you dial 9-1-1, you want a response
immediately. When you send a text, as many of the younger folks
up behind you may know, it may go through instantaneously, and
it may take 2 or 3 minutes. In the case of ``fternoon'', the
first half of the text never got to me.
So to me it is engage industry, work through the process,
and you are going to get an industry that I am proud of that
most of our CEOs can say they do everything in their power to
be good corporate citizens. This is an example that I think
should be repeated as we move forward.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
I thank the witnesses, of course, for their valuable
testimony. The Members of the subcommittee may have additional
questions for you or questions for you. We ask you to respond
to these in writing. The hearing record will be open for 10
days.
Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
Thanks so much for your patience. I appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
